Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 164

Thread: MiG 25RB Foxbat X YF 14A Tomcat II in The Yom Kippur War ( 1973) - Chapter 2

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    12,049
    http://www.airspacemag.com/military-...tml?c=y&page=1

    Here you can read in which way both sides used their air-power. They stick to the hit an run tactic in A2G with limited results.

    http://www.airspacemag.com/military-...tml?c=y&page=1

    Here you have an example how the main ABs on both sides were built in the 70s and the reason for that. Neither the Iraqis nor the Iranians managed to close such a kind of AB for days at least.
    "The base was one of several Iraqi Air Force airfields built in the mid-1970s under project "Super-Base" in response to the experiences from Arab-Israeli wars in 1967 and 1973."

    Saddam did not allow the Soviets to operate an AB without Iraqi control.
    The Iraqis had no MiG-27s, just MiG-23BNs. Just some MiG-23MLs/Su-22*s were were used to test ASM against Iranian radar-sites and HAWK-sites.
    Most real aircraft losses from both sides were attributed to the ground based ADs.
    Just the Iraqi order of French weapons in 1977 pushed the Soviets to allow the Iraqi order of 1979. In that year the Iranian revolution has changed the situation and the Soviets were no longer in a hurry to arm Saddam at least when they have learned about Saddams intention for 1980. The SU suffers
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan and the events in Lebanon already.
    The MiG-25s reached Iraq from aug 1981 or years after Libya and Syria f.e.. Iran was gaining the upper hand and had ignored the Soviet restraint to Saddam. By the way both Syria and Libya were supporters of the Iran in that war.
    Maybe you have a source/link about the use of MiG-25BMs piloted by Russians in the SEAD-role in the late 80s.
    Not a single claim about that from the Iraqis and nothing did happen in Iraq without Saddams knowledge and the US-people in Iraq. Most of the secrets of the HAWK-system were known to the Soviets since the 60s/70s already and it works similar to the SA-6 Gainful system. The Iraqis used their few MiG-25s in the AD and recce role in general.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    167

    MiG 25 BM and MiG 25 RB in Joint Missions Against F 14A Tomcat II II


    http://airbase.ru/sb/russia/mikoyan/.../bm/indexe.htm


    The source that has been describing the operations of the MiG 25 RB / BM and the real missions from MiG 25 BM with missiles Kh 58U and Kh 31P could be found out in the books of the authors Tom Cooper and Bishop Fazard about the operation of the F 14A Tomcat II and F 4E Phantom II from Iran Air Force .

    The MiG 25 PD / RB Foxbat from Iraq and MIG 25 BM from Soviet Union had both suffered losses against the F 14A Tomcat II, which really limited the missions of the MiG 25 throughout the conflict.

    There are some rumors that the MiG 25 BM for the anti radar missions belonging to the Soviet Union did missions directed against the F 14A Tomcat II, not only against Iranian radar stations.

    In these missions alleged in rumors but never has been confirmed by secure sources, a MiG 25 RB penetrated into Iranian airspace, supposedly on a mission to attack or recognition, while others MiG 25 BM had remained farthest in the rear. When the F 14A would be positioned to engage the MiG 25 RB and switch on the AWG 9 radar to fire the AIM 54A Phoenix against the MiG 25 RB, the MiG 25 BM through the electromagnetic emissions from radars of the F 14A could determined the position from these and then launched missiles Kh 58U that would guide against F 14A with this radar in active mode.

    The anti radar missile Kh 58U when had been launched by a MIG 25 BM at high altitude of 20,000 m and Mach 2.2 speed could have a range exceeding 250 km, which was greater than the range of the Phoenix AIM 54A with 160 km. The primary mission of the Soviet MiG 25 BM in a war against NATO would be the shot down with anti radar missiles Kh 58U the AWACS E 3A Sentry from NATO.

    Overall not much is known about the missions of the MiG 25 BM in Iraq between 1986 and 1987, but what is known is that one was shot down and another was damaged but crashed on landing resulting in total loss of aircraft, both were hit by AIM 54A missiles had been launched by F 14A Tomcat II.

    However the last time that the Soviet MiG 25 BM were sent to Iraq in 1988, at least one long range radar station equipped with Westinghouse ADS 4 radar belonging to Iran and located in Subashi was destroyed in June 1988 by missiles Kh 58U and Kh 31P had been launched by Mig 25 BM Foxbat.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    17
    Still in service!:diablo:


  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    167

    AWACS aircraft in support of MiG 25 BM / RB / PDS against F 14A Tomcat II of the Iran

    A 50 Mainstay with MiG 31 Foxhound
    [IMG][/IMG]
    http://www.armybase.us/2009/05/russi...ansport-fleet/


    IL 76 Baghdad I AWACS captured in the Iran Air Force

    http://img.wp.scn.ru/camms/ar/737/pics/33_1.jpg


    IL 76 Baghdad II AWACS captured in the Iran Air Force

    http://img.wp.scn.ru/camms/ar/737/pics/33_2.jpg

    At the end of the Iran / Iraq were employed AWACS ( Airborne Warning And Control System) aircraft by Iraq. Those aircraft were conversions of IL 76 Candid into AWACS that had been designed as IL 76 Baghdad I and IL 76 Baghdad II by Iraq. Its aircraft had received French radars Tiger G. The IL 76 Baghdad II were with the appearance of the Soviet Beriev A 50 Mainstay, and these last began had been entered in service on the Soviet Union around 1984.

    As the IL 76 Baghad I had not become effective and the IL 76 Baghdad II probably were delivered in 1989 after the end of the war would be very likely that the Soviet Union sent some of own Bereiv A 50 Mainstay radar-equipped with Vega Shmel to support Iraq during the offensive of Iran in 1988 and testing its in a real conditions.

    With support from AWACS aircraft the Soviet Wilde Weasel MiG 25 BM were able to attack with Kh 58U and Kh 31P missiles against Iran's radar stations without to be intercepted by F 14A Tomcat II once the AWACS given warning alert for the MiG 25BM .

    With the radar stations damaged or destroyed the F 14A were restricted in patrols missions to replace the affected land radars and performing air defense missions to protect the main cities of the Iran.

    The MiG 25 RB in Iraq became more effective in reconnaissance and attack missions due to the support of AWACS that could warned them on the approaching of the F 14A Tomcat II.

    The AWACS provided support to Interceptors MiG 25 PDS so that they were then able to operate with an escort to their own AWACs and perform missile launches of the AA 6 Acrid in long ranges without the need for support from land radar stations, thereby the MiG 25 PDS had become a real threat for the F 14A Tomcat even deep in the Iran territory.

    With AWACS aircrafts Iraq began an air and land counter offensive against the Iran offensive and paralyzed this last one. In this final phase of the war the Iraq Air Force carried out many attack missions to support Iraq Army with little opposition from the Iran Air Force.

    Iraq would receive in 1988 the Su 24MK Fencer attack at any time and was converting a Boeing 727 on a platform of electronic jammer that would turn the attack missions of Iraq Air Force much more dangerous.
    With all this Iran after the failure of his last offensive accepted a ceasefire with Iraq ending a nearly nine years of conflict that was started by Iraq.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    12,049
    To stay polite the participation of SU units, aircraft or pilots/crews is some very questionable guessing. The SU support to Iraq was limited and Saddam saw it similar by national intrest. The SU saw the Iran as an option for a future partnership something coming true today. At that time scale Afghanistan was a main issue for the SU and its main intrest was to keep the Iran outside that conflict. None of the claims of the SU participation in the Iraq-Iran-War is bolstered by personal reports from the Russian or Iraqi side. Many claims about the air-war are stories of "1001-nights". The most important thing of the Bishop/Cooper book is that they did a first report of that and by that a starting point for all intrested ones. In the meanwhile more details have surfaced as well as the number of real losses by the Iraqi side after 2003. Contrary to former claims from both sides most losses of aircraft are to be attributed to the ground defences. A2A encounters were the exception. CAS/strike missions were limited in numbers and had seldom some impact by the hit and run tactic used. Both sides did no SEAD missions worth of mentioning. Just the SU operated MiG-25BMs and none took part in the Iraq-Iran-War. On the Iraqi side the Mirage F1, Su-22 and MiG-23ML were used with AGMs in the last half of that conflict only.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    167

    MiG 25 BM and IL 76 AWACS for the SEAD Missions in Iran / Iraq War

    MiG 25 BM equipped with Kh 58U for SEAD missions

    http://wp.scn.ru/en/ww3/f/38/19/0


    Kh 28 from Iraq in 2003

    http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-ASM.html


    The Soviet Union and France were the main suppliers of the armed forces of Iraq during the war with Iran.

    Iraq has never designed and built a large aircraft or high-performance and therefore would not be able to modify itself as an aircraft IL 76 Candid AWACS aircraft.

    Thus it is evident in the similarities of the AWACS IL 76 ADNAN ( Baghdad II) in Iraq with the A 50 Mainstay AWACS of the Soviet Union that the Iraqis were supported by Soviet technicians to perform the conversion. Probably Soviet and French technicians together with Iraqi technicians had been working to convert the IL 76 Candid into AWACS aircraft equipped with French radar Tiger G.

    As the image in the site above made ​​by U.S. troops in Iraq in 2003 the Iraq's Air Force had anti radar missile Kh 28 (AS 9 Kyle) for SEAD missions. Those missiles were operated in conjunction with the pods that tracking the radar emissions from the target and these could equip the Su 22 Fitter Iraq with missiles Kh 28. This website with this image about the Kh 28 missile has high quality informations about many issues.

    The missile Kh 58U which were the successor in the Soviet Union for the Kh 28 has never found out in the inventories of the Iraq's Air Force , but also in many analyzes made ​​during the first Gulf War, the missile Kh 58U were included in the inventory of Iraq.

    In the Iran / Iraq conflict was a much more important than what is described in many cases. This war was the main cause of Kwaitt invasion of Iraq in 1990, which triggered the first Gulf War.

    The catastrophic defeat of Iraq before the allies under U.S. leadership demoralized the military capabilities from Soviet Union which also contributes to the dissolution for this last one.

    The invasion of Iraq in 2003 by the U.S. and the UK were because of chemical weapons produced in Iraq during the war with Iran, and until today the credibility of the equipment used or produced by Russian are still affected by the catastrophic defeat of Iraq in the first Gulf War

    The site below has some interesting information about the Iran / Iraq War.
    http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_206.shtml

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    12,049
    Quote Originally Posted by maurobaggio View Post
    That link about the Iraqi MiG-25s is full of errors. That Iraqi MiGs were not piloted by Russian/GDR pilots nor were that under Russian control.
    The first Iraqi sqn was No 87 and formed with MiG-25Ps/Rs from august 1981 followed by No 97 with RBs and No 96 with PDs. The last one did operate all Iraqi MiG-25s after 1991. Tom Cooper is aware about that but ACIG has still problems to correct that. It seems that hits from "good stories" similar that of the soviet detachment to Egypt from 1971 are more "important" for the owners of that site.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    12,049
    Quote Originally Posted by maurobaggio View Post

    http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-ASM.html

    The site below has some interesting information about the Iran / Iraq War.
    http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_206.shtml
    The ausairpower.net link does not confirm the use of Foxbat F in the Iran/Iraq War, when the IrAF operated Sukhois to do so.

    The last link about the deployment of the IrAF is full of errors two. Just mixing infos from different years f.e.
    The IrAF was splitted into a semi-independent Air Defence Command with interceptor squadrons along-side the SAM-units and into a main Support command. The Support command consisted of fighting squadrons, a Training Command, a Transport Command. Most of the helicopter squadrons were operated within the Iraqi Army similar the Soviet style.
    In the 70s the IrAF has started a growth path with a constant rising number of units, ABs and personal. To learn something about the available strength of the IrAF the year in mind has to be given always.
    In the mid 70s it had ~14 combat sqdns, in 1980 ~20 combat sqdns rising after the mid 80s to over 30 combat sqdns in the end. Related to that was a constant built up in ABs including satellite airfields. To avoid transscription problems of Arabic names or locations and the related errors in numbers the coordinates have to be given. No problem with Google Earth at hand.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    12,049
    http://abcnews.go.com/International/...1#.T4xLCLN1DkU

    Here is a good reason why people like Tom Cooper and other ones ran/run into problems to find former IrAF people/pilots to report about their time in service in general and for 1980-88 especially.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    167

    Exclamation Come Back From The Dark Side Of This Thread

    To be polite I think you should read the books from authors prior to insinuate that this is doing a campaign against the former figthers from Iraq Air Force.

    The impression I have about the working of those authors was that contrary to what you are implying, in my humble opinion they had the courage to study the air war from the point of view of those who have never been interviewed about the same in all those years from both side as Iranian and Iraq former figthers.

    By demonstrating that the ability from Iran Air Force was much higher than what has been described and remains to be widely accepted, shows the difficulties that own the Iraqis had to face with their opponents, and so is a tribute to the efforts and bravery of those who fought and died for his country as Iraq, since Iran was much better equipped with weapons systems in that time as most advanced from the entire world, since a few years before the war, Iran was an ally of the U.S.

    I understand you may have been feeling confused after receiving information on which you did not know before, this is a common reaction to strike the new to protect what was consolidated before.

    The purpose of this thread was only about the Mig 25RB Foxbat and F 14A Tomcat II in the 1973 War and the conflict between the Iran / Iraq was brought at this thread in order to explore with examples well documented and accepted what could have happened in 1973.

    I am not the owner of the truth, and I am here also to learn and correct me too, after all our knowledge is limited by the information that we have been received, and not everything that we are received could be true, but for this you need to question others as ourselves.

    How many Iraqi pilots brought their aircrafts to Iran during the first Gulf War to prevent the destruction of those from attacks against the Iraq bases by U.S. and its allies?

    I haven't found out about it in that subject. Don't you think that is strange the missing of this information?

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    12,049
    Back to 1973 and the history of the MiG-25RBs in Egypt. Both OAOs or Independent Air Detachements were from the 47th Guards Independent Reconnaisance Aviation Regiment based at Shatalovo UUBV.
    The 63th OAO based at Cairo-West AB from March 71 till July 72 consisted of two MiG-25Rs Bort number 40 and 41 from first squadron. That were bolstered by two test examples of MiG-25RBs later on and flown by special test-pilots. All four knocked down examples were flown in by An-22s.
    October 11th the GvRAP was alerted to send a new OAO to Egypt/Cairo-West AB again. In 1972 the 47th had received its first MiG-25RBs. 220 personal and four MiG-25RBs under command of the 47th regiment commander colonel Tschudin should become 154th OAO. Within two days the 4 MiGs were knocked down for air transportation to Cairo-West. October 18th 1973 that had arrived and were assembled at Cairo-West AB. October 22nd 1973 they did the first recce mission over the Canal Zone. Till October 1973 the 47th GvRAP was based at Shaykovka UUBJ because Shatalovo UUBV was under repair since May 1973. The second squadron was in transition to MiG-25Rs and the first squadron tested since June 1973 its ten new MiG-25RBs. Similar to the first deployment in Egypt the MiG-25s had no national markings, just a prominent bort-number. By the way later most older MiG-25Rs were upgraded to RBs too. Contrary to 1971 the US-intel was informed about the recce-mission task of the MiG-25s from the 47th GvRAP in October 1973 as the Russians and Egypt were about the SR-71 flights. By the way all were too late to have a tactical impact at least.
    http://webs.lanset.com/aeolusaero/Ar...ht-25Jan10.pdf
    http://www.wvi.com/~sr71webmaster/griffiss.html
    All Soviet MiG-25s in Egypt were never armed!
    Last edited by Sens; 18th April 2012 at 21:48.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    4,022
    I'd say showing a single MiG-25BM pic in Iraqi colors would be a good start.
    I only have seen PDs, RBs and Us, never any BMs.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    167

    Project Snappy From USAF AWACS E 3B Sentry

    Drawing of the MiG 25 RB From Iraq

    http://wp.scn.ru/en/ww3/f/38/19/0


    Drawing of the MiG 25 BM From Iraq with Fuel Tank in the Center Belly and Kh 58U missile

    http://wp.scn.ru/en/ww3/f/38/19/0

    I agree to everything you said MSphere about photo or image of the MiG 25 BM in Iraq, as they say in my country a image is worth than thousand words. However I admit that I could not distinguish between a MiG 25 RB and MiG 25 BM if the photo had not a great quality and show in detail the four pylons on the wings of the MiG 25 BM instead of two MiG 25 in RB.

    I agree with you SENS about the fact that the MiG 25RB Foxbat did not participate in the war in 1973 in attack missions, and only made ​​reconnaissance missions at the end as you said.

    In the first Gulf War in 1991 all 15 E 3B Sentry AWACS from USAF sent to the conflict had been equipped with additional sensors that were not identified, since it were secret, in a program called Project Snappy.

    One of the speculations about this program was that it Project Snappy could be designed to face the threat of the Kh 58U missiles that were designed to equip the MiG 25 BM and Su 24M FencerII that for the latter would be necessary to install the Fantasmogoria pod for it to operate the missieis Kh 58U.

    The Soviet Union had supplied the Su 24 MK to Iraq but there was no evidence that Kh 58U missiles have been provided as well as the pod Fantasmagoria for Iraq.

    Good planning should always be done under the worst possible scenario, since there is a chance of something happening, you'd better be prepared for it.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    12,049
    Under the "Snappy" came in 1991, 15 pieces of E-3B equipment, which managed to jam radar Thomson CSF 2215 and CSF 2230, which said Iraq Francia, the modified scheme for identification of Allied aircraft so equipped and operated during Operation "Desert Storm".
    In 1990 the Allied Forces under the lead of the USA were informed by the CIS = former SU about all weapon deliveries to Iraq. No "Kilter" claimed for Iraq!

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    4,022
    Quote Originally Posted by maurobaggio View Post
    I agree to everything you said MSphere about photo or image of the MiG 25 BM in Iraq, as they say in my country a image is worth than thousand words. However I admit that I could not distinguish between a MiG 25 RB and MiG 25 BM if the photo had not a great quality and show in detail the four pylons on the wings of the MiG 25 BM instead of two MiG 25 in RB.
    I would distinguish these two. There are many hi-quality photos of Foxbats unearthed from Iraqi desert but only PDs and RBs are visible.

    Another thing is that the acig drawing of the Iraqi BM shows a serial 25201. An aircraft with this serial was destroyed by a bomb while sitting on an apron. The frontal part of the aircraft was kept intact up to the windshield and you can clearly see an intact radome - this is a MiG-25PD interceptor, not a BM.

    Last edited by MSphere; 20th April 2012 at 00:16.

  16. #46
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    167

    The mystery remains about the Project Snappy?

    MiG 25PDS Foxbat from Iraq with AA 6 Acrid SARH missile in the internal wing pylon and AA 8 Aphid IR missiles

    Artist: © Anatoli.F.Ignatiy
    Source: "Aviation and Times" 2006, No.1 (83)

    There are many differences between the interceptor and MiG 25PDS and the MiG 25 RB that were designed to attack and reconnaissance missions, but with respect to MiG 25 BM had been proposed to stricke against radar platforms the visual differences between the MiG 25 RB with the MiG 25 BM are are not very visible, if not desired to show the same.
    There are great illustrations of the versions of the MiG 25 and great informations at the website below:

    http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_247.shtml


    MiG 25BM with Kh 58U missile
    http://wp.scn.ru/en/ww3/f/38/19/0

    Artist: © Aandrey V.Khaustov
    Source: "Aviation and Times" 2004, No.5 (74)

    The MiG 25 BM Iraq were not exported for any country, they were used in Iraq by the Soviet Union with the purpose carrying out real tests, and as the Iran / Iraq ended they returned to the Soviet Union, since the MiG 25 BM had never been placed for sale as the Soviet Union or even later by Russian.

    The MiG 25 BM were converted to this version using the MiG 25 RB platform once they weren't built for this standard. In fact, the VVS expected to receive a version of the MiG 31 had been specialized in SEAD missions, but due to the complexity and cost of the MiG 31, since the whole production of it was committed to the IA PVO because the missions of SR 71 on the Soviet Union.

    The VVS had chosen to modify the MiG 25RB into MiG 25BM for the standard as an alternative until it could receive the Foxhound MiG 31M Foxhound, which was the successor to the MiG 31F even this last one not entered in production and would be replaced by the development of the MiG 31M.

    MiG 31F Foxhound


    With respect to the Project Snappy for the E 3B Sentry has been designed to jammer with the radar from French origin, I would like if possible, the source of this information, since using the E 3B Sentry to jammer the air radar defense would be a new application for those aircraft in Gulf War, since the USA had the EF 111A Raven and EA 6B Prowler to carry out these missions of eletronic jamming of the radar stations.

    Beyond what even the U.S. version and from Iraqi officials version who were in controlled of the air defense system of the Iraq that the air defense radars from Iraq had been suffered interference before they are destroyed in the initial night of the attack in 1991.

    In many opportunities I have read about on the missile Kh 58U had been supplied for Iraq to equip the Su 24MK Fencer, but only to demonstrate that I am not the only one who has this information:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Air_Force

  17. #47
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    12,049
    Some "web-reality" aside none of that claims about the soviet MiG-25BMs and the related AGMs operating from Iraq was confirmed. The Iran did just operate the MIM-23B variant with similar behavior like the known SA-6 Gainful.

  18. #48
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    167

    Some Reasons about the MiG 25 BM had been tested in IRAQ

    MiG 25BM equipped with Kh 58U missiles

    http://airbase.ru/sb/russia/mikoyan/...m/indexe-t.htm


    The Soviet Union had developed their own tactics to confront the technological superioirity in the eletronic field from NATO once that had AWACS aircraft as E 3 Sentry and EW/IW aircraft as EF 111A Raven and EA 6 Prowler.

    The MiG 25BM Foxbat was beyond the SEAD missions once that could be included the elimination of EW and AWACS aircraft in order to support the armored divisions of the Warsaw Pact so that they stay less vulnerable to NATO air strikes.

    During the 80's the Soviet Union had entered into service two anti radar missiles possessed nearly equivalent performance, but they were completely different projects: Kh 58U and Kh 31P.

    The Kh 31P with ramjet propulsion that had been developed for the purpose of this missile could be capable of approaching of the missile batteries against as SAM PATRIOT and SAM I- HAWK at low altitude in order to reduce the time of those to engage the incoming missiles, as anti ship missiles flying close to the sea to stricke the warships.

    The Kh 58U were developed with rocket propulsion of solid fuel and because of this it got a better range when launched from high altitude and supersonic speed as it were possible to obtain with the Mig 25BM. Like this to be launched from high altitude performed a ballistic trajectory to the target if the radar stations in the land, allowed the SAM Patriot and SAM I-HAWK missile intercept them Kh 58U before its reach the air defense radars.

    The tactic that the Soviet Union could employ would be combine attacks with high altitude Mig 25BM equipped with Kh 58U in order to activate the SAM batteries SAM PATRIOT and SAM I-HAWK to intercept them, and surprise SAM batteries with missiles as Kh 31P that would approach at low altitude from long range had been launched by Su 24M Fencer while the SAM radae's were active.



    MiG 27M equipped with anti radar missile Kh 31P and laser guided bomb KAB 500L

    http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/m...t-india-2.html



    How little has been disclosed as the Mig 25BM equipped with missiles Kh 58U would be able to hit a high mobile target as EW or AWACS aircraft with anti radar's missiles its a good question even today, but a realistic possibilty would be one version of the Kh 58U equipped with the seeker from R 33 ( AA 9 Amos) with active radar assets as well as its warhead in order to increase the range by decreasing the weight from original version of the Kh 58, and with this could be receveid a rocket with for propelent that would be increased the range.

    In the case of Mig 25BM this as a ELINT platform that could locate with passive sensors AWACS and EW aircraft, and against them could launched the Kh 58 missiles with active radar, these missiles could received updates via datalink to its inertial navigation system of the target position had been provided by MiG 25BM, and when the missile closer to the target as EW or AWACS aircraft, it would activate its own radar and reach it as an air-air missile.

    The Kh 58U with active radar may have been the first anti AWACS missile that had reached operational status. As successor to the Kh 58U as killer AWACS could be the KS 172 missile which was originally intended for the MiG 31M, the KS 172 had besides a greater range was also more agile in order to overcome the limited maneuverability of the Kh 58 against the aircrafts.


    Last edited by maurobaggio; 2nd May 2012 at 01:11.

  19. #49
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Spain
    Posts
    684
    Quote Originally Posted by maurobaggio View Post

    Su 24M Fencer equipped with Kh 31P missiles

    http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/m...t-india-2.html
    It isn`t a MiG-23-98?

    1Saludo
    Revista Ejercitos, sometime She will back...

  20. #50
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    167

    Mig 25BM equipped with missiles Kh 31P in the Soviet Union?

    Apparently it was actually a MiG 23 equipped with Kh 31P and without the target designator pod for this. I already knew but as a teacher taught me was to see if anyone was paying attention ...

    Regarding the photo of MiG 25BM has been interesting since the Mig 25BM carried four pylons to the wings, but the photo appears with two and another two pylons on the ventral belly carrying free-fall bombs, which thus makes alleged that the MiG 25BM looks like the MiG 25 RB from attack and reconnaissance.

    If someone could find a picture of an MiG 25BM carrying the Kh 31P missiles it would be a great discovery. Apparently the Soviet Union was more dedicated to equipping the strike fighters like the MiG 27K and attack aircraft as Su 24M with Kh 31P missiles than the MiG 25 BM own, since the lack of evidence of those aircraft are carrying these missiles during the Cold War.


    MiG 27K equipped with Kh 31P

  21. #51
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Spain
    Posts
    684
    Quote Originally Posted by maurobaggio View Post
    Apparently it was actually a MiG 23 equipped with Kh 31P and without the target designator pod for this. I already knew but as a teacher taught me was to see if anyone was paying attention ...


    1Saludo
    Revista Ejercitos, sometime She will back...

  22. #52
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    4,022
    Quote Originally Posted by roberto_yeager View Post
    It isn`t a MiG-23-98?

    1Saludo
    Nope. Judging by the simplified intakes, this is clearly a MiG-27, most likely K-type. On the stbd underbelly pylon it carries a Progress pod to guide the missile.
    Last edited by MSphere; 30th April 2012 at 21:43.

  23. #53
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    167

    MiG 27K and MiG 25BM in Iran/Iraq War?

    MiG 27K equipped with anti radar missiles Kh 31P and pod designator Progress

    http://chezpeps.free.fr/plus/russie/...3_02_2010.html



    MiG 27M equipped with anti radar missile Kh 31P and laser guided bomb KAB 500L
    http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/mig27/



    Drawing of the MiG 27K with anti radar missiles Kh 31P and pod designator Progress
    http://chezpeps.free.fr/plus/russie/...3_02_2010.html



    Apparently it is not the MiG 23 98 or MiG 27K but the MiG 27M, however it seems is the target designator Progress in this other air intakes pylon . As the MiG 27M were not equipped with laser target designator by TV Kaira 1 which had been fitted the MiG 27K, one possibility is that the MiG 27M shown in the photo would be some other type optical laser target designator once the laser designator Klen of the MiG 27M were limited to use laser guided missiles. As in the photo the alleged MiG 27M is carrying a laser-guided bomb KAB 500L over the air intake pylon but the would be necessary the target should be designated by other means.

    The version MiG 27K equipped with TV designator Kaira 1 were a more complex version of the MiG 27 family, of which 200 MiG 27K were built between 1977 and 1982 only for Soviet Unio once the version MiG 27K hadn't been exported for any country. As there are strong indications that the Soviet Union's MiG 27K had been used in the Iran/Iraq War and fired missiles Kh 29L / T during the battles in 1985.

    That would not be absurd that the Soviet Union has tested the anti radar missile Kh 31P with the MiG 27K flew in low altitude and missile Kh 58U with the MiG 25BM flew in at high altitude in the final phase of the war in 1988 In order to evaluate their tactics against the NATO to attack the radar stations and missiles battery SAM MIM 23 Hank from Iran.

  24. #54
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Spain
    Posts
    684
    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    Nope. Judging by the simplified intakes, this is clearly a MiG-27, most likely K-type. On the stbd underbelly pylon it carries a Progress pod to guide the missile.
    Yes, you're right...

    1Saludo
    Revista Ejercitos, sometime She will back...

  25. #55
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    12,049
    Quote Originally Posted by maurobaggio View Post


    The version MiG 27K equipped with TV designator Kaira 1 were a more complex version of the MiG 27 family, of which 200 MiG 27K were built between 1977 and 1982 only for Soviet Unio once the version MiG 27K hadn't been exported for any country. As there are strong indications that the Soviet Union's MiG 27K had been used in the Iran/Iraq War and fired missiles Kh 29L / T during the battles in 1985.

    That would not be absurd that the Soviet Union has tested the anti radar missile Kh 31P with the MiG 27K flew in low altitude and missile Kh 58U with the MiG 25BM flew in at high altitude in the final phase of the war in 1988 In order to evaluate their tactics against the NATO to attack the radar stations and missiles battery SAM MIM 23 Hank from Iran.
    Since the 60s the SU had all informations about the SAM MIM 23A HAWK system. In the 70s they got the same about the MIM 23B of the Iranians, which never received any upgrades of that after 1979.
    To test their AGM against western SAM-systems they had a special test-range "near" Astrachan. They had the radar-technology to simulate the firing-control systems, related radars and EW-items of that for every worst case scenario to overcome. The NATO had/has similar equipped training-grounds for the same purpose. Till 1989 the SU had no intrest to expose its latest AGMs at all. A loss over hostile territory or the Gulf are not worth the risc to verify the limited gains against a dated variant of a well known system. To stay serious no MiG-25BM nor MiG-27K were operated from Iraq against the Iran. Till 2003 all that could be claimed from websites without being proven wrong. After the total defeat of Saddam most of the former claims are proven wrong and the related web-sites were not updated accordingly. "Ducks" are immortal most of the time.

  26. #56
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    12,049
    To have some benefit from the claimed real testing the Russian were in need to verify the inflicted damage to the dated radars of MIM-23B at the location after the attack. Such results are better learned at the test-range at home.

    http://aviationtrivia.blogspot.de/20...-part-one.html
    http://aviationtrivia.blogspot.de/20...-aircraft.html
    http://aviationtrivia.blogspot.de/20...-missiles.html

    The Soviets preferred to use modified stand-off interceptors such as the Mikoyan MiG-25BM and missile-armed bombers such as the Tupolev Tu-22M to destroy targets from a distance rather than up-close. For the clients and for tactical use ASM from Flogger, Fitter and Fencer will do.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-23_...-Hawk:_MIM-23B

    Improved Hawk 1971 shows the radars used by the Iranians.
    Last edited by Sens; 2nd May 2012 at 20:32.

  27. #57
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    756
    Quote Originally Posted by maurobaggio View Post
    SR 71 AGAINST MOSCOW - JUDGED BY THE MURPHY LAW


    Chapter 1 - The Soviet Planning To Defeat The SR 71 Program : https://sites.google.com/site/sr71xm...oviet-planning

    Chapter 2 - MiG 25 RB X YF 14 Tomcat II Over Sinai in 1973 :https://sites.google.com/site/sr71xm...over-the-sinai

    Chapter 3 - MiG 25P to MiG 31A , From SHADOW to DARKNESS :https://sites.google.com/site/sr71xm...ow-to-darkness

    [IMG]
    https://picasaweb.google.com/s/c/tra...background.gif) no-repeat left">
    SR 71 MiG 25 MiG 31 gif
    [/IMG]


    Chapter 2 - MiG 25 RB Foxbat X F 14A Tomcat II in
    The Yom Kippur War


    To see the complete files will be necessary to link:https://sites.google.com/site/sr71xm...over-the-sinai

    In those hypothetical scenarios of battles had been described in the chapter 1, which are no longer hypothetical when the opponent leaves the theory to practice, using large-scale version of the MiG 25RB by allies of the USSR in the first half of the 70 would at least have a political impact despite anything. Despite the objetive these paper would not be to describe the operations of MiG 25RB, however it is important to mention that before the Yom Kippur War in 1973 the presence of MiG 25RB from Soviet Union in Egypt with the official mission in recconaissance, but with the secret most important mission to demonstrate the performance of the MiG 25 RB to the West analystes to impresse these about the suppose performance of the interceptor MiG 25P, with the goal to avoid the reconaissance missions of the SR 71 Blackbird over the Soviet Union.

    Under the full command of the Soviets the missions of the MiG 25 RB caused great concern among U.S. and Israel, once that the main interceptor of Israel and US the fighter F 4E Phantom II had been equipped with medium range missiles AIM 7E Sparrow were not effective to intercept the MiG 25RB from Soviet Union. Despite the Soviet squad had left Egypt long before the outbreak of hostilities, since they were expelled by the President of Egypt once had demanded that the Soviet Union should sold the MiG 25RB to Egypt and if the Soviet Union refused then would be necessary to send back the aircraft for the Soviet Union from Egypt .The Soviets did not authorize the sale of MiG 25RB to Egypt or any other nation until that time, so in retaliation of Egypt was necessary to remove the MiG 25RB from there.

    Once the War had begun between Egypt and Syria against Israel, the Israel Air Force failed to stop the divisions formed by tanks (T 54, T 55 and T 62) and infantry assault vehicles (BMP 1) of the armies of Egypt and Syria, as these were protected by a strong and well assembly air defense system consists of: SA 2 Guideline, SA 3 Goa, SA 6 Gainfull , SA 7 Grail, SA 9 Gaskin and ZSU 23-4.Among all these systems the most advanced and lethal to the Israel Air Force was the SA 6 Gainfull that in addition to be mobile and armored, able to follow the divisions of assault, was also able to reach the fighters from Israel for more than 30 km ( 17 NMI) from distance and 10 km ( 32 208 ft) altitude.

    After heavy losses of the Israel Air Force, in most cases by ground air defense, the high command of Israel decided attacking enemy armored forces with their powerful and well-trained force of tanks (Centurion, M 48, M 60) .This force of tanks had a history of getting great wins even when outnumbered by opponents, and the types of tanks available from Egypt and Syria were already known to Israel. Unfortunately what these crews of tanks of Israel had ignored his lethal enemies this time would not be the tanks of their opponents, but the new missile antitank AT 3 Sagger, distributed in large numbers of infantry between Egypt and Syria.

    The Israeli attack against enemies ground forces were neutralized due in very large-scale employment of AT 3 missile that was simple and portable, which due to its simplicity was considered by many before the conflict began as rudimentary. The losses of tanks in this phase of the war were higher among Israeli forces than the forces of Egypt and Syria in their advance. This time in battle with Israeli forces were often under attack by the air forces of various nations of the Middle East and North Africa to North Korea sent a few squads to help Egypt, which in any case had a superiority in numbers of almost 2.5 : 1 over the Israel Air Force.

    The situation of Israel had become more worst because its army (ground forces) had not mobile air defense systems for long range and altitude as had Egypt and Syria with their SA 6 Gainfull and supported by: ZSU 23 4 , SA 7 Grail and SA 9 Gaskin for protection in lower levels. Since the Egyptian Air Force had the Tu 16 Badger bombers as the fighter bombers could attack too in high or medium altitude the military ground forces of the Israel.Thus the strength of Israel Air Force now had to divide their limited fighters between to attack the ground forces of the enemy on two fronts totally different in geographical aspect and also protect their ground forces on both fronts of air attacks from enemies.

    The aim of this brief comment is also shown that technological superiority is not to be confused with superior capabilities. The introduction of two new devices such as the surface-air-missile SA 6 Gainfull and anti-tank-missile AT 3 Sagger in wide-scale allowed the other equipment considered technologically inferior to Israel or the U.S. were employed in other missions, changing the whole configuration of the forces of Egypt and Syria and the alleged balance means that before the conflict was considered to be favorable to Israel.

    The Soviet Union possibly had no interest in destroying the state of Israel, since it was his determination that would have provided more other advanced weapons systems to Egypt and Syria. While the Soviet Union had been equipped with the MiG-23 Flogger, MiG 25 P / RB Foxbat, Su 22 Fitter fighter bombers and Tu 22 Blinder supersonic bomber. Despite with this new and more capable weapons systems the Soviet Union continued to provide Syria and Egypt with the MiG 21 figther, the fighter bombers Su 7 Fitter fighter bombers and the Tu 16 Badger subsonic bombers .Even Su 15 Flagon with medium-range missiles AA 3 Anab, those had been replaced in production lines by MiG 25 P and AA 6 Acrid, it weren't delivered to any costumer of the Soviet Union. In the field of the land battles the Soviet Union had placed in service more advanced types of tanks as the T 64, while the forces of Egypt and Syria had received only small amounts of T 62 that was a little more advanced than the T 54 and T 55, and these were what constituted the majority of the force of tanks available to Egypt and Syria.

    The most effective air-air missile of the conflict of 1973 were not the medium-range missiles AIM 7E Sparrow used by Israel in F 4E Phantom II, but the missiles as the short range or close combat as Sidewinder AIM 9J from U.S. and Shafrir that had been manufacturing in Israel which resulted in huge losses to the enemy forces despite those missiles had not all aspect cabability to engage their targets in the forward aspect. The USSR did not provide the Egyptians and the Syrians with short-range missiles as AA 2 Atoll with passive seeker SARH ( Semi Active Radar Homing)but only the passive infrared seeker as AA 2 Atoll IR to equip their MiG 21s.

    In the doctrine of the Warsaw Pact these missiles had been operated by MiG 21 with IR and SARH versions of the short-range missile AA 2 Atoll, that enabling the MiG 21 to perform in all aspect interceptions against the enemies fighters, since the AA 2 Atoll IR were extremely limited to get the IR from tail or nozzles of the enemies fighter, in this engagements even under these conditions were considered to be equivalent to only the first generation of AIM 9B Sidewinder, which this time could already be considered as obsolete by the U.S. and Israel. The short-range missiles with seeker by SARH were only abandoned when the Soviet Union AA 8M Aspid with IR seeker with capability to hit targets in all aspect of engagement had emerged, and according with speculations it were possible that some versions of the AA 2 Atoll SARH were attracted by the irradions of the enemies radar fighters such as anti radiation missiles.

    The relationship between Israel and the U.S. was very close, since the U.S. began to supply Israel with its more advanced types that made up their forces as e.g. the fighter bombers F 4E Phantom II and tanks M 60. The Soviet Union had exploited the resentment of the nations of North Africa and Middle East with the closeness between the U.S. and Israel, so in the geopolitical point of view was much more interesting to the Soviet Union to keep the existence of the state of Israel than its destruction. The recovery of the Egyptian and Syrian territories occupied by Israel in the Six Day War in 1967 would be a great victory for the Soviet Union, one that would defeat the major weapons systems the U.S. without to use all its most advanced systems, with some exceptions among which the SA 6 Gainfull , SA 7 Grail , SA 9 Gaskin , ZSU 23 4 and AT 3 Sagger .

    In the case of the use of nuclear weapons by Israel, this situation would lead to direct involvement of U.S. and Soviet Union in the conflict. In this context the Soviet Union would present itself as the only power to protect the nations of North Africa and the Middle East in this threat of nuclear attack by Israel. The U.S. would be accused of having provided at least the nuclear technology to Israel and that nations like Saudi Arabia and even Iran could break up the alliance with the U.S., most likely turning the Soviet Union arm. If the Yom Kippur War in 1973 triggered the first oil crisis, when Saudi Arabia halted oil exports to Western nations, what would happen if Israel to prevent even its annihilation use nuclear weapons against the forces of Egypt and Syria?

    In the first three days of the Yom Kippur's War the Israel Air Force had obtained a rate of victories of 2 : 1 favorable to Israel while it fought against an opposing enemies with a superiority of 2.5 : 1 against Israel, which was remarkable to Israel but would be enouch . If the losses of Israel had maintained in the same rates of the first three days all long of the war the losses of Israel aircrafts would have reached for 280 aircrafts after 12200 accomplished missions what could happen around the day 24, while the losses of the enemies of Israel could have reached the 500 aircrafts after the same 12200 accomplished missions from the Egypt( Lybia, Iraq, Argely and Marroco sent fighter squads to Egypt) and Syria until the day 24 . In this way the Israel Air Force that was in the beginning of the conflit had faced a superiority of almost 2.5 : 1 against Israel would be on the i.e day 24 to face a superiority of 3.5 : 1 against Israel, and in these circumstances it could be affirmed the rate of victories would which was favourable to Isarel as 2 : 1 in the first day of battles could be decreased to around 1:1 once the Israel would be faced against figthers superiority of 3.5 : 1 from their enemies. Then the war would be almost lost for Israel once the losses in the ground of tanks and armored vehicles were worst than the losses of aircrafts. The Iraq, Lybia, Argely and Marroco that already had sent several fighter squads to war against Israel could replaced hundreds of aircrafts and pilots lost for Egypt and Syria what indeed would become the Israel situation in the i.e. day 24 much more critical .


    THE CHART OF THE AIRCRAFT'S LOST IN THE YOM KIPPUR WAR



    [IMG]
    https://picasaweb.google.com/s/c/tra...background.gif) no-repeat left">
    1973 GIF
    [/IMG]

    After beginning Yom Kippur War against Israel in 1973 the situation has become critical of it, since Israel was facing two powerful enemies on two fronts at the same time and this time it was Israel who was on the defensive and losing the war .Faced with projections that the enemies would be not stop without nuclear weapons, Israel was vulnerable to a large-scale invasion. Then U.S. had decided to move to Israel nearly its entire new arsenal of so-called smart weapons from battle in land and air. Due to the urgency of shipments of these new weapons was necessary to use the transport aircraft C 5A Galaxy and C 141 Starfighter with addition for civil aircrafts as Israel Boeing B 707 and B 747, and this operation was coded as Nickel Glass. In these operations the United States sent 20,000 tons ( 44.092.000 lb)of equipment through the use of their air transport fleet and Israel airlifted 5,000 tons ( 11.023.000 lb) using their fleet of civil and military air transport.

    Those equipments and weapons had been delivered from USA since day 09 of October in 1973 to Israel were in great part responsible to change the balance of the war in favour to Israel once the losses rates decreased in the air and the ground battles, and until the end of the war the aircrafts losses account 121 aircrafts than 283 had been estimated in the begnning of the war. These new weapons could be classified as sophisticated and powerful, even in the year of 2012 there are less than a dozen of countries that could display such systems in its military forces. The short list of equipments and weapons delivered could be described as: laser guided bombs as Paveway, TV contrast guided bomb as HOBOS, TV imaging contrast guided missiles as AGM 65A Maverick, TV data link guided bombs as Walleye, anti radar missiles as AGM 45 Shike, anti radar missiles as AGM 78 Standard, ECM( Electronic Counter Measures) pods to jamm the enemy radars, reconnaissance drones with data link to transmit TV images in real time , anti tank missiles for infantry as TOW, tanks M 60 with laser telemeter and ballistic computer , e.g. The most part of these equipments and weapons in that time still in acceptance phase in the USA military forces and some in development phase when were delivered at Israel as emergency measure to avoid the worst for Israel once most of those weapons had been classified as secret and the exposition of those in real conflict could put these new technological achievements in jeopardize in some hipotectical war with USSR.

    A U.S. military intelligence predicted a great threat in this large operation that due to urgency in moving the equipment in a few days would be necessary to maintain exposed to attack at airports in Israel a lot of transport aircrafts. They were unloading weapons and live ammunition, in the case of one of these aircraft was hit in the ground, probably others that were close were also destroyed due to the type of cargo they were carrying. To face the enemy fighter bombers and their escorts fighters, the Israel Air Force had been prepared to repel any attack attempt, but if the MIG 25RB were used in an attack at high altitude and supersonic speed, since when they were based in Egypt, one its fled with the colors and markings of the Egypt Air Force , there could inflicted several losses at those transport aircrafts , equipment and ground personnel.

    Thus even though the U.S. strongly denied that this had happened, they secretly sent prototypes of the YF 14A Tomcat II armed with the new missiles as AIM 54 Phoenix to protect the Nickel Glass operation, and that fighters were placed in Israel bases in case of a possible attack by MiG 25RB supposedly from Egypt. For the U.S. the potential threat of the MiG 25RB was real and that did the same sending prototypes still undergoing tests to protect the operation, as if there were attacks on the MiG 25 RB in these airports and without the protection of YF 14, the operation Nickel Glass should be renamed to Nickel Graveyard.

    Due to possibility that the Soviet Union had maintained in secret the MiG 25RB in undergrounds hardened shelters in the same air base of Egypt that were operated the MiG 25RB before the Yom Kippur War. The USA had requested the prototypes of the YF 14A Tomcat II for protection of the air bridge between the USA and Israel called as Nickel Glass Operation. The rumors had indicated the possibility that MiG 25RB were kept in these underground shelters in sealed compartment under an inert atmosphere to prevent damages due to oxidation of the fighter as well its delicated electronic systems.Once the Soviet personnel came back to Egypt these fighters suppose stored in Egypt could be placed in operation in matters of hours instead of days in case the same fighters were brought dismounted by the transports Antonov An 22 Antei.

    The MiG 25 RB could carry 5.0 tons ( 11023 lb) of free fall bombs had been maintaining a maximum speed of Mach 2.8 at 20 000 m ( 65 617 ft) of altitude. Its navigations equipments and ground map radars would allow a precision in the attack even better than could be obtained for short range ballistic missiles( SRBM) as SS 1 SCUD. The missiles SCUD could carry a conventional warhead of the HE ( High Explosive) of 500 Kg ( 1102 lb), therefore a formation of four MiG 25 RB would attack a target with an equivalent strength of 21 missiles SS 1 SCUD for each mission, with the advantage that fighters MiG 25 RB would make the reconaissance of the target and the damages had been obtained in the attack at the same mission. The possibility of those MiG 25 RB attack a civilian objective it would be very remote, unlike the missiles SCUD that were susceptible to deviate of the objectives since some failures in this guiadance system and then by this to reach civilians areas.

    Some very controversial speculations about the operations of the MiG 25 RB were that its ability to strike was not only due to the possibility to carry non-guided bombs, but to provide guidance to missiles fired by other platforms (air, land and sea).In its first generation MiG RB would use its navigation system called Peleng for getiing its position with relative accuracy and then illuminate the target area with beam from his own radar. With the target area illuminated from high-altitude and distance the MiG 25 RB would be out of range for air defenses allowing long-range missiles as SS 1 SCUD were directed against the target area had been guided for radar beam reflected from the target area as a missile with a SARH seeker.

    Among the ground-strike missile that could be targeted by MiG 25 RB were the: the Kh 22 Kitchen from strike aircraft, ASCM from submarine-launched missiles, ASCMs from warships and SS 1 Scud SRBM as mobile tactical ballistic missiles. But most speculation was that the anti-aircraft ground-air system of long range SA 4 Ganef that could had a secondary mission that would be directed against targets on the surface by illuminating the target by MiG 25 RB. In the initial a middle phase of the flew of the SA 4 missile and others ASCMs would be guided by radar stations of the battery, while in approaching of the target area at high altitude, this would be guided by the radar beam from MiG 25 RB received by antennas on the tail of the missiles, and in the final phase the missile would be guided by reflecting of the radar signal from the target.

    The SRBM SS 1 Scud would be guided in the initial and middle phase of the flew by his own INS ( Inertial navigation system) and when this missile had been entered in its final phase of the flew it would receive a radar signal sent by MiG 25 RB in an passive homing seeker from the missile reflected by the target area. The reason for some speculations about the final versions of the SS 1 Scud had been assembled with passive homing seeker were the poor accuracy of the INS when the missile could be carrying conventional warhead with HE ( high explosive) that demanded better accuracy to be effective than nuclear warhead .

    The missile SS 1 SCUD had a precision that is measured as CEP ( Circular Estatistic Probability) with radius of 1 Km ( 3281 ft). The CEP is measuring method that could be an decription as about an surface with radius of 1 Km ( 3281 ft) would be this reached by 50% of the missiles fired like SS 1 SCUD .In the case of an target with radius of 250m ( 820 ft) that should receive almost 1000 kg ( 2204 lb) of HE to be severy damaged would be necessary the fire off 64 missiles as SS 1 SCUD with warhead of 500 kg ( 1102 lb) of HE and CEP of 1Km ( 3281 ft) to assure that probability at least 2 missiles reached the target with 250m ( 820 ft) of radius.

    In this case that missiles as SS 1 SCUD could be equipped with a SARH seeker that in the final phase of approaching of the objective this missile would be guided by the refleted emission of the radar beam from MiG 25 RB ,with its high adavanced and accuracy PELENG navigation system, that could be illuminating the area of the target out of the range of the opponent's air defenses, and this way if it increased in several orders the precision of SS 1 SCUD for the suppose CEP of 250 m ( 820 ft), the same target with a radius of 250m ( 820 ft) could be hit for two missiles with an equivalent load of 1000kg ( 2204 lb) of HE, in this mode would be necessary to fire 4 missiles instead of 64 missiles with a CEP of 1Km ( 3281 ft).








    [IMG]
    https://picasaweb.google.com/s/c/tra...background.gif) no-repeat left">
    CEP 02
    [/IMG]


    In this case of the SA 4 Ganef this could be used against slightly armored targets, such as advanced air bases or dispersed air bases and mainly against strikes from heliborne and airborne forces of the NATO. Indeed these possible airborne and heliborne assaults from NATO were considered by the High Command of the Soviet Union as a great threat. The USSR saw a large-scale air assault as a major threat to their concept of heavy armored divisions, as these were considerably slower to be moved quickly in order to stop the air assaults. The use of fighters and fighters-bombs against a NATO air assault was a little advantageous option for the strategists of the USSR, since this was a terrible experience during the beginning of World War II in which the technological superiority of the Luftwaffe caused catastrophic losses at the VVS with their numerical superiority. After this tragic experience for the USSR the use of aviation should be done in order to achieve surprise and speed in air strikes, and to avoid at all costs the use of the aircraft power against targets when the enemy has the technological advantage and his fighters were prepared for battle over this predictable target.

    As these transport aircraft from air assault of the NATO could be out of the radar range or below the horizon of the SA 4 Ganef battery, the missiles could not be targeted by the MiG 25 RB against those aircraft, but this would be the area where the aircraft or assault troops ashore in order to employ the heavy fragmentation warhead with proximity fuse using programmable under the ground to try to damage or destroy the aircraft in the area and the troops already landed.

    At least one battery from system SA 4 Ganef was sent to Egypt at the same time that the MiG 25 RB had been operating in Egypt. With the return of the MiG 25 RB for the Soviet Union was also the return of SA 4 Ganef battery , which increased speculation that the Soviet Union had invested considerable resources in this heavy and expensive Surface - Air missile system that many experts saw as ineffective against the NATO fighter bombers due to lack of maneuverability of these heavy missiles, that could be considered effective only against large bombers or large transport aircraft.

    The choice of the ramjet propulsion for the missile SA 4 Ganef with fragmentation warhead of 250Kg ( 550 lb) and missile SA 6 Gaimfull with fragmentation warhead of 100kg ( 220 lb) were attributed by some experts at the possibility to increase the range against ground targets, since there are speculations that those missiles could has two modes of operation of the ramjet engine of the missiles that would be chosen the mode before its launch. The first would be against air targets that should be engaged at high supersonic speed, and another against ground targets at long range that the supersonic speed would be reduced to obtain greater range. The complexity of liquid fuel ramjet engines of the SA 4 Ganef and SA 6 Gainfull had been made these systems more expensive and complex when compared to SA 3 Goa and SA 5 Gamon system operated by the IA PVO with rocket engines with solid and liquid fuels.

    In returning the Soviet MiG 25 RB to Egypt in 1973 during the final phase of the Yom Kippur War, there were considerable speculation that they could participate the war to guide supersonic cruise missiles launched from Soviet submarines close to the Israel coast against targets in the Sinai or even Israel cities. According to some sources this possibility of strike against Israel was informed by the U.S. government, and contributed for Israel to accept a ceasefire, since it was unwilling to accept a ceasefire because the great victories that put the capital of Egypt and the capital of Syria en route to its army in that advances .

    The U.S. reportedly informed that even the YF 14A Tomcat that could be employed to protect Israel from attacks by Soviet MiG 25RB with free-fall bombs, they would be less effective against cruise missile attacks in which the supersonic MiG 25 RB could be operating long range so as to be beyond the reach of the few YF 14A with AIM 54A Phoenix missiles . The SAM MIM 23A Hawk and F 4E Phamtom with AIM 7E Sparrow missile of Israel were not effective against the MiG 25 RB due to the high altitude and speed in which they could carry out bomb attacks free-fall in the attacks, much less supersonic cruise missile directed by MiG 25RB.

    Indeed t the MiG 25RB had returned to Egypt in the last week of the conflict in order to achieve broad recognition of the situation of war, which at this stage was disastrous for Egypt and Syria. Even under total air supremacy of the Israeli Air Force at this stage of the war the MiG 25RB had completed the mission without any loss or damage. This operation has gathered information from the rearguard of Israel that were used to persuade all in the military high command of Egypt to accept the ceasefire, due to fact that even suffering disastrous losses had yet who wanted to continue the fight against Israel. As confirmed recognition mission from MiG 25 RB, the continuing of the war could put the capital Cairo from Egypt under attack by the Israeli army.

    The Soviet Union had pushed the U.S. to persuade Israel to accept a ceasefire, which had been reinvigorated with new weapons sent by the U.S. and exploring strategic mistakes of Egypt and Syria, Israel was in the edge to completely defeat those nations, there were many who wanted it. Indeed could be proved as the international airport of Damascus capital of Syria was under attack by the artillery army from Israel at this stage of the war. Under U.S. pressure, Israel was persuaded to accept a ceasefire, since if it did not do so would be attacked by the USSR on a large scale, possibly with the use of MiG 25RB.

    This short summary about the threat posed by MiG 25RB demonstrates how its skills were impressive. But it was the interceptor MiG 25P which was better known and in many cases ended up ranked by many as an aircraft or even obsolete up to the time that went into operation or had been created by propaganda purpose. The truth should be more complex, since it will always be under a cloak of secrecy and misinformation.

    To see the complete files will be necessary to link:https://sites.google.com/site/sr71xm...over-the-sinai

    REFERENCES

    ASAS - ASAS Magazine - www.revistasas.com.br

    APA - Australian Power Analyzes Website - www.ausairpower.net

    AIRFORCES - Air Forces Monthly Magazine - www.airforcesmonthly.com

    GORDON, Yelfin. MiG 25 and MiG 31: Defensive Front Line. Leicester - UK: Midland Prublishing Limeted, 1997.

    HACKETT, General Sir John, BARRACLOUGH, Brigadier Sir Jonh, BURROW, Sir Bernard, HUNT, Brigadier Keneneth, McGEOCH, Vice-Admiral Sir Ian, MACRAE, Norman, STRAWSON, Major-General John. THE THIRD WORD WAR - AUGUST 1985. New York - USA: Macmillan Publishing, 1978.

    BOLLARDIÈRE, Jacques Paris, PRATS, Juan P. , KISTER, Pierre. THE WAR AND THE DISARM. Editions Grammont. Lausanne - France, 1979.

    OVERSCAN'S GUIDE TO RUSSIAN MILITARY AVIONICS - avionics@overscan.co.uk

    WIKIPEDIA - Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. www.wikipedia.com

    MiG 25 FOXBAT - www.vectorsite.net

    FAS - Federations of American Scientists - www.fas.org

    Google Images: Imagery Sources - www.images.google.com
    I
    This is far too brief. Would you please elaborate?

  28. #58
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    167

    War Fog

    MiG 25BM equipped with Kh 58U missiles


    To be brief: About the reasons that the U.S. could had secretly send the new F 14A Tomcat II equipped with AIM 54A Phoenix missiles to protect the air bridge with military aid to Israel in 1973 during the Yom Kippur War. The presence of F 14A was aiming to protect the air transports as C 5A Galaxy and C 141 Starlifter of a possible attack by MiG 25 RB since the Soviet Union had operated the MiG 25 RB / P between 1971 and 1972 in Egypt.


    MiG 27K and MiG 27M

    How's my fault for having wrong in the first place, it is my duty to repair the same ,since there is possible to visualize the nose of the MiG 27 in the photo to prove whether it is the version MiG 27K or MiG 27M, one indicating that it is the MiG 27M is that it does not has the fences in the top of the sleeve of the wings as the MiG 27K has .

    The reason for those fences in MiG 27K could be attributed to providing better aerodynamic stability for the TV target laser designator Kaira 1, however when providing better aerodynamic stability reduces the maneuverability of the fighter.

    Those fences also sheltered launchers of the chaff / flare but the shape and position of these were aimed to improving the stability for the weapon system and its precision in the attacks missions againt ground targets.



    MiG 27K equipped with TV/Laser Designator Kaira 1 in the right photo and MiG 27M equipped with Laser Designator Klen in the left photo.

    Artist: unknown
    Source: 'Aviation and Cosmonautics' 2004, No.11 (No.101)




    Artist: unknown
    Source: M-Hobbie magazine

    http://wp.scn.ru/en/ww3/a/686/1/1


    MiG 25BM and MiG 27K from Soviet Union in the Iran/Iraq War

    The Soviet Union would never admit that their aircraft had been operated in real missions during the Iran / Iraq War, since this would be a declaration of war against Iran.

    In my humble opnion I do not believe that the nations that formed in the past the Soviet Union would be interested in confirming these actions today. How several people could have participated in this, problably some allegedly state about this but keeping their identities in secret, even with all political changes in these countries the Siberia territory has not changed, since it is remain cold as the time of the Soviet Union.

    Many military strategists prefer to analyze weapons performance in real conditions or near it . The reason that even in the more elaborate testing situations, some parameters can not be simulated.

    The most important of these is the interaction man / machine, which in a real combat human factor changes considerably, since in simulations are not trying to shoot and kill the human factor.

    There is a term for this is that the war fog, due to which the performance of weapons is reduced because the real conditions of employment of the same

    In the Soviet Union this emphasis on analysis in real conditions it were a tradition in much at the costly lessons of World War II.

  29. #59
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    12,049
    Quote Originally Posted by maurobaggio View Post
    To be brief: About the reasons that the U.S. could had secretly send the new F 14A Tomcat II equipped with AIM 54A Phoenix missiles to protect the air bridge with military aid to Israel in 1973 during the Yom Kippur War. The presence of F 14A was aiming to protect the air transports as C 5A Galaxy and C 141 Starlifter of a possible attack by MiG 25 RB since the Soviet Union had operated the MiG 25 RB / P between 1971 and 1972 in Egypt.
    That claim was corrected several times. The Soviets had no MiG-25P in Egypt.
    Just a flight of MiG-25R and RB for recce missions only. Just an AD-cruiser of the 6th fleet off the coast of Tel Aviv was enough to deal with that fictional threat.
    "During the Yom Kippur War Elmo Zumwalt desribes part of the Sixth Fleet buildup as follows (On Watch, 1976, 447)
    "On 25 October JCS directed TG 20.1, Kennedy and escorts, to chop[6] to ComSixthFleet as TG 60.3 and proceed to join TG 60 south of Crete. Additionally, F.D. Roosevelt and escorts (TG 60.2) and TF61/62 [the amphibious task forces] were directed to join TG 60.1 south of Crete. ... TG 100.1 (Baltic destroyers) were ordered to proceed to the Mediterranean and chop to ComSixthFleet..'

    Quote Originally Posted by maurobaggio View Post
    The Soviet Union would never admit that their aircraft had been operated in real missions during the Iran / Iraq War, since this would be a declaration of war against Iran.

    In my humble opnion I do not believe that the nations that formed in the past the Soviet Union would be interested in confirming these actions today. How several people could have participated in this, problably some allegedly state about this but keeping their identities in secret, even with all political changes in these countries the Siberia territory has not changed, since it is remain cold as the time of the Soviet Union.

    Many military strategists prefer to analyze weapons performance in real conditions or near it . The reason that even in the more elaborate testing situations, some parameters can not be simulated.

    The most important of these is the interaction man / machine, which in a real combat human factor changes considerably, since in simulations are not trying to shoot and kill the human factor.

    There is a term for this is that the war fog, due to which the performance of weapons is reduced because the real conditions of employment of the same

    In the Soviet Union this emphasis on analysis in real conditions it were a tradition in much at the costly lessons of World War II.
    The Soviet can not admit something not done at all. Saddam did not allow foreign forces to operate from Iraq.
    http://isearch.avg.com/search?q=usn+...nknown&snd=hdr
    The Soviets were "trapped" in Afghanistan and had no intrest to be involved in the Iraq-Iran war or take any risc about that at least. They did learn much more from the fighting between Syria and Israel in Lebanon of the 80s. The Israelis were not cut from technology and tactical development from that like the Iranians. The yardstick for both super-powers was Central Europe and the NATO like Israel operated the HAWK IMP already. The claimed Soviet ASMs are directed against sensors and by that just to a part of a SAM-site. They have a short lived temporary effect for such a site only till the damaged/destroyed radar is repaired/replaced or it is linked to another site. The ASMs attack has to be followed by a bombing wave to have a short time effect at least. Even then the surviving elements can be restructured in short notice and replaced by all mobile Soviet SAMs in short notice as the Syrians did for example from their stocks or delivered replacements. All SEAD gains are temporary only! To learn something about the way the Iranians did operate their sensors from ELINT brings nothing, when those were cut from the NATO development for years. For that purpose not a single ASM has to be used at least under the "eyes" of the USN there. I am sure the USN intel had not missed the opportunity to learn all the details of a Soviet "live-firing exercise" first hand. But there was none.
    Last edited by Sens; 7th May 2012 at 16:54.

  30. #60
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    5,393
    That MiG-27M and MiG-27K photo above is mixed up.
    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES