Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

su-11 fishpot and yak-28P firebar service with PVO

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • nastle
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Feb 2005
    • 528

    su-11 fishpot and yak-28P firebar service with PVO

    These 2 interceptors are less known amongst the lineup of PVO aircraft during the cold war

    given their relatively poor performance were these planes in any way suited to intercept tactical strike planes ? like jaguar, buccanear , f-105, A-7, F-100 /

    or were they only able to intercept subsonic bombers ?
  • TomcatViP
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Nov 2011
    • 5912

    #2
    the Su-11 is a Mach2+ interceptor.

    Comment

    • paralay
      Rank 5 Registered User
      • Aug 2005
      • 1377

      #3
      Su-11 had sufficient maneuverability to participate in the "dog fight" Yak-28 had a longer range, better radar and co-pilot. But obviously the ability to combat maneuvering is not his "strong suit" Later, instead of su-11 appeared su-15, Yak-28 was replaced by Tu-128

      Comment

      • wilhelm
        Rank 5 Registered User
        • Dec 2004
        • 1652

        #4
        The Su-11 was basically a modified Su-9, with a more powerful engine and radar.
        As such, it might be viewed as an interim type, an upgraded Su-9, pending the imminent arrival of the Su-15.
        As said, it was a Mach 2 aircraft.

        The Yak 28 Firebar was a long range interceptor, akin to the contemporary F-101 Voodoo... both types had similar top speeds, service ceilings, range exceeding 2000km..etc.

        I do not think their performance was relatively poor compared to their contemporaries.
        They had their tasks and roles, and were then replaced by their designated successors, much like elsewhere.

        Comment

        • Sens
          Rank 5 Registered User
          • Jan 2000
          • 12291

          #5
          Both were day/night interceptors with AAMs against high flying bombers or similar recce birds. They had no look-down and shoot-down capabilty. Even the later Su-15 was limited against low flying intruders and supplemanted by the MiG-23P for that purpose. The given high-up range were without power-climb under ferry range conditions and no external AAMs.

          Comment

          • Sens
            Rank 5 Registered User
            • Jan 2000
            • 12291

            #6
            https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D1%83-11
            https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%AF%D0%BA-28
            The limited number of both interceptors interceptors built showed their practical value.
            I used the Russian Wiki about that.
            Last edited by Sens; 11th April 2019, 12:26.

            Comment

            • Sens
              Rank 5 Registered User
              • Jan 2000
              • 12291

              #7
              http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/re...p/393gviap.htm
              http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/re...iap/790iap.htm
              http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/re...iap/191iap.htm
              Looking on the map where the PVO regiments were based with Su-11 in service. .

              Comment

              • nastle
                Rank 5 Registered User
                • Feb 2005
                • 528

                #8
                Originally posted by Sens View Post
                Both were day/night interceptors with AAMs against high flying bombers or similar recce birds. They had no look-down and shoot-down capabilty.
                for the most part they were guided by GCI radars
                against the contemporary strike aircraft when they are laden with fuel and ordanance (like jaguar, buccanear , f-105, A-7, F-100 )
                they would not be able to intercept them at all ?

                I was under the impression that yak-28P had decent low level performance

                Comment

                • Sens
                  Rank 5 Registered User
                  • Jan 2000
                  • 12291

                  #9
                  Even running into a striker by luck only. They had no head-on capability nor a weapon to down something close to the lawn.

                  Comment

                  • paralay
                    Rank 5 Registered User
                    • Aug 2005
                    • 1377

                    #10
                    Click image for larger version

Name:	su11vsyak28.JPG
Views:	459
Size:	348.4 KB
ID:	3859379

                    Comment

                    • Sens
                      Rank 5 Registered User
                      • Jan 2000
                      • 12291

                      #11
                      To avoid misunderstandings the the Yak-28 variants were usefull in their roles similar the French Vautours. The Firebar was used as night- or all-weather interceptor against loaden aircraft at medium heights or above and did it. Against tactical strikers at low level it will not. The same for the Fishpot at low level, by the limitation of its weaponary.

                      Comment

                      • nastle
                        Rank 5 Registered User
                        • Feb 2005
                        • 528

                        #12
                        Originally posted by Sens View Post
                        Even running into a striker by luck only. They had no head-on capability nor a weapon to down something close to the lawn.
                        so in the 80s both of them are completely obsolete but in the 70s they had some relevance as some NATO tactical aircraft did operate in the medium altitude realm

                        Comment

                        • Sens
                          Rank 5 Registered User
                          • Jan 2000
                          • 12291

                          #13
                          See where those two PVO fighters were deployed in the 70s and you realize, that non had a chance to come near the western tactical aircraft mentioned. Just kept to bolster numbers.

                          Comment

                          • Sens
                            Rank 5 Registered User
                            • Jan 2000
                            • 12291

                            #14
                            174th Guards Fighter Aviation Regiment IAP-PVO Monchegorsk
                            operated Yak-28P, when replaced by MiG-25 and MiG-31

                            Comment

                            • Sens
                              Rank 5 Registered User
                              • Jan 2000
                              • 12291

                              #15
                              http://www.easternorbat.com/html/bak...rict_in_6.html
                              Baku Red Banner Air Defence District
                              in January 1, 1968
                              North Caucasus, Transcaucasian and Western Turkestan Military District
                              Here you can find the units with the two fighters mentioned. 1968 no longer in production.


                              "Unfortunately, the new modern high powered Su-11 Fishpot-C and Yak-28P Firebar interceptor models were not able to intercepted low-altitude targets. The use of fighter aircraft is illustrated by history below: The Yak-28P Firebar of the 171st regiment intercepted an Antonov An-2 biplane defector on 13 March 1967. The An-2 tried to fly over the Black Sea to Turkey. The An-2 didn't have much of a heat signature flying very low over the waves.

                              The Yak-28P Firebar crew wasn't able to get a good missile lock, but the Firebar interceptor was able to use its long-range radar to guide the other MiG-17 from 171th regiment to the slow target, which then shut down the biplane into the sea with cannon fire."
                              Last edited by Sens; 12th April 2019, 15:00.

                              Comment

                              • nastle
                                Rank 5 Registered User
                                • Feb 2005
                                • 528

                                #16
                                Originally posted by Sens View Post
                                See where those two PVO fighters were deployed in the 70s and you realize, that non had a chance to come near the western tactical aircraft mentioned. Just kept to bolster numbers.
                                thanks I understand
                                But in those regions they were deployed close to Iran Turkey border and both these countries had modern aircraft in service

                                The heat sig of a f100 or lightning would be a lot more imho

                                Comment

                                • Sens
                                  Rank 5 Registered User
                                  • Jan 2000
                                  • 12291

                                  #17
                                  To stick to the point, both POV fighters were developed in the late 50s to carry two big AAMs against less manouverable bombers/ similar recce-ac or high flyers. At hand already they were kept to the late 70s to pose some threat for the worst case. Neither Turkey nor the Iran dare to attack the atomic-power SU to learn how that POV fighters will come out against a F-100 f.e.. .

                                  Comment

                                  • nastle
                                    Rank 5 Registered User
                                    • Feb 2005
                                    • 528

                                    #18
                                    Originally posted by Sens View Post
                                    To stick to the point, both POV fighters were developed in the late 50s to carry two big AAMs against less manouverable bombers/ similar recce-ac or high flyers. .
                                    indeed but a lot of tactical strike planes in the 60s to mid-late 70s were high flyers too esp with non-NATO states on border of USSR , so they can be used again them too in a pinch if needed ...fair to say ?

                                    Comment

                                    Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                    Collapse

                                     

                                    Working...
                                    X