В Шаталово 32 ГИАП, стал поучать первые МиГ-23С так называемой "нулевой серии" в середине 70 года. Эта была небольшая партия самолетов предназначенных для испытаний. Но решением Кутахова их передали в полк. Фактически пилоты принимали участие в испытаниях.
Весной 72 полк получил МиГ-23М
Цена решений Кутахова. За два года 5 погибших летчиков ( все фактически за один год с января 72 по февраль 73) и 7 катапультировавшихся.
МиГ-23С поступили в Чернигов в 1976 году.
По результатам заводских испытаний опытной машины 23-11/1, БЫЛО ПРИНЯТО РЕШЕНИЕ ПЕРЕДАТЬ ПАРТИЮ ПРЕДНАЗНАЧЕННЫХ ДЛЯ ИСПЫТАНИЙ МАШИН В ПОЛК.
МиГ-23С, ГСИ так и не прошел в полном объеме. Из-за недостатков и как следствие несоответствия требованиямТТЗ.
Коллеги, давайтека ближе к теме...
Андрей, прошу прощения.Сообщение от An-Z
Первые серийные МиГ-23С с "восьмитонниками" - ТРДФ Р-27Ф-300 - получил Липецкий ЦБП и ПЛС. Следующей партией МиГ-23С с ТРДФ Р-27Ф2-300 "нулевой серии", имевших увеличенную тягу (6900/10200 кгс), был оснащен полк ВВС Белорусского военного округа, дислоцированный в районе станции Рось, откуда в 1977-78 гг. все самолеты этого типа передали Черниговскому ВВАУЛ.В Шаталово 32 ГИАП, стал поучать первые МиГ-23С так называемой "нулевой серии" в середине 70 года. Эта была небольшая партия самолетов предназначенных для испытаний. Но решением Кутахова их передали в полк. Фактически пилоты принимали участие в испытаниях.
Весной 72 полк получил МиГ-23М
Цена решений Кутахова. За два года 5 погибших летчиков ( все фактически за один год с января 72 по февраль 73) и 7 катапультировавшихся.
МиГ-23С поступили в Чернигов в 1976 году.
Вам бы еще поспрашивать у пенсионеров Красноводска про ракеты РС-2ус и Р-58. Ракета Р-60 в 70-х стала единственной ракетой маневренного воздушного боя. До нее у Р-3С перегрузка носителя ограничивалась 2, а при перегрузке цели более 3,5 зона пуска вообще не существовала.
Р-60 стала прорывом в УРМД для маневренного боя, впервые зона стрельбы при маневре цели на атакующий истребитель деформиловалась в сторону атакующего. Легкая ракета, небольшая БЧ, вполне понятно снижение эффективности против больших целей. Но против истребителей отличное для своего времени оружие! Завалил в Марах Ла-17 в первом пуске, у летчиков полка не было ни одного промаха на пять мишеней причем условия были в половине случаев - перегрузка истребителя при пуске не менее 4. Потом эта ракета послужила основой для разработки лучшей в мире УРМД Р-73.
Из Роси (968 иап, 95 иад) МиГ-23с убрали в 83 г, когда полк стал переучиваться на МиГ-29. У меня там служил однокашник по Качинскому ущилищу А.Семененко. На этих самолетах был запрещен вертикальный пилотаж, перегрузка была ограничена 4. В 82 г. проводились дивизионные учения, в которых в боях принимали участие группы 927 (МиГ-21 бис, Береза) и 968 иап. У нас в плане боя были вертикальные размыкания и маневры, которые на МиГ-23с были запрещены. Исход боев был заранее предопределен!
Уважаемый Наzar:
1. я лично знаком еще с середины 80 годов подполковником Колотухиным В.Г.
В конце 60-ых начале 70-ых он был летчиком 32ГИАП.
32 ГИАП получил свои первые МиГ-23С нулевой серии в июне 70 года..
2 июля 1970 года первыми вылетели в Шаталово самостоятельно командир полка Бобров, за ним Кондрашов и Монахов.
К концу 70-го года все летчики полка вылетели самостоятельно на МиГ-23С.
Информация про Рось впервые шла от Ильина в его книжках.
Но Ильин информацией по 32ГИАП на тот момент времени не обладал.
Как раз про это мне МНОГО раз рассказывал зам. командира полка, который летал в "контрольной" паре для ликвидации мишени, после "молодняка". По его словам куча промахов для Р-60 была делом обычным. Что она не попадала даже при стрельбе в ЗПС в пределах прямой видимости. По его мнению гораздо лучше было бы, если бы на Миг23 добавили снарядов в пушку, чем бесполезный "пшик Р-60" (его цитата).
Сам я не лётчик. Сам не стрелял. Но мнение (на службе, а не в пивной) такое слышал.
Никогда не слышал ни про какого Ильина, ни про книжки Ильина.
Однако в начале 80-х много был наслышан про лидерный полк (Россь) и про ужасы изделия 2, у которого постоянно отламывались крылья.
Примерно в 82 году, я видел одну из этих машин (уже давно списанную к этому времени). На ней в корне НЧК была установлена аппаратура "Дельта", чего я больше никогда не видел ни на каких МиГ-23. РЛС там тоже стояла какая-то допотопная - изделие 10. Тоже нигде больше не видел. Этажерка закабинного отсека вытаскивалась подъёмным краном (!).
Уважаемый Fighter
Хотелось уточнить только ряд моментов:
1.а. Смещение ЗВП внутрь разворота характерно для перегрузок цели до 4-6 ед и ракет с располагаемой перегрузкой на крыло от15 и выше. Это второе поколение ракет и соответственно и для третьего поколения ракет с перегрузкой на крыло 30 и более ед.
б. При перегрузках цели свыше5- 6 ед, ЗВП изменяется для ракет 2 поколения и третьего поколения по разному.
Для третьего поколения уже во внешнюю сторону ЗВП смещается.
Эти свойства присущи всем ракетам третьего поколения, а не только Р-60.
2. По поводу примеров.
Можно так же привести примеры стрельб полков по Ла-17M. Но с диаметрально противоположными результатами.
Вообще по отчетам из Маров картина другая вырисовывается.
3. Самое главное мне приходилось скажем так общаться, с сирийскими летчиками воевавшими в 82 году. Не вдаваясь в подробности, скажу у них предпочтение к Р-13М было.
4. Да был проект на базе Р-60. Но его потом полностью и очень глубоко переработали. По эффективности, проект на базе Р-60 оказался слабым.
Последний раз редактировалось Вовчек; 24.05.2010 в 23:30.
Всегда со временем познаешь что то новое. До этого момента Вы знали про Рось. Сейчас про полк из Шаталово летавшем на МиГ-23С уже в 70-ом году.
Это нормальный процесс.
А как еще пускать Р-60, если не в ЗПС и при визуальной видимости цели?! Если в ППС по РП, на дальности 10, да еще и в облаках, то результат понятен. Ну а насчет снарядов к пушке, это просто глупость, в реальном бою Вы и имеющиеся 200 не выстрелите, не говоря о том, вероятность 02-03 не получите даже при 500 снарядах.
Это не вяжется с тем, что полк в Росси был лидерным для 23х и для 29х
Nazar, принятие на вооружение - это чисто организационный момент, который означает, что некий объект военной техники по результатам проведенных госиспытаний, их выдержал, и специальным правительственным документом признается годным для постановки на вооружение. На основании этого правительственного документа МО выпускает свой собственный ведомственный приказ о принятии на вооружение. Однако, эксплуатация техники в войсках вполне возможна и без принятия ее на вооружение, таких фактов тоже было "вагон и маленькая тележка". Пример - истребитель Су-7 (не путать с ИБ Су-7Б), или целая куча модификаций ФБ Як-28. Ни тот, ни другой на вооружение приняты так и не были, и пребывали в этом состоянии до самого конца своей летной карьеры...Как это не принимали, они же первые вроде в Липецк попали, потом в Белорусию, а оттуда в ЧВВАУЛ.
Или я не прав?
Так было в данном случае и с МиГ-23С. Согласно указанию ГК ВВС, эксплуатация этой машины в строю началась еще до завершения ГСИ. Это была нормальная практика, расчет шел на ускорение освоения и последующее устранение выявленных недостатков. Однако ГСИ шли, недостатки множились и не устранялись без существенной переделки машины. Результатом стало прекращение серии 23С и переход к новой модификации - 23М, которая, наконец-то, смогла благополучно пройти ГСИ, и ее приняли на вооружение.
Последний раз редактировалось PPV; 25.05.2010 в 14:00.
Я бы еще как самый известный пример привел Су-25 :-) Эксплуатируется в войсках с 81 года, а официально на вооружение принят только в 87 году.
Это с сайта Тома Купера,но,в основном,я думаю,верить можно
: Sun Jul 20, 2003 8:35 am Post subject: R-60/AA-8 APHID (All versions)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sammie
Commodore
Joined: Mar 01, 2002
Posts: 395
From: The Netherlands
Posted: 2002-03-22 07:24
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was reading latest air internationa, in it was a article about the Finnish AF. It showed an BAe Hawk with an R-60 missiles.
Now I was wondering why they still used such an missiles, it is old, soviet era, and not very effective.
While searching in this forum I couldn't find an topic about the R-60, or is it hidden somewhere?
So why not start a discussion about it. And I have a question, the Indonesian Af has got R-60's to I geuss and Hawks, do they also use them in this combination...
************************************************** ***********
Keshel
Charter Member
Joined: Mar 01, 2002
Posts: 1063
From: Poland
Posted: 2002-03-23 08:03
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wouldn't say it's crap. It isn't up to current standards (R-73, Python 4, or even AIM-9M) but it's usefull for strike and CAS aircraft cause it doesn't weigth much and can be carried without limiting payload.
This is an interesting missile and I'm suprised that there wasn't any threads about it.
************************************************** ***********
RistoJ
Charter Member
Joined: Mar 11, 2002
Posts: 10
From: Finland
Posted: 2002-03-26 04:31
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the Finnish AF is slowly phasing this missile out while not planning serious use for the Hawks in the war-time anymore. Hawks were to be used for point-defence, light recon and other such duties in the time of war while Drakens and MiG-21s were the main fighters. Now that we have F-18C/Ds, Hawks are only used for training. Not that they would've been much use anyway, but they might have been useful for helo-hunting and maybe in some rare situations against attack aircraft. For this the R-60 was a suitable missile especially for those Hawk Mk.51s we have. It probably was very cheap compared to even AIM-9Js we had for our Drakens and better for this role than Atolls and Advanced Atolls we had for our MiGs before R-60s.
It's definitely not a bad missile, but being quite old and very small leads to lesser capability than say R-73 or AIM-9L. It was useful for small fighters like MiG-21 and it has been used succesfully in combat. Of course it hasn't been any world-beater ever though.
************************************************** ***********
Tom
ACIG Team
Joined: Jan 20, 2002
Posts: 4348
From: Vienna, Austria
Posted: 2002-03-26 05:04
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lajes will certainly be able to tell us much more about the R-60, but if I'm to ask, this is one of not so many exSoviet weapon of confirmed quality.
Last year, Hungarian AF trained firing almost ten-years old R-60s (not maintained since their delivery; some 25 or so rounds were fired during the training in Poland), and over 90% functioned flawlessly.
Hawk with R-60?
I'd say an excellent combination for training pilots, or even for point-defence.
Are there any details about the work needed to make the R-60 compatible with the Hawk?
************************************************** ***********
anaconda
Contributor
Joined: Mar 05, 2002
Posts: 991 Posted: 2002-03-26 12:14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is this missile very effective? It has a small war head that would make difficult to knock out a large aircraft. I think its a good choice for helo hunting though. Was it ever mounted on the mi-24 hind?
Back to top
ACIG Data-Base
Site Admin
Joined: 03 Jul 2003
Posts: 2483
Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2003 8:38 am Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keshel
Charter Member
Joined: Mar 01, 2002
Posts: 1063
From: Poland
Posted: 2002-03-26 14:50
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All kind of modifications were tried out on the mi-24. It's a good chance that some included R-60s for self defence
************************************************** ***********
Tom
ACIG Team
Joined: Jan 20, 2002
Posts: 4348
From: Vienna, Austria
Posted: 2002-03-27 09:12
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a matter of fact, Anaconda, exactly the point with the Mi-24s being modified with the R-60 for air-to-air role, and not with AT-6 is one of the strongest arguments against the claim by the Iraqis and exSoviets, that one of the Iraqi Mi-24s (which were never delivered, BTW; Iraqis only used the Mi-25s) shot down an Iranian F-4D.
In fact, after the Mathias Rust affair, many Mi-24s stationed in Russia were equipped for the carriage of the R-60.
In total, the R-60 was an excellent helo-killer: almost all the exSoviet kills against Iranian helicopters were obviously scored with it, and also many Iraqi kills against the same opponents.
Newest rumours say that even the Pakistani Atlantique, intercepted and shot down by two IAF MiG-21s, two years agao, was also shot down by R-60s - and not R.550s as believed so far.
************************************************** ***********
Juan Sosa
Contributor
Joined: Mar 01, 2002
Posts: 165
From: Venezuela( Now in Daytona Beach, FL)
Posted: 2002-03-27 11:49
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R-60 also gave the SAAF a quite nasty intruduction to all-aspect WVR when two Mirage F.1CZ tried to intercept two MiG-23s. The Angolan fighters turned into the Mirages and fired one R-60. This missile hit and damaged one of the CZs.
************************************************** ***********
PhantomII
Charter Member
Joined: Mar 07, 2002
Posts: 548
From: United States
Posted: 2002-03-27 18:10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually the R-60 was later updated to a standard more comparable to the AIM-9L/M. This version is known as R-60M. The R-60 can be carried on the MiG-21, MiG-23, MiG-25, MiG-27, MiG-29, Su-27, Mi-24, and I believe the Ka-50.
_________________
ACIG Team
Back to top
ACIG Data-Base
Site Admin
Joined: 03 Jul 2003
Posts: 2483
Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2003 8:42 am Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RistoJ
Charter Member
Joined: Mar 11, 2002
Posts: 10
From: Finland
Posted: 2002-03-28 02:11
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I found a picture of FAF Hawk Mk 51 with CATM R-60.
It's from the excellent Fighter Tactics Academy web-site, whose web-master is FAF Hornet pilot. The main page is at http://www.sci.fi/~fta/ and it has huge amount of pictures and info of different things. Of course the main focus is on FAF and it's history and aircraft, but it's all in English.
Oh, with some more search I found these pictures of FAF Hawks with different IR AAMs. From what I have heard, Hawks didn't require any serious mods to accept R-60s. Actually there was some talk few years back of equipping Hawks with R-73s! Nothing came of it and I don't think it would've been very cost efficient.
These pictures are from FAF web-page.
************************************************** ***********
Slick
Contributor
Joined: Mar 03, 2002
Posts: 310 Posted: 2002-03-28 21:27
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually "aircraft knocker" is piece of depleted uranium in it.
************************************************** ***********
Tom
ACIG Team
Joined: Jan 20, 2002
Posts: 4348
From: Vienna, Austria
Posted: 2002-03-29 03:18
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly that is the reason why do I believe more and more, that in the case of the SAAF Mirage F.1AZ hit by Angolan MiG-23MLs in late summer 1987, the R-23 was used, and not the R-60:
- the missile, launched from the forward hemisphere, exploded while passing by the plane which was almost as supersonic speed.
The R-60 would not explode...
What I mean is that the R-60 has a DU "warhead". I'm not sure it is to destroy the target by the mean of explosion - but that it might rather need a direct hit in order to deliver the decisive blow.
I'm not sure about this, however, but if this is indeed the case, then it was not a R-60 that was used against SAAF Mirages on that occassion.
************************************************** ***********
Tom
ACIG Team
Joined: Jan 20, 2002
Posts: 4348
From: Vienna, Austria
Posted: 2002-04-16 18:48
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aha,
I apparently managed to find out that about the warhead of the R-60 finally.
It should have a 3.5kg warhead which probably contains around 1kg of high explosive, plus the depleted uranium fragmenation casing. Now the casing is pretty heavy for its size, but this kind of a warhead makes its explosive weight to mass ratio very small.
So, it does explode, but I think I'm still right that it has to hit the target into the cockpit or the intake for a kill.
Of course, one could say that the warhead of the FIM-92A Stinger is certainly five or six times smaller, yet it downed many large and multi-engined aircraft too, but that warhead is of a completely different construction...
Last edited by ACIG Data-Base on Wed Jul 30, 2003 12:23 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
troung
*Air Staff* ACIG
Joined: 06 Jul 2003
Posts: 10879
Location: Somewhere in CE-VA
Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2003 6:54 am Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How efftitcve were the R-60/M/MK in combat with Iran?
To me the missile looks pretty small so I wonder how lethal it could be on a F-4D/E/RF or F-14A.
Back to top
Lajes
Honourable Member
Joined: 03 Jul 2003
Posts: 354
Location: Hungary
Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2003 2:56 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About the R-60MK (not the R-60 or R-60M versions!!!!!) DU warhead:
The high impact energy of the DU fragments are important, in the same way as DU projectiles.
However, the Soviet process of uranium enrichment (of which DU is a byproduct, containing mostly U 238) was not so good, so a lot of isotophes of uranium 235 remained in the DU, resulting intense radiation. The storage area therefore was restricted for 15 minutes staying.
The Hungarian AF got a few dozen of them (R-60MK) in 1993 with the MiG-29s, but because of the storage restrictions used up all during the first shooting in Poland. Later firings involved the older R-60M versions of which quite number were available purchased during the WP years in the 80s.
Beside the DU warhead, R-60MK used electrothermic (Peltier-principle) cooling of it's Komar seeker, increasing acquisition ranges, and improving FQ capabilities.
Lajes
Back to top
Tom
*Editor* ACIG Journal
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 12357
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2003 10:52 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
troung wrote:
How efftitcve were the R-60/M/MK in combat with Iran?
To me the missile looks pretty small so I wonder how lethal it could be on a F-4D/E/RF or F-14A.
This remains unclear: the Iraqis begged for R-60s for most of the war, indicating that they haven't got any, or only very late, or only very few (probably for use on MiG-25s initially, then more with the first six MiG-29s, which started arriving in 1987).
But, in general, most of the available SRAMs proved insufficient to shot down a plane like F-4 or F-14: cases are known where a Phantom survived three or four R-13s and/or R.550s exploding nearby, or an F-14 going down only after five or six direct and indirect hits by Super 530s and R.550s. MiG-25s proved also survivable: at least two survived the blast of AIM-54s detonating nearby for sufficient time to fly over the Iraqi border and crash there, and one even survived one of the fins being clipped away by the Phoenix that failed to detonate (that Foxbat then crashed during the attempted emergency landing): this happened pretty often, but the usual result of such hit against any other MiG or Sukhoi in Iraqi arsenal was disintegration of the aircraft.
Considering this, I'd say the R-60 would have not much chance against specific targets, except hitting the pilot into the heart (or the target in the central fuel tank).
_________________
Tom Cooper
Editor, ACIG.org
Back to top
Jussi Saari
Airman
Joined: 14 Jul 2003
Posts: 14
Location: Lappeenranta, Finland
Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2003 8:53 am Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sounds rather strange, IMHO.
Tom, how trustworthy do you rate your sources and for the most part, do you have more evidence than their word for it that aircraft frequently survived 3 or more hits? This seems to be quite strange especially considering the totally different results from Vietnam where any K-13 hits usually destroyed whatever targets they hit (including F-4s), either immediately or going down shortly after the hit. The number of aircraft that took a K-13 and survived even long enough for the crew to eject over friendly territory were quite a small fraction indeed... also comparing the results to Desert Storm, IR-homing SAMs destroyed even A-10s about 30-50% of the time they were hit...
Only two explanations I could think of for totally different results: one is more proximity detonations due to different tools and nature of the air war (expanded engagement envelope of R-13M/M1 resulting in less favourable intercept geometries and possibly more hits as a result of dogfights rather than surprise rear-aspect GCI attacks). But even then one would expect aircraft often not going down from a single hit and maybe surviving a second AAM/SAM every now and then but not 4, 5 or 6 hits.
The other possibility that comes to mind is that some people are simply telling war stories and exaggerating...
Back to top
Leszek
Correspondent
Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 367
Location: Poland
Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2003 11:37 am Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even if an aircraft survives a missile hit, it will be more often than not disabled from combat. I prefer to hit and wound my target with an R-60 than to miss it with an R-3/13.
_________________
Your friendly moderator
Back to top
Tom
*Editor* ACIG Journal
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 12357
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2003 6:02 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jussi Saari wrote:
Sounds rather strange, IMHO.
Tom, how trustworthy do you rate your sources and for the most part, do you have more evidence than their word for it that aircraft frequently survived 3 or more hits?
The leading Iranian "ace", (then) Maj. Jalal Zandi's F-14 was hit or damaged by at least three - but probably four or five - R.550s and Super 530F-1s during his last combat (in which he shot down two Mirages) before he managed to disengage: the plane crashed only while Zandi was flying it back to Bushehr, several minutes - and well over 100km - after the battle.
Given that he was known as a brazen, but excellent officer, open and direct in communication with his superiors, and top pilot, that he never had even a slightest chance for getting promoted during the war but was instead imprisoned by the regime at least three times between 1980 and 1988, that most of his nine confirmed and three probable kills were never officially credited to him (actually, they were discredited by the regime, removed from his log-books, and instead credited to different IRGC units, which were never even near the area) etc., etc., Zandi really had many reasons to lie and exaggerate about his feats....
Quote:
This seems to be quite strange especially considering the totally different results from Vietnam where any K-13 hits usually destroyed whatever targets they hit (including F-4s), either immediately or going down shortly after the hit. The number of aircraft that took a K-13 and survived even long enough for the crew to eject over friendly territory were quite a small fraction indeed... also comparing the results to Desert Storm, IR-homing SAMs destroyed even A-10s about 30-50% of the time they were hit...
That's all very nice. I can foremost talk about what was going on during the IPGW, however. Here the excerpt from the book "Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988", p.220, Chapter 10, sub-chapter "Tomcat to the Rescue", based on narrative by an IRIAF pilot that preferred to remain anonymous:
Hardly two days later, on 15 July (1987), the IrAF reportedly started a very large strike against Khark/Bushehr area. Tehran later reported a "major aerial battle" over the Persian Gulf, but with no aircraft reported shot down by either side. Supposedly, the Iraqi strike was driven away, forcing Iraqi pilots to abort their original mission. As it seems, that was indeed a major air combat, but only in the sense of the number of Iraqi aircraft involved.
On that morning, Iranian GCI detected an Iraqi strike package, including seven Su-22s and four Mirage F.1EQs, closing from the north. Only one F-4E was on alert at Bushehr, but the crew scrambled and flew at high speed to the north. Closing on the first section of enemy formation, the Iranian pilot noticed his radar was unable to achieve a lock-on due to enemy electronic countermeasures, thus he was forced to get closer and engage with Sidewinders, firing his missiles when approaching close enough. There was no time to follow the path and see if any scored a hit, as the WSO warned the pilot of several enemy fighters closing from another side. The pilot turned the Phantom around towards the closest bandit, passed above it and made a rollaway from the direction of turn, reacquiring the enemy and opening fire with his 20mm Vulcan cannon. At the same time, the WSO warned the pilot of two other Mirages overhead, at a range of around 1.000m/3,000ft and distancing. Seeing bullets hitting the fuselage of Iraqi fighter in front of him - which apparently caused it to crash - the Iranian pilot maneuvered to engage the Mirage. The Phantom's fuel and gun ammunition were alarmingly low, while the enemy was disengaging. Thus the decision was brought to turn back to the base. But while the F-4 was making a final turn before heading home, it was simultaneously hit by several missiles: the crew had disastrously forgotten to check their six! Both wings and most of control surfaces were badly damaged and hydraulics partially down, but the pilot kept the plane under control and landed it back safely in Bushehr several minutes later.
Quote:
Only two explanations I could think of for totally different results: one is more proximity detonations due to different tools and nature of the air war (expanded engagement envelope of R-13M/M1 resulting in less favourable intercept geometries and possibly more hits as a result of dogfights rather than surprise rear-aspect GCI attacks). But even then one would expect aircraft often not going down from a single hit and maybe surviving a second AAM/SAM every now and then but not 4, 5 or 6 hits.
I'm also not saying this "always" happened, nor every single F-4 and F-14 survived every single hit: the two F-14As shot down on 19 July 1988, for example, were both brought down by a single Super 530D. The fact is, however, that there is also photographic evidence for amount of damage suffered by different F-4s and F-14s: there were holes in the wings that a man could stand in the middle of them etc.
Quote:
The other possibility that comes to mind is that some people are simply telling war stories and exaggerating...
Of course: especially when pictures confirm their words...
_________________
Tom Cooper
Editor, ACIG.org
Back to top
Sammie
Contributor
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 482
Location: The Netherlands
Posted: Tue Nov 04, 2003 6:52 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*bump*
I've been reading some articles in the ACIG Journal lately and in the story Airwar over Nagorniy - Kharabakh is said that the R-60 was used in the anti-tank role.
I was wondering how that worked. The R-60 has a rather small warhead and is IR guided. How can such a missile, usually deployed from a fast platform, take out a tank. Doesn't a tank have a way to low heat signature for that? And has the R-60 in anti-tank role been used in other wars with good results? And does this mean that other IR guided AAMs can be used for this role?
thanks in advance!
_________________
there is no devil, thats just god when he's drunk
Back to top
RonC
Charter Member
Joined: 04 Nov 2003
Posts: 110
Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2003 7:04 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sammy, IR AAMs, such as the Sidewinder and, believe it or not, the old AIM-4D Falcon were used on rare occasions in SEA/Viet Nam to engage armor and other ground heat sources....successfully! In one instance (I spoke directly with the pilot involved), an F-4E fired an AIM-9J at an offending VPA/NVA T-54's engine deck...needless to say, the tank was disabled. In another instance, an F-102A used an AIM-4D Falcon missile to engage a rather large cooking fire at an VPA/NVA base camp, with disastrous results for those individuals around said campfire! So I see no reason why an R-60 could not be used in the same fashion.
Последний раз редактировалось Igor_k; 25.05.2010 в 13:44.
Фотка Ми-24 с Р-60
Незнаю сколько слышал от летчиков вроде бы они Р-60 сильно не ругали.
МиГ-27М с Р-60М в Талдыке.
какой красавиц!!!
да ещё и 4 сразу несёт!!!
спасибо за фотку
Меня терзают сомнения по поводу подлинности этой фотографии.Кандагар однако...
Для перехвата малоскоростных целей.
http://vertoletciki.forumbb.ru/viewtopic.php?id=107
Я уже встречал пару подобных "работ" от Андрея Шитякова с подрисованными Р-60 на Ми-24.
Ваши права
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Ответить с цитированием
