WI no mikoyan mig-23 flogger

The usual method for Soviet SAMs to ward off NATO aircraft was to gain a lock on them (they had trouble with this for the SR-71 many times). That would usually trigger warnings on the aircraft and they would leave.

I'm sure you're aware that not only NATO aircraft with threat warning receivers ever need to be warned off or investigated. And I doubt the Soviets fielded many BOMARC and F-106.
 
That's not how radar jamming works. It doesn't mean there's no target, it means the target is obscured and you cannot get a lock. You still know the general area the target is in. Plus, jamming requires you to actively radiate yourself. You can trace the jamming signal back to the aircraft doing the jamming. Some AAMs even have a "home-on-jam" feature. Jamming is not some magic cloak of invisibility. The radar operator would still have enough of a return to vector an interceptor to the general vicinity of the target, allowing the airborne radar to burn through the jamming and get a lock
That's the point though; longer-range missiles can do all of that too so if jamming won't stop an interceptor under GCI it won't stop a heavy SAM either.
 
That's the point though; longer-range missiles can do all of that too so if jamming won't stop an interceptor under GCI it won't stop a heavy SAM either.

A heavy SAM versus a plane. Which one has the better jerk to dodge? Which one has the better pilot? Depends on the plane, but if the plane is a dogfighter, the missile is not going to win in the maneuver contest.
 
A heavy SAM versus a plane. Which one has the better jerk to dodge? Which one has the better pilot? Depends on the plane, but if the plane is a dogfighter, the missile is not going to win in the maneuver contest.
If it's a short-range pure interceptor, the early heavy SAM is equal on both counts. Its speed allowed it to minimize the chance of a successful dodge, and a good operator was as capable of tracking and hitting targets as a good pilot.
 
In the 60s, it was not a case of having surface to air missiles or interceptors, but how to integrate both.

Technology was not at a point were any of those options would guarantee enough redundancy without the other, but, thankfully prices and manpower cost were not yet at a point were countries rich enough to have modern air defence could only afford to choose one.

That choice was first made by navies still large enough to afford high tech, but no longer rich anough to afford both new DDG, SSK and CV. for navies it was a case of "can ships be protected by missiles alone?" The soviet navy mostly thought so, using a layered SAM defence and not investing in real carriers capable of operating credible interceptors until the 80s (and even then, in a limited form)
 

SsgtC

Banned
That's the point though; longer-range missiles can do all of that too so if jamming won't stop an interceptor under GCI it won't stop a heavy SAM either.
Actually, they can't. The SAM doesn't have a powerful enough radar to burn through the jamming. The interceptor does. Plus, in a manned aircraft, the pilot can use the old Mark 1Mod 0 eyeball and visually look for the target. That lets him, one the target is spotted, point the radar in the right direction and focus it's power. The SAM can't do that
 
F-106 was used in the Aggressor Program, as it had the maneuverability of the MiG-21, the best of any of the Century Series.

The Six was made to be an interceptor, so had over a ton of of electronics for SAGE integration, rather than that space and weight used for attack aircraft, like predicting bomb sight and terrain-following radar

And hardpoints are hardpoints
20120305030734-65c2f3a9-me.jpg

That was a hoax - the 106 could not fly with those on board. It would take a lot of work to turn it into an attack aircraft and as the USAF had the F4D/F4E why spend a lot of cash to build a second rate strike aircraft.
 
The important thing the Russians realized, early, was that air space has to be patrolled by shoot-no-shoot decision-makers aloft. Robots and teleoperated systems are not very good at that kind of discrimination. We in the West, often scoff at Soviet era pilots, thinking they were just there to fly basic maneuvers as told to them by their ground controllers. Not so. Real Russian aerial tactics, such as the hammer and anvil, relied on ground controllers to big picture the situation and paint it for their pilots, but Russian flight leaders took that information and used it in the air to engage adversaries with the appropriate set piece, much as we did when we finally worked the kinks out of AWACs air battle direction. They also realized that once the situation developed, it was man/machine against man/machine. It is not too hard to see a lot of functional similarities in how the F-4 is handled and the Mig 23.

Just as we moved past the fighter wall, once we figured out the furball was inevitable, so the Russians evolved past it. Mig 29 and Sukhoi 27 can be seen as natural evolutions and extensions of Russian air combat practice and not as mere reactions to the Falcon and the Eagle. IOW, don't be blinkered by certain myths or assumptions. The Mig 23 is as part of a natural evolution of Russian jet powered air combat as the Phantom is to ours. Just a phase that anyone with good tech and good tactics passes through to the next phase beyond. That is why we call them aircraft generations. You cannot get away from a certain kind of "standardization" on how to employ technology because the way we humans are evolved, kind of dictates that our technology has to be user friendly.

So if a Sukhoi Flanker and a Boeing Eagle look similar, it is not because someone copied someone else, or the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Rafale would be cited as England copying France or the other away around, it is because in that generation, different tech trees paralleled the same "superficial looking" solutions.

We should be looking with great curiosity at the F-35 and its contemporaries. I'm seeing quite a split as various different national tech trees come up with curious functional airframe differences that are strikingly dissimilar.

Just saying; respect the effort and genius. Nobody who bends aluminum and produces a viable fighter platform system complete with supporting systems, and then trains a pilot well to use that entire system of systems is to be disrespected ever. I sure as hello will not.

To a great extent that is true, though the Sukhoi T10 prototype underwent a redesign in 1972 because they became aware of the capabilities of the F15A and sort of freaked out.
 
That was a hoax - the 106 could not fly with those on board. It would take a lot of work to turn it into an attack aircraft and as the USAF had the F4D/F4E why spend a lot of cash to build a second rate strike aircraft.
Could not fly?

Why is that?

I'm not disputing that it couldn't dropped the bombs individually without new circuits laid in, just ejecting the entire TER. each drop tank was carrying around 2400 pounds each.

As long as the aircraft's balance was kept in range with the rest of it, like MTOW, no reason the Six couldn't have taken off with them. It carried around 14,000 pounds of fuel for a max fuel take off.
 
That was a hoax - the 106 could not fly with those on board. It would take a lot of work to turn it into an attack aircraft and as the USAF had the F4D/F4E why spend a lot of cash to build a second rate strike aircraft.

For this reason:
https://www.f-106deltadart.com/history-f106x.htm

"F-106J (Japan Version)

The Delta Dart was never exported to foreign air forces. There was a proposal for an F-106 version for Japan (F-106J) with an MG-10 fire control system (the same one that was fitted to the F-102A Delta Dagger) and six Super Falcon missiles. It was also to have ground-attack capability, with a pair of pylons underneath each wing capable of carrying bombs or fuel tanks. The Japanese sale never took place and several years later Japan undertook manufacture of the F-4EJ Phantom.

A pair of F-106's were displayed at the 25th Paris Air Show in June of 1963, but no customers were forthcoming. Convair tried to interest Canada in a Canadian version-not merely as in interceptor but also for the strike role. Nothing ever came of this idea. There were also plans for F-106 final assembly and production in Germany, but these plans never reached fruition"
 
Last edited:

SsgtC

Banned
Could not fly?

Why is that?

I'm not disputing that it couldn't dropped the bombs individually without new circuits laid in, just ejecting the entire TER. each drop tank was carrying around 2400 pounds each.

As long as the aircraft's balance was kept in range with the rest of it, like MTOW, no reason the Six couldn't have taken off with them. It carried around 14,000 pounds of fuel for a max fuel take off.
My understanding was that, while the TER could be mounted on the aircraft, it wasn't secure enough to stay mounted in flight. That's like fourth hand, so take it with a grain of salt.
 
And the F-106 was also quite fast at low level. (read the 2nd paragraph in this add.
While the Sound Barrier was found to not really be much of a barrier, there was a real thermal barrier.
I believe that the canopy was the ultimate limit on speed. Much faster, and would start to lose strength. Goes for the skin as well, IIRC, after one of the record breaking flights, it needed to get some areas reskinned. It kept the single engine speed record for some time
 
If it's a short-range pure interceptor, the early heavy SAM is equal on both counts. Its speed allowed it to minimize the chance of a successful dodge, and a good operator was as capable of tracking and hitting targets as a good pilot.

I presume you mean a Su 22 versus a HAWK?


Iranians were better trained than Iraqis and the Iraqis' pilots did not exactly know what they were doing. IOW if a Phantom can jink an SA2 then the Mig 21 is not going to have any problem either.

The Mig just has to jerk hard to throw the missile seeker out of FoV. It does not have to "turn" to dodge. The Mig 21 was able to jerk off line hard. It just did not turn very well.
 
Last edited:
Could not fly?

Why is that?

I'm not disputing that it couldn't dropped the bombs individually without new circuits laid in, just ejecting the entire TER. each drop tank was carrying around 2400 pounds each.

As long as the aircraft's balance was kept in range with the rest of it, like MTOW, no reason the Six couldn't have taken off with them. It carried around 14,000 pounds of fuel for a max fuel take off.

The USAF would have been wary of adding bombs to an F106 as they were having all sorts of problems with the F100 which also started out as a fighter and had attack capabilities added to it which developed wing cracks and outright structural failures in High G pull outs when used in CAS and strike missions. The F106 would have needed a reinforced or even redesigned wing to be an effective multirole fighter.

I like the F106, I consider it one of the prettiest delta winged fighter to fly. In the early 1960's the USAF had F105 in service and F111 in development, they had the F4D which did both fighter and attack missions in development, why would they spend money on the F106.
 
The USAF would have been wary of adding bombs to an F106 as they were having all sorts of problems with the F100 which also started out as a fighter and had attack capabilities added to it which developed wing cracks and outright structural failures in High G pull outs when used in CAS and strike missions. The F106 would have needed a reinforced or even redesigned wing to be an effective multirole fighter.

I like the F106, I consider it one of the prettiest delta winged fighter to fly. In the early 1960's the USAF had F105 in service and F111 in development, they had the F4D which did both fighter and attack missions in development, why would they spend money on the F106.
They wouldn't. The multi-role Six was always meant as an export model.
 
Top