Foxbat

[Guest ruhzyo]

Lil' old, maybe posted before, but I don't give a fuk.

 

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/dogfight...xbat/2597553261

[+Muesli]

F-F-F-Fabulous!!!!!!!

[+Typhoid]

couple of erroneous bits of info in that clip.

 

The Predator didn't, and doesn't, carry an air to air missile. So not much of a "dogfight".

 

The missile launch by the Predator would have to fall into the category of "Last act of Defiance" sort of thing and a long shot (heh) at decoying the Iraqi missile.

 

Also, that CBS (and who can forget the BS in CBS!!) clip claimed that we did not score a confirmed kill against any SCUD's. That is based on a technical assessment of Patriot kill capabilities which is some what misleading. We actually did hit the majority of them and my missile warning crew was awarded a plaque by a Patriot battalion with a SCUD fragment and the caption

 

"This Scud's for You"

 

with their thanks for our part in target detection, tracking and hand-off during those engagements.

 

at any rate -

 

cool flick!!

[+Crusader]

ATAS system was added to the Predator in late 2002, August/September IIRC.

That missile duel ( not dogfighting.. typical media nonsense .. dogfight = hard maneuvering ) was in December 2002 and thus the first combat action of the Predator/ATAS combination.

[sparkomatic]

if you think about it...essentially a Mach 3 capable, very expensive interceptor going against a drone...one could say that is not really a smart use of resources, especially in the age of decoys

[+Typhoid]

if you think about it...essentially a Mach 3 capable, very expensive interceptor going against a drone...one could say that is not really a smart use of resources, especially in the age of decoys

 

 

almost as dumb as using smart bomb$ carried by megamillion$ bomber$ on trucks and camels carrying supplies..................

 

 

cost effective is a misnomer. When you need to take something out - whatever can actually do the job and is available is all that really matters.

[vanir]

The Foxbat is speed restricted to 2.5 Mach. The Tumanski engines have a habit of overspeeding above this speed if you keep the throttle at the gate stops (and three rings lit). Very careful pilot management is required to prevent this but ultimately it was discovered "engine destruction was inevitable" above this speed. The airframe has an engineering limit of 2.83 Mach but this is arguably liberal, considering an 80% basic tempered steel structure outright (its 8% titanium restricted to airfoil leading edges). It is true that an Egyptian Foxbat-B (?) was clocked by Israeli ground stations in 1973 doing speeds of up to 3.2 Mach, however its engines were found to be completely destroyed upon landing and the pilot/aircraft was lucky to survive. This model also uses the improved BD-300 Tumanskis in common with the later Foxbat-E (80's update). Essentially the deployment of Foxbat squadrons involved the speed restriction of 2.5 Mach unless a global scale conflict ensued and the type was required to down cruise missiles, under which circumstances all restrictions would be lifted and the pilots more than prepared to risk self-destruction of their aircraft in defence of the motherland.

US Intelligence didn't know these elements about the MiG-25 however prior to the examination of Belyenko's Foxbat-A in Japan 1976.

 

None of these points apply to the Foxhound, but then the Foxbat isn't nearly as expensive.

 

The sense in which the Foxbat, in particular the Foxbat-A would be regarded as tremendously expensive is in terms of specialised training and serviceability. The B-300 Tumanskis have a service life of 150hrs. During the 80's update where Ukranian Foxbat-A were either exchanged for, or updated to Foxbat-E standards (IRST, ECM, Sapfire-25, BD-300 engines w/1000hrs TBO), it was discovered that instructors had to be flown in from Russia also, to retrain the pilots because they'd forgotten how to fly it. The local Foxbat squadrons simply didn't want to go to the trouble or expense of continually having to replace the engines in the Foxbat-A, so flew them as little as possible at first, then not at all. In terms of construction and technology it is not a particularly expensive machine.

 

As far as I know all interceptor versions of the Foxbat seen in action in the Middle East have been the Foxbat-A type (1965 vintage and not so much as a 360RWR, nor lookdown/shootdown...by this I mean poor signal translation). About its only virtue would be climb rate and a radar signal so powerful it can reputedly "burn through" any ECM attempts used against it...assuming you're within its 50km tracking range. Not much of a show but whilst I've very little familiarity with the various Middle Eastern conflicts and technology deployment, I do remember reading around the traps the only (Israeli?) F-15 shot down was by a Foxbat. And that Israeli Air Force doctrine was to seek out Foxbats and destroy them on the ground wherever possible, before any major aerial engagements within range of an airfield, just to cut the risks.

 

I mean the Foxbat is old hat, it's outdated, it's completely outmatched, it's from another era and predates the Eagle by not only conception, but entire construction technologies (the Eagle inherited technologies developed for the Valkyrie project, the Foxbat has the Fishbed as a predecessor). But it's still not the smartest thing in the world to go around ignoring one in your airspace...apparently.

 

Obviously I quite like the Foxbat and Foxhound, I quite like any warplane with specific and unquestionable strengths. I think any warplane with any kind of distinct advantage, no matter how many disadvantages to compensate, can still be used to advantage, given an appropriate circumstance.

Edited December 19, 2008 by vanir

[Jug]

The Foxbat is speed restricted to 2.5 Mach. The Tumanski engines have a habit of overspeeding above this speed if you keep the throttle at the gate stops (and three rings lit). Very careful pilot management is required to prevent this but ultimately it was discovered "engine destruction was inevitable" above this speed. The airframe has an engineering limit of 2.83 Mach but this is arguably liberal, considering an 80% basic tempered steel structure outright (its 8% titanium restricted to airfoil leading edges). It is true that an Egyptian Foxbat-B (?) was clocked by Israeli ground stations in 1973 doing speeds of up to 3.2 Mach, however its engines were found to be completely destroyed upon landing and the pilot/aircraft was lucky to survive. This model also uses the improved BD-300 Tumanskis in common with the later Foxbat-E (80's update). Essentially the deployment of Foxbat squadrons involved the speed restriction of 2.5 Mach unless a global scale conflict ensued and the type was required to down cruise missiles, under which circumstances all restrictions would be lifted and the pilots more than prepared to risk self-destruction of their aircraft in defence of the motherland.

US Intelligence didn't know these elements about the MiG-25 however prior to the examination of Belyenko's Foxbat-A in Japan 1976.

 

None of these points apply to the Foxhound, but then the Foxbat isn't nearly as expensive.

 

The sense in which the Foxbat, in particular the Foxbat-A would be regarded as tremendously expensive is in terms of specialised training and serviceability. The B-300 Tumanskis have a service life of 150hrs. During the 80's update where Ukranian Foxbat-A were either exchanged for, or updated to Foxbat-E standards (IRST, ECM, Sapfire-25, BD-300 engines w/1000hrs TBO), it was discovered that instructors had to be flown in from Russia also, to retrain the pilots because they'd forgotten how to fly it. The local Foxbat squadrons simply didn't want to go to the trouble or expense of continually having to replace the engines in the Foxbat-A, so flew them as little as possible at first, then not at all. In terms of construction and technology it is not a particularly expensive machine.

 

As far as I know all interceptor versions of the Foxbat seen in action in the Middle East have been the Foxbat-A type (1965 vintage and not so much as a 360RWR, nor lookdown/shootdown...by this I mean poor signal translation). About its only virtue would be climb rate and a radar signal so powerful it can reputedly "burn through" any ECM attempts used against it...assuming you're within its 50km tracking range. Not much of a show but whilst I've very little familiarity with the various Middle Eastern conflicts and technology deployment, I do remember reading around the traps the only (Israeli?) F-15 shot down was by a Foxbat. And that Israeli Air Force doctrine was to seek out Foxbats and destroy them on the ground wherever possible, before any major aerial engagements within range of an airfield, just to cut the risks.

 

I mean the Foxbat is old hat, it's outdated, it's completely outmatched, it's from another era and predates the Eagle by not only conception, but entire construction technologies (the Eagle inherited technologies developed for the Valkyrie project, the Foxbat has the Fishbed as a predecessor). But it's still not the smartest thing in the world to go around ignoring one in your airspace...apparently.

 

Obviously I quite like the Foxbat and Foxhound, I quite like any warplane with specific and unquestionable strengths. I think any warplane with any kind of distinct advantage, no matter how many disadvantages to compensate, can still be used to advantage, given an appropriate circumstance.

I seem to recall being quite nervous when one was in the neighborhood..............

[+JediMaster]

I don't recall ever hearing of any F-15 shot down by any plane, only SAMs and/or AAA.

 

A MiG-25 did apparently shoot down a Hornet in Desert Storm, I believe, that being the most modern plane a Foxbat ever defeated.

[vanir]

I don't think I have the book any more which describes the incident. iirc I'm pretty sure it was an F-15, I think it was an Israeli pilot talking about it. He was making the point due to Soviet export downgrades on Floggers the Foxbat, even with old tech was probably the most dangerous enemy bird around at the time, but even so it was a somewhat lucky engagement for the MiG pilot. It's been something like ten years since I read about this however, I guess I could try looking it up on the web...

 

My memory has been way off before on occasion :D

 

---------------------

 

(edit)

 

Indeed, you appear quite right. A Hornet was shot down by the Foxbat. The engagement I'm thinking of was inconclusive. Both the MiG and a flight of Eagles (joined by more Eagles) missed each other with missiles and the Eagles chased the MiG off.

Edited December 19, 2008 by vanir