N328KF From United States, joined May 2004, 5279 posts, RR: 4 Reply 2, posted (3 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 3040 times:
The F-15 was the biggest, baddest dog on the block. It was estimated to be the air superiority fighter that could take down anything else in the skies, by being able to hold its own in a dogfight what it could not nail at BVR. History has shown this to be true. Anything up until that point might be shown to be a good interceptor or a good dogfighter, but rarely both.
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
Blackbird From United States, joined Oct 1999, 3334 posts, RR: 5 Reply 3, posted (3 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3027 times:
So if the US had an airplane that was a tiny bit better, they would have selected that one instead?
I additionally was wondering also if they preferred the fact that the plane was a single seater, and because of it's nice light work-load (HOTAS and advanced radar system) compared to many other contemporary aircraft, making it very easy to fly and easier to use in combat.
Bingo From United States, joined Nov 2006, 337 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (3 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2986 times:
Quoting Blackbird (Thread starter): Out of curiousity, why did the IAF select the F-15 among the various other fighters in the United States' inventory?
N328KF From United States, joined May 2004, 5279 posts, RR: 4 Reply 6, posted (3 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2968 times:
Quoting EMBQA (Reply 4): What other fighters....?? Back in 1975-76 when they first started getting them is was the only choice.. the F-16 was still in flight test
The only other choice would have been the F-14, which is a great BVR interceptor but not an air superiority fighter as such.
When you think about it, the IAF probably would have done just as well with the F-14 (eg. Bekaa would have still been wiped clean of aircraft) but the F-15 is just more suited to what they do.
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
XT6Wagon From United States, joined Feb 2007, 1514 posts, RR: 2 Reply 7, posted (3 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2950 times:
Quoting N328KF (Reply 6): The only other choice would have been the F-14, which is a great BVR interceptor but not an air superiority fighter as such.
and the F14 trades insane cost, MX requiments, and other issues with its complexity for a bunch of crap the IAF has absolutely no interest in. Even the Phoenix missiles were not exactly desired given the small area they have to cover, so carting around missles that size for extra range is a bit silly. The wieght and cost to be capible of carrier landings was rather useless to them.
So regardless if the F14 could do the role, the F15 was far superior for THIER needs.
LY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5500 posts, RR: 10 Reply 8, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2691 times:
Their choice was between the F-14 and the F-15. In the summer of 1973 a small Israeli delegation visited the States and flew early versions of both. The Israeli pilots were completely in love with the F-15 and loathed the F-14 (A model, TF-30, need I say more?) to the point of ridicule.
Besides the pilots' impression, there was also the fact that the IDF/AF had absolutely no use for all the fancy BVR toys the F-14 came with. Even AIM-7 kills by Israeli F-4's and F-15's are few and far between, all fighting was done in close range with visual ID. If the F-14 was purchased the AIM-54 would have never been fired operationally, and I'm not so sure that the Bekaa Valley battles would have been the same: the F-14 would probably not have been allowed into any engagements, and if it was it would have probably suffered at least some losses (the Syrians weren't suicidal: low altitude ambushes with formations of 3-4 MiG-23M/MF/MLs were the preferred method of initiating an engagement).
The F-15 was a big step forward for the IDF/AF, much more so than the F-16, and no one in their right mind would say that it was a bad choice.
That kind of was somewhat after Israel actually bought the plane. And if you watched the video you'd have heard Major (He was a Captain then...) Nedivi saying that if he realized he actually lost a wing he would have just bailed out.
XT6Wagon,
Quote: and the F14 trades insane cost, MX requiments, and other issues with its complexity for a bunch of crap the IAF has absolutely no interest in. Even the Phoenix missiles were not exactly desired given the small area they have to cover, so carting around missles that size for extra range is a bit silly. The wieght and cost to be capible of carrier landings was rather useless to them.
So regardless if the F14 could do the role, the F15 was far superior for THIER needs.
What do you mean insane costs, and maintenance requirements, and complexity? You mean the swing wings? Because if you're talking computers, the F-15 was WAAAAY more complex....
LY744,
Quote: Their choice was between the F-14 and the F-15. In the summer of 1973 a small Israeli delegation visited the States and flew early versions of both. The Israeli pilots were completely in love with the F-15 and loathed the F-14 (A model, TF-30, need I say more?) to the point of ridicule.
So, the gripe was primarily the thrust to weight ratio and temperamental engines (a big gripe!) then? The single-seat / twin-seat thing wasn't a big issue then?
By the way, is this normal when exporting a fighter to another country that delegates from that country come over here and fly early versions of our fighter? (Just curious as Israel tends to get special treatment -- They always got all the bells and whistles on their exports when most countries get stripped down planes)
Quote: Besides the pilots' impression, there was also the fact that the IDF/AF had absolutely no use for all the fancy BVR toys the F-14 came with. Even AIM-7 kills by Israeli F-4's and F-15's are few and far between, all fighting was done in close range with visual ID.
Yeah for the most part the only times they actually used the AIM-7 was when they knocked down MiG-25's.
Quote: If the F-14 was purchased the AIM-54 would have never been fired operationally, and I'm not so sure that the Bekaa Valley battles would have been the same: the F-14 would probably not have been allowed into any engagements,
Why wouldn't they have?
Quote: and if it was it would have probably suffered at least some losses (the Syrians weren't suicidal: low altitude ambushes with formations of 3-4 MiG-23M/MF/MLs were the preferred method of initiating an engagement).
When you say low level ambush, do you mean they caught the IAF pilots at low altitude and ambushed from above (ambushing them at LOW level), or did they fly low and then pop up (low-altitude ambush)? Because I thought pulse-doppler radars aren't affected by ground-clutter... (The F-14 and F-15 both used 'em), so a low altitude attack sounds pointless as the radar could pick them out...
XT6Wagon From United States, joined Feb 2007, 1514 posts, RR: 2 Reply 10, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2643 times:
Quoting Blackbird (Reply 9): When you say low level ambush, do you mean they caught the IAF pilots at low altitude and ambushed from above (ambushing them at LOW level), or did they fly low and then pop up (low-altitude ambush)? Because I thought pulse-doppler radars aren't affected by ground-clutter... (The F-14 and F-15 both used 'em), so a low altitude attack sounds pointless as the radar could pick them out...
None of the radars at the time were that decent at picking other fighters out well enough to direct weapons fire with the target at low altitude. Even today dropping to the deck offers some nice protection even with our far more advanced radars.
Quoting Blackbird (Reply 9): What do you mean insane costs, and maintenance requirements, and complexity? You mean the swing wings? Because if you're talking computers, the F-15 was WAAAAY more complex....
I think you haven't paid much attention to the real costs to keep the F14 rolling. Part of it is that the USN used them for carrier duty which jacks up the cost... but they were hardly push em hard, put em away wet planes. Add in that the F14 is filled with lots and lots of stuff the IDF couldn't care less about why would they get it?
Quoting Blackbird (Reply 9): Quote:
If the F-14 was purchased the AIM-54 would have never been fired operationally, and I'm not so sure that the Bekaa Valley battles would have been the same: the F-14 would probably not have been allowed into any engagements,
Why wouldn't they have?
I think you need to spend some time with a map, and the range figures for the AIM-54. Nevermind that they couldn't possibly use it at long range over land for 99.9% of the time they needed to fire on something. Air to Air combat over Isreal isn't quite knife fight in a closet tight, but it certainly doesn't give you the luxury of running around or opening the range on your opponent to fire off a huge ol missile.
N328KF From United States, joined May 2004, 5279 posts, RR: 4 Reply 11, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2578 times:
Quoting Blackbird (Reply 9): By the way, is this normal when exporting a fighter to another country that delegates from that country come over here and fly early versions of our fighter? (Just curious as Israel tends to get special treatment -- They always got all the bells and whistles on their exports when most countries get stripped down planes)
I don't know about some of them, but certainly some types of allies warrant this. The Brits have had a pilot involved in X-35C/F-35C testing for some time.
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
LY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5500 posts, RR: 10 Reply 12, posted (3 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 2548 times:
Quoting Blackbird (Reply 9): When you say low level ambush, do you mean they caught the IAF pilots at low altitude and ambushed from above (ambushing them at LOW level), or did they fly low and then pop up (low-altitude ambush)? Because I thought pulse-doppler radars aren't affected by ground-clutter... (The F-14 and F-15 both used 'em), so a low altitude attack sounds pointless as the radar could pick them out...
A formation of MiGs takes off and flies in a tight formation (to deny the Israelis the ability to tell how many a/c there are in the flight), and penetrates the area where combat is taking place at very low altitude, to hopefuly avoid detection by radar. One MiG pops up a bit somewhere at the edge of the firing envelope of the Israeli formation they're attacking. The idea was to "tease" the F-15s/F-16s to close in on the bait while the rest of the MiGs were still down low, hopefully hidden. Dogfight ensues.
This is the tactic that the Soviet advisors worked out for the Syrians to use. It was probably their best shot but it didn't work in practice, not the least because the Israelis themselves have been using similar ambush tactics for the better part of 15 years.
If the F-14 was out there, I don't think the IDF/AF command would have been comfortable having it duke it out with MiG-21s and 23s in a tight turning fight in low altitude.
Quoting Blackbird (Reply 9): The single-seat / twin-seat thing wasn't a big issue then?
Probably not, although it did take the IDF/AF a while to catch up on training enough navigators (what they call WSOs) to fill the back seats of their F-4Es when those started arriving in the late 60's/early 70's. If they felt that the things that the F-14 excelled in were the things the IDF/AF needed, then I'm sure they would have gone for the Tomcat, despite the two-seat layout.
Blackbird From United States, joined Oct 1999, 3334 posts, RR: 5 Reply 13, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2471 times:
XT6Wagon,
Quote: I think you haven't paid much attention to the real costs to keep the F14 rolling. Part of it is that the USN used them for carrier duty which jacks up the cost... but they were hardly push em hard, put em away wet planes. Add in that the F14 is filled with lots and lots of stuff the IDF couldn't care less about why would they get it?
Push 'em hard, put 'em away? I thought that's what all fighters were designed for? The F-14 had both air superiority, and air-defense/interceptor functions...
I have no idea what you're talking about when you're saying it was filled with lots of stuff the IDF couldn't care less about... Are you talking about the AIM-54 Phoenix? Or the equipment to enable it to land on a carrier-deck?
Quote: I think you need to spend some time with a map, and the range figures for the AIM-54. Nevermind that they couldn't possibly use it at long range over land for 99.9% of the time they needed to fire on something. Air to Air combat over Isreal isn't quite knife fight in a closet tight, but it certainly doesn't give you the luxury of running around or opening the range on your opponent to fire off a huge ol missile.
So 99% of the time the missile was in the R-min? I figured it could be fired within the ranges shown, just wouldn't be worth the million bucks to fire it when you could pop a sidewinder or a sparrow off...
Quote: I don't know about some of them, but certainly some types of allies warrant this. The Brits have had a pilot involved in X-35C/F-35C testing for some time.
So this has happened before...
LY744,
Quote: A formation of MiGs takes off and flies in a tight formation (to deny the Israelis the ability to tell how many a/c there are in the flight), and penetrates the area where combat is taking place at very low altitude, to hopefuly avoid detection by radar. One MiG pops up a bit somewhere at the edge of the firing envelope of the Israeli formation they're attacking. The idea was to "tease" the F-15s/F-16s to close in on the bait while the rest of the MiGs were still down low, hopefully hidden. Dogfight ensues.
Understood.
Quote: This is the tactic that the Soviet advisors worked out for the Syrians to use. It was probably their best shot but it didn't work in practice, not the least because the Israelis themselves have been using similar ambush tactics for the better part of 15 years.
Odd, I've they'd been using this tactic for 15 years, why didn't the Syrians or Soviets know about this?
Quote: If the F-14 was out there, I don't think the IDF/AF command would have been comfortable having it duke it out with MiG-21s and 23s in a tight turning fight in low altitude.
Really? I could sort of understand the MiG-21, but the MiG-23's from what I heard had all sorts of limitations on their wings... the pivots didn't swing the wings forward or back fast enough, while in transit there were all sorts of G-limits, if not limits with varying wing-position (The F-14's wing to the best of my knowledge could be pivoted faster back and forth and full G's could be used regardless of wing-position) unless at low altitudes they virtually always had their wings swept back (which at high airspeeds would make sense)...
Quote: Probably not, although it did take the IDF/AF a while to catch up on training enough navigators (what they call WSOs) to fill the back seats of their F-4Es when those started arriving in the late 60's/early 70's. If they felt that the things that the F-14 excelled in were the things the IDF/AF needed, then I'm sure they would have gone for the Tomcat, despite the two-seat layout.
LY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5500 posts, RR: 10 Reply 14, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2458 times:
Quoting Blackbird (Reply 13): I have no idea what you're talking about when you're saying it was filled with lots of stuff the IDF couldn't care less about... Are you talking about the AIM-54 Phoenix? Or the equipment to enable it to land on a carrier-deck?
Its weapons system (radar, optical-far-looking thingy, Phoenix) and a swing wing are two things that make it considerably more complicated than an F-15. Betcha the F-14 was going to cost more too.
...and one more thing about the two seat aspect: maybe it was a disadvantage in 1973-75, I'm not sure, but from the early 80's and onwards, the Israelis made it a point to purchase as many two seater fighters as they could, to be used for much more than just training. The 3 batches of F-15C/Ds they purchased included a high percentage of Ds (13 Ds and 18 Cs were bought in total). When they received some used USAF F-15A/Bs in the early 90s only the Bs were put to use, while the As were scavenged for parts, put in storage or used for decoration.
Currently the IDF/AF has 2 squadrons completely composed of F-16Ds, and I suppose nothing more needs to be said about the F-15Is and F-16Is.
Quoting Blackbird (Reply 13): Odd, I've they'd been using this tactic for 15 years, why didn't the Syrians or Soviets know about this?
They probably did.
Quoting Blackbird (Reply 13): Really? I could sort of understand the MiG-21, but the MiG-23's from what I heard had all sorts of limitations on their wings...
The MiG-23 is legendary in its various short-comings, many Soviet flight cadets killed themselves trying to land early model -23s. It should be noted that there were about 3 different generations of MiG-23s, with the earliest ones being the worst in all respects (the fuselage of a -23 with the engine and avionics of a MiG-21) and the later ones being somewhat more manageable. The one thing that the Flogger could, apparently, do better than the F-15 and F-16 is accelerate in a straight line, with the wings swept back of course.
Could the F-14A out fly the MiG-23MF in a dogfight? Probably, but 25 years ago we wouldn't be so sure of that.
Bottom line is that both the F-14A and the MiG-23 would (were) have been ill suited for the kind of air war that took place in June of 1982. Syrian MiG-23s (and 21s) were severely outclassed in all respects, something that Russian story tellers don't seem to take into account while passing down yet another legend about Israeli F-15s and -16s being shot down one after another by heroic Syrian pilots (who are always subsequently shot down by the Israeli wingman, conveniently destroying any possible evidence of the kill). That's why Israeli pilots that have flown in the 60's 70's and 80's will always appreciate a Mirage or an F-4 kill much more than a 1982 kill.
XT6Wagon From United States, joined Feb 2007, 1514 posts, RR: 2 Reply 15, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2394 times:
Quoting Blackbird (Reply 13): So 99% of the time the missile was in the R-min? I figured it could be fired within the ranges shown, just wouldn't be worth the million bucks to fire it when you could pop a sidewinder or a sparrow off...
No, do more research into the Aim-54. Its a HUGE missile. It costs you the ability to carry a decent QUANTITY of missles. It costs you alot of extra money to buy, train, and fly around with it compared to other missiles. All for a range advantage that is of no use to them.
Quoting LY744 (Reply 14): Its weapons system (radar, optical-far-looking thingy, Phoenix) and a swing wing are two things that make it considerably more complicated than an F-15. Betcha the F-14 was going to cost more too.
The navalization that needs to take place for a plane to be used on a carrier also hurts it hard. Thats alot of extra wieght that you don't need unless you are trapping on a pitching carrier deck its entire life. Extra wieght for no benifit is lower performance, higher costs, and overall makes for a more troublesome weapon system.
Keesje From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 8009 posts, RR: 26 Reply 16, posted (3 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2386 times:
The F15 has great performance, still superior to most fighters. Also great payload range. I think that what makes it dated now is the fact that it is a flying radar reflector, worse then almost all other fighters..
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined Oct 1999, 3334 posts, 
From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5500 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 8009 posts, 