The Dogfights in India

HarvardIV · **Joined:** Mon Oct 04, 2004 9:08 pm **Posts:** 1437

I just heard that there were wargames over in India recently, and we were skunked by the Indian A.F. MiGs. Can you believe MiG 27s beat our own F-15s? I heard the US Air Force is making a major effort to ensure that this doesn't happen in the future..

setter · **Posted:** Sat Nov 06, 2004 3:52 am

Hi All this has been discussed in various Defence and media publications of late

Apparently the US pilots were also able to fly the MiGs and were of the opinion that the F15 was in real trouble against it.

This was the first time a friendly Airforce was able to let the Yanks fly one.

To be realistic I think the newer MiGs should be rated against a F22 NOT an F15 - different generations.

Regards
John P

Jeffrey · **Joined:** Sun Sep 05, 2004 9:35 pm **Posts:** 253

setter wrote:

To be realistic I think the newer MiGs should be rated against a F22 NOT an F15 - different generations.

Regards
John P

Considering the F15 was first flown in 1972 and the Su27, from which the Su30's the indians have was developed, and mig 29 both first flew in 1977 they aren't that far apart except for the modifications, canards etc, which change the Su27 to Su 30 specs. Somehow putting them into the same generation, albeit for the modifications again, as the F22 doesn't sit well with me John.

Personally I'd say that since the F15 was never upgraded to the extent the Su27's have been then I'd say the Su30's would be about midpoint in generations between the F15 and F22.

Forgotten Field · **Posted:** Sat Nov 06, 2004 9:49 am

...beat by former USSR technology, flown by former British Subjects. I'm going out and buying that "hooked on physics" tape for my 1 year old so we might be able to get on top again...

HarvardIV · **Joined:** Mon Oct 04, 2004 9:08 pm **Posts:** 1437

Well, hold on. MiG-27s beat the F-15. They are practically the same as a Mig-23 a early 1970s design.

setter · **Posted:** Sat Nov 06, 2004 3:23 pm

Hi Jeffrey

I accept you points and thanks for your coments

According to local Mags here in Aus the Indian Aircraft was the latest spec. However as you say comparisons are not direct so I suppose it's all a bit academic and in any case relates not just to the aircraft but also to the quality of the pilots . AWACS etc so hopefully we will never find out how true it would be in practice.

As an aside a MiG 21 UTI was flown for a while at Williamtown RAAF base as a Warbird but by senior RAAF pilots and they were somewhat surprised by it's performance against that of the Mirage 111 we had previously operated - although it was a little more roughly built , it flew very well and it was thought in the hands of good pilots would have been a real handful against our Mirages.

Regards
John P

Jeffrey · **Joined:** Sun Sep 05, 2004 9:35 pm **Posts:** 253

yeah, heard about that MiG 21. I guess once again it is a case of pilots and support as much as the airframes eh?

Tony · **Posted:** Sat Nov 06, 2004 9:15 pm

I heard the RNZAF A4's used to give the Mirage's a hard time as well

Browny · **Posted:** Sun Nov 07, 2004 1:59 am

Hi Guys,

Interesting string!

I think the issue is to know your aircrafts strengths, weaknesses and idiosyncracies and develop tactics that would make the best of these.

In the case of the Mirage111, it must be remembered that this aircraft was designed as an interceptor (much the same as the F-104), and with it's delta wing was totally unsuited to a turning fight (deltas bleed off energy quickly in turns).

I don't doubt that if engaged by a well flown Mig21 (with the Mig jock dictating the terms of the combat), that the Mirage would have had trouble. Similarly a close in turning engagement with an A-4 (with it's maneuvering slats) would have been a handful for a Mirage. If you're fliying a Mirage the key issue is to keep the engagement on your terms.

Of course, if you have a platform like the Mirage, and find youself lagging in the maneuverability race, you can always up-fit better avionics and weapons and take it from there. Once we got the -550 onto the Miracle, what was lacking in airframe performace was partially offset by missile performance.....but we won't go into that.

To bring this back into a warbirds context, the same issues faced the RAAF & USAAC P40 pilots when they first encountered the Zero over Darwin and New Guinea. There was no way in the World that a P40 was ever going to get the better of a Zero in a close-in turning dog fight. The P40 jocks quickly developed tactics to take advantage of the P40's superior speed (particulary in a dive) and superior firepower. By never letting the Zero jock dictate the terms of combat (ie: a lower speed, turning dog fight) the P40 jocks managed to turn the tide against the Zero's previous air superiority in the SW Pacific.

Basically guys, it often doesn't matter what fighter you have it's how you use it, and as Jeffery said, how good your support systems are(ie:maintenance). Also, if the engagement isn't to your terms then run away and come back latter when things suit your platform.

Sorry that was long winded, but thats my ten cents worth (flame suit on)!

Cheers

Browny

HarvardIV · **Joined:** Mon Oct 04, 2004 9:08 pm **Posts:** 1437

Can anyone imagine a Mig 27 beating an F-15C? I thought Mig 27s were totally inferior to anything except an F-4..

Browny · **Posted:** Sun Nov 07, 2004 2:21 am

I agree Harvard, not a Mig27, however an Su27, yes absolutely!

I think the report may be refering to Su27s not Mig27s.

HarvardIV · **Joined:** Mon Oct 04, 2004 9:08 pm **Posts:** 1437

No it was a Mig 27， read A.F. Magazine. Don't believe me, read the magazine and believe for yourself, it's a fact.

Browny · **Posted:** Sun Nov 07, 2004 2:59 am

Ok, I believe you Harvard.

In that case, here is another Russian airframe that was totally under-rated by the West!.......Or maybe, we just believed the anti-Soviet technology propaganda that we were fed by the Western aircraft industry for all those years.

I know that their product was "agricultural", but it obviously performed when it counted. I remember working with the Russians back in 1993 (just after the Soviet melt-down), standing on the spine of a Mig31 and being totally blown away by the welded skin structure and generally rough finish. Yep they looked like they were made in a tractor factory, but the Mig29 & Su27 display routine was breath taking.

Cheers

Browny

airnutz · **Posted:** Sun Nov 07, 2004 4:08 am

Dirty Harry reminded us that, "a man has got to know his limitations."
Claire Chennault taught us, "a man has got to know his strengths"
Billy Mitchell taught us, "you're never as smart or prepared as you think"

And given that... our collective experience has taught us that "an L-bird
can knock-down a Sukhoi or an F-15, if one guy is committed to WIN, more than the
other!"

mrhenniger · **Posted:** Sun Nov 07, 2004 9:55 am

HarvardIV wrote:

Can you believe MiG 27s beat our own F-15s?

Actually they were MiG-29s. Therre was an excellant article in a recent Aviation Week and Space Technology on the subject. I just skimmed though it about a week ago. From what I remember the Indian AF used mixed flight packages of MiG-29s, MiG-21s and possibly something else. The idea was to use bring the strengths of the various airframes/weapon systems into use as one unit. I also remember the point being made in the article that the USAF seriously underestimated the capabilities of the Indian AF. I am not trying to slam the USAF, but this is not the first time this error has been made in history. The error tends to repeat itself on a regular basis. For example the surprising capabilities of the Mitsubishi Zero when it was first met in battle, and then there was the MiG-15s over Korea. Both are examples of underestimating a foe and over confidence in ones own forces.

I'll see if I can find that article and post some more on the subject. It was a very interesting article.

Mike

Warbird Information Exchange

The Dogfights in India

Who is online