In the case of the Mig23 shooting down the F-14, I remember reading an article which stated that the Iranian F-14 pilot and RIO were defecting to Iraq and were told by their Iraqi contact to cross the border through a pre planned corridor where air defense would temporarily be turned off. However, for some reason or the other, air patrol in the area was not notified and a Mig23 pilot visually spotted an F-14 with its radar off. He did the logical thing and assumed it was an infiltration mission was flying right over his head so he flew onto the Tomcat's tail and shoved an R60 up his exhaust.
They were at least two intances of MiG-23ML's shooting down F-14's, one of them was indeed the attempted defection, but before that a flight of two ML's ambushed and shotdown the F-14A flown by Hassem All-e-Agha, resulting in his death.
That Mirage F1 was repaired, and the pilot survived, becoming eventually the commander of 1 Sqn. Pretty cool person, and lots of stories from him. He ran out of runway, because the missile had destroyed his brake parachute, which he did need on that short runway. not visible in that photo is the berm wall a few meters in front of him when he stopped, and he was out of the cockpit, and having a cigarette, before the fire brigade reached him. Still with an armed ejection seat.
I think you are confusing with a different event. There were a few F1AZs damaged over the years but from ground fired/launched weapons. The 27 September 1987 incident pictured here saw a single R-60MK launched damaging the aircraft. The plane overshot the Rundu runway having lost his hydraulics and braking parachute by the damage caused, ran straight through the base fence and stopped in the bush just outside. It stopped when it crashed over a boulder which collapsed the nosewheel and triggered the ejection seat. The pilot -Arthur Piercy - was paralysed when his seat didn't fully function so he fell to earth still strapped into it - needless to say he unfortunately never flew a Mirage again. His F1CZ was repaired by mating its rear fuselage to the forward fuselage of another F1CZ that was damaged in a hard landing and caught fire, damaging the rear fuselage.
R-60 role was basically of being a sidearm. The main accent was put on med range missiles, and R-60 was needed for finishing off, ambushes and self-defense (hence why it was present on helicopters and Su-25)
Another great video as usual. Keep up the great work!!!!! Also how about a video on the Combat Tree equipment used on F4D Phantoms in Vietnam which could passively detect Migs via their IFF equipment. That would be extremely interesting as the system was classified back then
Oooh… looking forward to the Flagon episode. Balloons and civilian airliners, watch out! Still, one of the coolest-looking fighters ever made. In a very weird, Soviet way of course.
Most Soviet jets are pretty cool, but the Su-15 especially. Although I like all the Sukhoi interceptors, the Su-9/11, Su-15. The whole family derived from the Su-7 ultimately, which is also just beautiful looking.
I thought he was mentioning that incident when talking about shooting at a Korean airliner. I had no idea the Soviets did it twice! What a bunch of assholes. @@minhthunguyendang9900
You got wrong perception of MiG-23. First models were underpowered, but even them were more agile in most scenarios than MiG-21 or F-4. When Soviets got their hands on F-5 it beat the crap out of MiG-21, but MiG-23 could keep up with it as long as it mantailed speed. Germans also evaluated MLA's agility surprisingly being comparable to F-16's, altho this seems indeed strange. I am not sure but I belive story about MiG-23 being slugish comes from soviet instruction to green pilots to not sweep wings below 45 degrees in combat cause risk of exceeding structural speed limit. What limited MiG-23 of being a capable dogfighter was not it's fligt performance (especially in later models), but a limited cockpit view.
The MIG-23M/MF was very agile aircraft. When ML/MLA/MLD arrived it was even better than any 3rd gen fighters. I attached interview wtih pilot who flew them in Czechoslovak air force, he also speaks about R-60. Video is in czech but there are subtittles. th-cam.com/video/v5e5X-GaFfw/w-d-xo.html
Hmm - a CONSTANT PEG Pilot flying the MiG-23 as part of the dogfight training for US pilots rather confirms the impression of the MiG-23 not being a capable dogfighter. I'm not sure where the conclusion of it being comparable to the F-16 comes from - that seems to be quite a stretch. th-cam.com/video/0H3NfLNu6z4/w-d-xo.html
@@JonasCVogt Idk, what version did he fly? I am not to much in to airshows, but all flying american 23's I saw were either attack or trainers. Among all so called 3rd gen's late 23's had highest thrust/weight ratio aproaching high 0.9s and variable wing gave it impressive lift.
@@JonasCVogt While this is true, the problem was that the Constant Peg program only had received MiG-23MSs in the 70s from the Middle East, and these were the worst type of production MiG-23s as the structure of the plane was horrible and the wing was very structurally limited to like 3-4G and the radar was basically a MiG-21s radar, so while the version they got is not good, the ML/MLA/MLD are so much better they might as well be a different aircraft, also because if you look online there is or are articles stating that Libyan pilots I think, were able to dogfight F-14s with their MiG-23MLDs.
When I was a weapons troop in the Air Force (79 to 2000) we were warned about some Soviet A2A missiles that were actually slightly radioactive. This was supposed to be a secondary effect of getting hit by the missile in that it would imbed radioactive shrapnel into the airframe which would make clean up and repair more difficult. The Soviets quickly decided this was a bad idea, (it affected their own loading crews and aircraft that carried it) so they were sold to states like Iraq. Good video as always
@@Bytheemperor I stood against the USSR which was vastly more powerful than Russia is today. Further we have NATO which the Russian's by there open aggression has turned even Switzerland into a member. It's highly unlikely we'll be in a war anytime soon with Russia or anyone else. Our military is still as prepared and trained as it has ever been
The Americans on the other hand adopted DU both for ammunition and for tank armor and used it in Yugoslavia, Iraq and who knows where else. See "Beyond Treason" for details.
@@TyrannoJoris_Rex they keep the missile from rolling. (clockwise/anti clockwise) , later they made missiles without rollerons , as they would make it more maneuverable by making it roll.
They look more complex then they actually are. The spinning wheel provides a centrifugal force that makes the flap part want to stay aligned and resist changes to lateral movement. It really helped those early seekers maintain a lock by keeping the missile stable; later on the seekers got accurate enough they no longer needed them.
@@pyronuke4768 More accurately, the early missile seeker would need to have a consistent frame of reference for up/down and left/right as it signaled the inputs for the control surfaces. So it could not roll.
Yet another fantastic, educational video with quality Cold War footage for entertainment. Love the content, especially for the depth of research spent on rarely-covered topics.
I agree Colonel Robin Olds said that the AIM 4D was as useless as tits on a bull. Another pilot said that it had to hit the enemy pilot in the heart to destroy the plane
@@TyrannoJoris_Rexthey were essentially bomber intercept missiles, they were faster and larger than the R-60, this comparison really doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. Their introductions are also 14 years apart, and by that time the US was already fielding AIM-9D’s
Great video on a rarely discussed topic! I'd love to see a video on Firestreak and Red Top from you - two even more rarely discussed developments in aerial warfare systems.
During the KAL 902 incident, the pilot is rumored to have purposefully shot at the very tips of the wing at close range because he did not want to shoot closer to the main fuselage which the R-60 would automatically have done. The pilot of the airliner was also a former ROKAF pilot and managed to land it over a frozen lake with a damaged wing, that's also pretty cool. The downed airliner was extensively researched and taken apart by soviet authorities and would massively boost soviet airliner programs.
Excellent as always. AIM-4 and its descendants would be a great subject. Lots of not quite accurate things said about them and lots just not out there in a digestible format like this.
The mismatch between missile and launch platform sounds like a complete nightmare. The MiG-23 looks amazing, but it seems like if it had ever seen a large scale war it would have been a disaster with the lack of appropriate tools.
@@Shadowboostno the mig 23 was a very decent fighter. Yes it was worse than the f15s and such when they came around but it was there in much greater numbers and it was decently maneuverable and had a quite good radar and decent missiles
Fun fact: Here in Finland we installed R-60s on BAE Hawk Mk.51(A)s, since we had extra from the MiG-21bis'! Kinda the same idea the Brits had in sending Hawks with Lightnings and Tornados to intercept Soviet bombers over the North Sea, except we'd be returning our missiles back to the seller without a receipt... 😁
Finlandia, Finlandia, Mannerheimin linja oli vastus ankara. Kun Karjalasta alkoi hirmu tulitus, loppui monen Iivanan puhepulistus. Njet Molotoff, njet Molotoff, valehtelit enemmän kuin itse Bobrikoff. Finlandia, Finlandia, sitä pelkää voittamaton Puna-Armeija.
During NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, Yugoslav forces used makeshift launchers to fire R-60 and R-73 at NATO aircrafts. They loved the R-73 more for this purpose. The issue they faced was obvious; those were air-to-air missiles. They counted on aircrafts to "defeat" the gravity force and to give them initial speed (aircrafts are supposed to do it for them). So, they would lock on to a target that was too far for a ground launch which these were not made for. The issue was addressed by adding a booster - a rocket engine from MLRS weapons. Still, there are no records for effectiveness for this being an improvised solution by ground troops during a war time. However, they do claim several hits and causing damage to NATO planes, but the data on shot down planes is scarce and pretty much impossible to verify. However, today there are modifications on large scale to do this as well as reusing other old, Soviet era IR missiles by completely removing everything on the inside and placing modern day electronics.
I'm looking at the seeker electronics (3:41), and I can't believe the parts aren't supported by either cordwood construction or molding, embedding, or potting with elastomeric resins. It looks like it would all fall apart after a short time in vibration.
"The Mig-23 lacked even the dogfight maneuverability of the F-4 Phantom" What? That must be a joke, literally anything out of that era (and any other supersonic era really) would easily donk on the F-4 in any type of a dogfight. The F-4 is a flying brick relying on crude engine power, but that statement might lead you to believe it was way more "powerful" in terms of thrust to weight ratio than most its rivals. Well, even the "less powered" Mig-21 had thrust to weight ratio of ~0.83 whereas the "more powerful" and definitely less maneuverable phantom had TWR of ~0.86 with the same configuration as the Mig-21, that being combat load. Now, the Mig-23s had approximately the same TWR as the Mig-21s, however, starting from the ML version, the 23s were well optimized for high G maneuvers with the wings fully extended (remember, it's a variable-swept-wing design, so it's much more suited for maneuvering at any speed range whereas the supersonic-focused, heavy and navy-optimized F4 was a complete brick as a consequence).
I saw a recent news clip of the Russian president's airplane being escorted by MiG-29's (probably the MiG-35, but I didn't look that closely) On each of the MiG's there was a R-60 or R-60M on the outboard wing station with no other missiles being carried by the jets. So maybe those were just training missiles? who knows, but it seems like the VVS at least still has them in the inventory.
MiG-29s could carry R-60(M)s, and I can imagine they made enough of them in the cold war to fill the ocean with it, so probably they still have loads of them in their inventory.
@@OneAngryVelociraptor MiG-35 cockpit and vertical stabilizers are very distinct. You can see those from almost every single angle. But that's besides the point, i never said they weren't from the same design?
Just a clarification question, the Atol missile had gas injestion issues on the wing glove pylons on the MiG-23? Do you mean the under fueselage pylons right?
Yeah I had the same question? Especially when the preliminary MiG 23s were limited to exclusively Atolls on all pylons due to delays in development of the R-23 missile.
Not sure if you’re just getting the stories mixed up or if this sort of thing has happened many times, but I lean toward the latter… Anyway, I know a similar thing happened with one of NASA’s Mars missions.
R-60s make more sense on interceptors when you consider how the Soviets used them… Given, in wartime they are meant to be shooting down bombers, where perhaps a R60 with its limited range small warheads, and rear aspect engagement is questionably useful. But during the Cold War, there was also a need by the Soviets to shoot down other targets: things like small aircraft that could infiltrate and exfiltrate the Soviet Union by flying under the radar. The infamous flight of a Cessna into Moscow, landing in Red Square, exposed a major flaw in their Air Defense Force’s (separate branch from the Air Force it’s important to note) abilities. The heavy long range but not maneuverable missiles carried by most interceptors didn’t have the ability to hit something small, slow, and maneuverable like a civilian aircraft… meaning that they could not shoot down CIA/defectors aircraft! So the R-60 was stopgap fitted to numerous aircraft to compensate for this, and give interceptors some ability to hit targets at close range. This same role could be and was also filled by fitting gun pods, in the Su-15. It also led to the acquisition of the MiG-23P to replace older, missile only interceptors like the Su-11, and MiG-19P, which were in need of replacement anyways.
Also, in many cases, outside of war, there is a need to visually identify aircraft that are intercepted and decide if they are hostile before engagement. I believe that was technically also SOP for the Soviets, though their paranoia and government system meant they shot down everything anyways…
while true, perhaps worth adding that mig-21bis production didn't go anywhere in the 1970s. I.e. there was a right platform for the weapon, thousands of them.
However a pair of things: 1- the R-60s range was better than you state: about 2.5 km at 1 km SL (manual of MiG-29) from behind, but over 5 km at 10 km H; head on it could have from 7 to 15 km range 2- the MiG-23 could dogfight more or less than the F-4, especially ML and MLK.
Surely the head-on range would be limited by the seeker's ability to lock the target rather than kinematics? So 10km might be possible against a very large heat signature (a B-1B with afterburners running?) But usually not possible.
In fact, all Soviet aviation was built in a hurry trying to catch up with the United States, but in reality there was no economic basis for the construction of air force like in USAF
I'm curious too! F16 gun kill on a mig 21 (notice dogfight mode bottom left). Can't find the source of this footage, could be IAF but the snowy mountains make me think it could be Pakistan v India...
@johnarbuckle8984 Yes, it could be a pakistani f16 (even though i can't find anything for that either). It also looks like a block 30 or earlier variant
You said in your video on the K-13 that the R-60 was developed to use on the MiG-23 because they K-13 would cause gas ingestion issues if used in the center pylons, and that it was "a subject another video", but you don't name the same claim in this video. You say they ended up developing the R-60 anyway and it was just a poor match for the MiG-23, and that could only carry the large R-23 _or_ the R-60 because the K-13 caused issues from the _wing glove_ pylons. Sorry if that seems less plausible to me. The massive R-23 can be fired without issues, but the K-13 can't? And i have only ever seen the R-60 on the center pylons. Question is, did they develop the R-60 because of this or not? Also not sure i agree that it was a poor match. The R-23 was the primary weapon, it was meant to come in, make its BVR shot or two, and get out and let another MiG-23 come and shoot. The R-60 was essentially a backup melee weapon. A pistol isn't very good compared to any rifle, but it's useful to have one if your primary gun is a long range weapon. You don't carry a sniper rifle and an assault rifle for close range. This is all in accordance with typical Soviet doctrine, which doesn't have fighters engaging in long drawn or dogfights all over the sky until all 8 missiles are fired off. You are usually lucky to even get two opportunities to shoot at the enemy so what is the point in carrying around enough ordance to theoretically take down a squadron by yourself, or engage for half an hour before being out of ammo? Most of these jets were looking for disengagement and running for home with low fuel after five minutes of combat. Which is actually an eternity in a high stress situation. Likewise with people who talk about how X jet can "take damage and stay in the fight", when was the last time you heard of any jet taking even a single 20mm hit and just ignoring it and continuing the dogfight? It might get you home, but no one is just going to keep pulling Gee with a potentially compromised structure and unknown intenal damage.
Uranium is very dense, so the fragments from the exploding warhead will travel further through the air and penetrate further into the target upon impact. The R-60's small size meant the warhead was small and often failed to destroy the target if it exploded on a near miss, the uranium was an attempt to improve on this. The same could be achieved with non radioactive tungsten, however depleted uranium is cheaper due to essentially being a waste product from making nuclear fuel.
The presence of R-60's indicate those are more likely K-13R's, not R-3R's. I know it's confusing (they're basically the same missile just with an improved seeker), Russian missile naming convention dosen't make a whole lot of sense to western audiences. Anyways, yes, two K-13R and four R-60/R-60M are pretty much standard air intercept loadout for a 70's onwards MiG-21.
@@pyronuke4768 K-13 is just the research & development project index of the R-3. Do you mean R-13R? Thought there was only the R-13M in '74 and R-13M1 in '76. Both heat-seekers
@@TyrannoJoris_Rex no. Russia seems to use R and K almost interchangeably when it comes to their air-to-air missiles sometimes. The Atoll started off K-13, went to R-3, and then back to K-13. There was the Alkali K-5 and it's later semi-active version R-55, as well as the Anab K-8 and R-98. Then there's the Archer R-73 and it's improved version, K-74M; as well as the Adder R-77 and again it's improved version K-77M.
@@pyronuke4768 Hm. Didn't know about the K-74 and K-77 designations. Also whenever I look up K-13R the only thing that pops up is the R-3R, introduced 1967, NATO designation AA-2C
I'm curious too! F16 gun kill on a mig 21 (notice dogfight mode bottom left). Can't find the source of this footage, could be IAF but the snowy mountains make me think it could be Pakistan v India...
Was there a second Korean Airlines shoot-down in the USSR that I am unaware of? Korean Air 007 crashed into the sea after being shot down. It didn't land nearly intact near a forest with survivors. Something is very wrong here. Edit: I was somehow completely unaware of KAL 902. It seems to get a lot less coverage than 007 because it had a much happier ending for all involved.
@@MrArgus11111 That was my intent. If you can look up “KAL 902” you can look up “Korean Airlines USSR emergency landing” or any of the numerous other search strings that would have worked. Something _is_ very wrong, and I hope you understand how you can fix your part in it.
The upshot is that it can be carried by helicopters while the best non-soviet designs can hope for are glorified MANPADs. Utility is questionable but it's still something.
Because air combat is a game of first strike wins, IRST can be extremely useful because it wont alert an enemy to the lock. Not terribly useful if you're being engaged at long range already but it has a time and place
It depends. For NATO planes - this feature was and still is worthless. For Warsaw Pact planes - kinda useful, with right weaponry. R-23T, R-24T or R-27T/ET is ideal missiles with IRST. Mid range all-aspect missiles with IRST is really scary thing. Use AWACS to intercept target by flying extremelly low and staying undetected by enemy, lock on IRST, get closer, slave seeker to lock, launch and run.
Nato planes use target pods as an ersatz for Irst. What's more, 18E/Fs have the capability of carrying IRSTs, but their optical sensor is hilariously installed into a drop tank
@@ГеоргийМурзич they anyway don't have good weaponry to use with IRST. AIM-9M/X is good short range missiles, but obviously have very limited range and agility further than 3km.
Cock up by the flight crew of 007 put them 160 miles off course. Multiple cock ups on the Soviet side at first saved it from ground-air shootdown before the event, then, finally, the air-air hit that took it down. It had not been positively identified in the darkness. Access to the then military-only GPS was made available for civil use afterwards, to prevent any more such incidents.
The U.S shot down an Iranian airliner and USAF Capt. Ralph S. Parr Jr. shot one down from Aeroflot during the korean war. Look up Iran Air 655. It wasn't uncommon whatsoever back then
Try crossing international airspace these days and see what happens. Do you think they just send you a sternly worded letter afterwards? They also had constant attempts by reconnaissance aircraft and worse to cross the borders, are the supposed to just assume that any target that crosses the border might be a passenger jet, so let it go, even though it's about to overfly your sensitive military defense areas or could be collecting important data on your radar systems the whole time? Every passenger plane I have read about that was shot down happened in the dark, all they know is that its a target, it has crossed the border, and it refuses to answer radio calls demanding it land immediately. The US would and still will shoot down a key under those circumstances, although now they would claim it was because they feared a terrorist attack instead. The fact that it's flashing nav lights and looks like a passenger jet (as much as you are able to see it in the strobes of light from the wings) doesn't make it immune to shootdown. If it did how long to you think it would be before the CIA was taking advantage of that fact and and "accidentally" getting "passenger planes" "lost", which just happen to cross the border and collect as much info as possible before "realizing their mistake" and leaving again. The solution is to not get lost and don't cross into restricted airspace, and monitor your radios in case someone is ordering you to land for internment immediately. Or you get shot down. Which is the fault of the pilots and airline, not the military whose job is to shoot down anything that invades their airspace. It happens _less_ now, mostly because tensions aren't as high, but also because radios are better, transponders are a thing, and they can communicate with ATC to determine what plane it is and where it came from. It wasn't so easy to just telephone Tokyo ATC and find out what jet just left their airspace back then. Assuming you even knew exactly where it came from. All to know is that it came from the general direction of Japan. And they will still shoot down a plane today, even if they know for a fact that it's a passenger plane, if it has left its planned course, penetrated restricted national airspace, and refuses to communicate, down is coming. They aren't going to wait until it pushes over into a final suicide dive on your major hydroelectric plant.
Triple launch rail? I am familiar with the double rail, and possibly that the double rail was in fact a triple rail that was used as an "ambidexterous" double rail, but did they ever and are there any photos of an aircraft with 3x R-60s on a triple rail?
In the article about mig-23 in Wikipedia a story mentioned that in 1974 north-west Damascus (Syria's capital) had shot down 2 israeli F-4 phantoms and while the mig was manuvering to engage 3rd target with gun the SyAAD had shot down the mig accidentally! any further data about the type of missiles used in this event?
Since it was a Mig-23MS that shot down the Phantoms and given the MS severe downgrade compared to the M model, we can narrow it down to the R-3S or R-13M though its more likely that the R-3s were used in this engagement
Missionkill as opposed to a kill. And the F-15 has essentially never faced anything remotely truly dangerous to them, so it's not nearly as much of an accomplishment as some want to make it sound like.
Funny enough I think two of their missiles they reversed engineered from us. One simply got stuck in a one of their migs that failed to detonate and one was smuggled by a what I think was a KGB guy?
Is this based on your video gaming experience? Interviews of Western pilots who have tested the Flogger indicate that it had poor maneuverability. Its strength is speed and acceleration.
@@JohnLocke-y9e Air Force F-4E's and Navy/Marine Corps F-4S's flying against MiG-23MS's in Constant Peg. West German Phantoms engaging East German MiG-23's in mock combat following reunification
SAY WHAT YOU WANT, BUT TILL TODAY WEST AND EAST, STILL THRIVE BY DEVELOPING SOVIET IDEAS, THAT TODAY CAN BE MADE, DUE TO NEW TEC. IF RUSSIA OR USA........
![[MV] A leap of faith...ความเชื่อใจครั้งสุดท้าย (From "Petrichor the series")](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/U1piZH2CNXA/mqdefault.jpg)
In the case of the Mig23 shooting down the F-14, I remember reading an article which stated that the Iranian F-14 pilot and RIO were defecting to Iraq and were told by their Iraqi contact to cross the border through a pre planned corridor where air defense would temporarily be turned off.
However, for some reason or the other, air patrol in the area was not notified and a Mig23 pilot visually spotted an F-14 with its radar off. He did the logical thing and assumed it was an infiltration mission was flying right over his head so he flew onto the Tomcat's tail and shoved an R60 up his exhaust.
Well, that wasn't the only F-14 lost to a MiG-23
That sounds like something the CIA would say.
They were at least two intances of MiG-23ML's shooting down F-14's, one of them was indeed the attempted defection, but before that a flight of two ML's ambushed and shotdown the F-14A flown by Hassem All-e-Agha, resulting in his death.
@@miquelescribanoivars5049 Huh, I somehow had no idea about the earlier shoot down. Thanks for informing me!
@@miquelescribanoivars5049 I heard the first one was done with R-23s, though
I was looking for a video on the R-60 last week but couldn’t find any. This channel does not disappoint
That Mirage F1 was repaired, and the pilot survived, becoming eventually the commander of 1 Sqn. Pretty cool person, and lots of stories from him. He ran out of runway, because the missile had destroyed his brake parachute, which he did need on that short runway. not visible in that photo is the berm wall a few meters in front of him when he stopped, and he was out of the cockpit, and having a cigarette, before the fire brigade reached him. Still with an armed ejection seat.
I think you are confusing with a different event. There were a few F1AZs damaged over the years but from ground fired/launched weapons. The 27 September 1987 incident pictured here saw a single R-60MK launched damaging the aircraft. The plane overshot the Rundu runway having lost his hydraulics and braking parachute by the damage caused, ran straight through the base fence and stopped in the bush just outside. It stopped when it crashed over a boulder which collapsed the nosewheel and triggered the ejection seat. The pilot -Arthur Piercy - was paralysed when his seat didn't fully function so he fell to earth still strapped into it - needless to say he unfortunately never flew a Mirage again. His F1CZ was repaired by mating its rear fuselage to the forward fuselage of another F1CZ that was damaged in a hard landing and caught fire, damaging the rear fuselage.
@@martinstrumpfer1620 Yes was thinking of Minne who had the same
Why is it that people always manage to brag about how they did something really dumb but for away with it so it's really cool?
@@justforever96It's called having balls and being brave. You wouldn't understand.
Damn. Your channel is a real gem. Keep em coming.
a real gemerald
i need an entire playlist of these kind of missile history videos
Love these videos about IR Missile development. Would absolutely love videos about further AIM-9 developments (9C, D and G in particular)
C's SARH
@@TyrannoJoris_Rex yes
@@raz562 But yeah, B into D and E, D into G and H, E into J, etc
excellent documentary! I was hoping you would make a video on the R60. Will you make an R73 video next? please
Sparrow docu would be cooler ngl
Much awaited, much appreciated looking forward to excellent insights as always from you
R-60 role was basically of being a sidearm. The main accent was put on med range missiles, and R-60 was needed for finishing off, ambushes and self-defense (hence why it was present on helicopters and Su-25)
Another great video as usual. Keep up the great work!!!!! Also how about a video on the Combat Tree equipment used on F4D Phantoms in Vietnam which could passively detect Migs via their IFF equipment. That would be extremely interesting as the system was classified back then
Oooh… looking forward to the Flagon episode. Balloons and civilian airliners, watch out! Still, one of the coolest-looking fighters ever made. In a very weird, Soviet way of course.
Its never equalled exploit was the shooting down in 1983 of
a spy plane named 007 with 260+ jamesbond clones aboard.
Most Soviet jets are pretty cool, but the Su-15 especially. Although I like all the Sukhoi interceptors, the Su-9/11, Su-15. The whole family derived from the Su-7 ultimately, which is also just beautiful looking.
I thought he was mentioning that incident when talking about shooting at a Korean airliner. I had no idea the Soviets did it twice! What a bunch of assholes. @@minhthunguyendang9900
You got wrong perception of MiG-23. First models were underpowered, but even them were more agile in most scenarios than MiG-21 or F-4. When Soviets got their hands on F-5 it beat the crap out of MiG-21, but MiG-23 could keep up with it as long as it mantailed speed. Germans also evaluated MLA's agility surprisingly being comparable to F-16's, altho this seems indeed strange. I am not sure but I belive story about MiG-23 being slugish comes from soviet instruction to green pilots to not sweep wings below 45 degrees in combat cause risk of exceeding structural speed limit. What limited MiG-23 of being a capable dogfighter was not it's fligt performance (especially in later models), but a limited cockpit view.
The MIG-23M/MF was very agile aircraft. When ML/MLA/MLD arrived it was even better than any 3rd gen fighters. I attached interview wtih pilot who flew them in Czechoslovak air force, he also speaks about R-60. Video is in czech but there are subtittles.
th-cam.com/video/v5e5X-GaFfw/w-d-xo.html
Hmm - a CONSTANT PEG Pilot flying the MiG-23 as part of the dogfight training for US pilots rather confirms the impression of the MiG-23 not being a capable dogfighter. I'm not sure where the conclusion of it being comparable to the F-16 comes from - that seems to be quite a stretch.
th-cam.com/video/0H3NfLNu6z4/w-d-xo.html
@@JonasCVogt Idk, what version did he fly? I am not to much in to airshows, but all flying american 23's I saw were either attack or trainers. Among all so called 3rd gen's late 23's had highest thrust/weight ratio aproaching high 0.9s and variable wing gave it impressive lift.
@@Tjecktjeck Early they got MiG-23MS, later from 1990 on they got 12 MiG-23MLs from Germany for use in dogfight training.
@@JonasCVogt While this is true, the problem was that the Constant Peg program only had received MiG-23MSs in the 70s from the Middle East, and these were the worst type of production MiG-23s as the structure of the plane was horrible and the wing was very structurally limited to like 3-4G and the radar was basically a MiG-21s radar, so while the version they got is not good, the ML/MLA/MLD are so much better they might as well be a different aircraft, also because if you look online there is or are articles stating that Libyan pilots I think, were able to dogfight F-14s with their MiG-23MLDs.
When I was a weapons troop in the Air Force (79 to 2000) we were warned about some Soviet A2A missiles that were actually slightly radioactive. This was supposed to be a secondary effect of getting hit by the missile in that it would imbed radioactive shrapnel into the airframe which would make clean up and repair more difficult. The Soviets quickly decided this was a bad idea, (it affected their own loading crews and aircraft that carried it) so they were sold to states like Iraq. Good video as always
U know... maybe not you, but perhaps some of the youth may end up fighting russians in a few months...
Hope that never happens.
@@Bytheemperor I stood against the USSR which was vastly more powerful than Russia is today. Further we have NATO which the Russian's by there open aggression has turned even Switzerland into a member. It's highly unlikely we'll be in a war anytime soon with Russia or anyone else. Our military is still as prepared and trained as it has ever been
@@randycampbell6307 Still, hope such never happens, for options are there for a nuclear ☢️ conflict that may end our whole species...
The Americans on the other hand adopted DU both for ammunition and for tank armor and used it in Yugoslavia, Iraq and who knows where else. See "Beyond Treason" for details.
@@randycampbell6307Do not confuse somewhat sane Soviet leadership with unhinged Putin holding his finger on the big red button.
I have been looking for a video of the toic for a while. So happy to see an adequate one !
Rollerons are a wild concept to me
Yeah they're to keep the missile from spiraling too quickly right?
@@TyrannoJoris_Rex they keep the missile from rolling. (clockwise/anti clockwise) , later they made missiles without rollerons , as they would make it more maneuverable by making it roll.
They look more complex then they actually are. The spinning wheel provides a centrifugal force that makes the flap part want to stay aligned and resist changes to lateral movement. It really helped those early seekers maintain a lock by keeping the missile stable; later on the seekers got accurate enough they no longer needed them.
@@pyronuke4768 More accurately, the early missile seeker would need to have a consistent frame of reference for up/down and left/right as it signaled the inputs for the control surfaces. So it could not roll.
im hoping this is leading up to a R-73 video as that is a missile i would really like to learn more about
Keep up with the analysis and information about missiles and weapons. It´s seldom covered and it´s incredibly interesting. Felicidades amigo !!
R-73 video please
Yet another fantastic, educational video with quality Cold War footage for entertainment. Love the content, especially for the depth of research spent on rarely-covered topics.
The R-60 is everything the AIM-4D wanted to be.
I agree Colonel Robin Olds said that the AIM 4D was as useless as tits on a bull. Another pilot said that it had to hit the enemy pilot in the heart to destroy the plane
I have zero knowledge on the Falcons other than they were bad. I need somebody to explain this to me
@@TyrannoJoris_Rexpoor accuracy + no proximity fuse. It had to have a direct hit to explode unlike most other missiles
@@TyrannoJoris_Rexthey were essentially bomber intercept missiles, they were faster and larger than the R-60, this comparison really doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. Their introductions are also 14 years apart, and by that time the US was already fielding AIM-9D’s
@@NickThePilotUSA So Cthulhu's saying the Falcon-D wanted accuracy and a proximity fuse?
This channel is so cool.. so many things no one ever covered.
Great video on a rarely discussed topic! I'd love to see a video on Firestreak and Red Top from you - two even more rarely discussed developments in aerial warfare systems.
I've got it. The Skyflash!
@@TyrannoJoris_Rex A cool missile to be sure, but considering it's much more modern and a development of a well-covered existing missile...
@@SilencedMi5 Ye I know. I just like they made something for the Phantoms and Tornado ADVs
During the KAL 902 incident, the pilot is rumored to have purposefully shot at the very tips of the wing at close range because he did not want to shoot closer to the main fuselage which the R-60 would automatically have done. The pilot of the airliner was also a former ROKAF pilot and managed to land it over a frozen lake with a damaged wing, that's also pretty cool. The downed airliner was extensively researched and taken apart by soviet authorities and would massively boost soviet airliner programs.
Excellent as always. AIM-4 and its descendants would be a great subject. Lots of not quite accurate things said about them and lots just not out there in a digestible format like this.
The mismatch between missile and launch platform sounds like a complete nightmare.
The MiG-23 looks amazing, but it seems like if it had ever seen a large scale war it would have been a disaster with the lack of appropriate tools.
Mig-23s were lookers and terrible fighters
@@Shadowboostsame as the f14
@@Benfbdnhdsjjfhehd You'd find that Iranian F-14s have proved quite effective against soviet era aircraft of other middle-eastern nations
@@Shadowboostno the mig 23 was a very decent fighter. Yes it was worse than the f15s and such when they came around but it was there in much greater numbers and it was decently maneuverable and had a quite good radar and decent missiles
What's the size of the explosive component in the warhead? I've seen anything up from 1.15 kg.
Fun fact: Here in Finland we installed R-60s on BAE Hawk Mk.51(A)s, since we had extra from the MiG-21bis'!
Kinda the same idea the Brits had in sending Hawks with Lightnings and Tornados to intercept Soviet bombers over the North Sea, except we'd be returning our missiles back to the seller without a receipt... 😁
Guess why you even had those missiles? You were Finlandizated, kiddo. Licked boots, in other words. Not without a reason, I suppose
Finlandia, Finlandia,
Mannerheimin linja oli vastus ankara.
Kun Karjalasta alkoi hirmu tulitus,
loppui monen Iivanan puhepulistus.
Njet Molotoff, njet Molotoff,
valehtelit enemmän kuin itse Bobrikoff.
Finlandia, Finlandia,
sitä pelkää voittamaton Puna-Armeija.
@@ГеоргийМурзичussr sold weapons to anyone who wanted to buy, go cry about it lil orc.
During NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, Yugoslav forces used makeshift launchers to fire R-60 and R-73 at NATO aircrafts. They loved the R-73 more for this purpose. The issue they faced was obvious; those were air-to-air missiles. They counted on aircrafts to "defeat" the gravity force and to give them initial speed (aircrafts are supposed to do it for them). So, they would lock on to a target that was too far for a ground launch which these were not made for. The issue was addressed by adding a booster - a rocket engine from MLRS weapons.
Still, there are no records for effectiveness for this being an improvised solution by ground troops during a war time. However, they do claim several hits and causing damage to NATO planes, but the data on shot down planes is scarce and pretty much impossible to verify. However, today there are modifications on large scale to do this as well as reusing other old, Soviet era IR missiles by completely removing everything on the inside and placing modern day electronics.
I'm looking at the seeker electronics (3:41), and I can't believe the parts aren't supported by either cordwood construction or molding, embedding, or potting with elastomeric resins. It looks like it would all fall apart after a short time in vibration.
"The Mig-23 lacked even the dogfight maneuverability of the F-4 Phantom"
What? That must be a joke, literally anything out of that era (and any other supersonic era really) would easily donk on the F-4 in any type of a dogfight. The F-4 is a flying brick relying on crude engine power, but that statement might lead you to believe it was way more "powerful" in terms of thrust to weight ratio than most its rivals. Well, even the "less powered" Mig-21 had thrust to weight ratio of ~0.83 whereas the "more powerful" and definitely less maneuverable phantom had TWR of ~0.86 with the same configuration as the Mig-21, that being combat load. Now, the Mig-23s had approximately the same TWR as the Mig-21s, however, starting from the ML version, the 23s were well optimized for high G maneuvers with the wings fully extended (remember, it's a variable-swept-wing design, so it's much more suited for maneuvering at any speed range whereas the supersonic-focused, heavy and navy-optimized F4 was a complete brick as a consequence).
Thank you for this excellent presentation. Very informative.
Thank you for the research and the compelling presentation.
I saw a recent news clip of the Russian president's airplane being escorted by MiG-29's (probably the MiG-35, but I didn't look that closely) On each of the MiG's there was a R-60 or R-60M on the outboard wing station with no other missiles being carried by the jets. So maybe those were just training missiles? who knows, but it seems like the VVS at least still has them in the inventory.
I mean, if the quality wasn't good enough to tell a MiG-35 from a MiG-29, i wouldn't trust it could differentiate a R-60 against a R-73
@TheNicestPig the R73 has a different shape near the front, and different fins on the back, plus the R60 is thinner and shorter than the R73
MiG-29s could carry R-60(M)s, and I can imagine they made enough of them in the cold war to fill the ocean with it, so probably they still have loads of them in their inventory.
@@TheNicestPig What do you mean exactly. From most angles they look almost the same, mainly because they use the same airframe.
@@OneAngryVelociraptor MiG-35 cockpit and vertical stabilizers are very distinct. You can see those from almost every single angle. But that's besides the point, i never said they weren't from the same design?
Excellent and very informative and interesting as usual thank you for this content!
Just a clarification question, the Atol missile had gas injestion issues on the wing glove pylons on the MiG-23? Do you mean the under fueselage pylons right?
Yeah I had the same question? Especially when the preliminary MiG 23s were limited to exclusively Atolls on all pylons due to delays in development of the R-23 missile.
Excellent film.😎
Well presented. Thanks for posting.
how a small thing can carry a turbo generator and how it generates without an piping
Great stuff 👍🏿
Does The rudders being powered by exhaust gas mean it couldn't steer after engine burn out?
No. Just because the motor stops doesn't mean the missile immediately loses all power. It can still guide for a while after the motor shuts off.
There is probably a gas generator (basically a smaller, slower burning rocket) that feeds those systems. Main motor exhaust would be too hot anyway.
Great video
I've seen the radiation warning symbols on R-60s before, but this was the first time I've hear it explained.
great vid. love hearing more about soviet missiles
didnt know soviets used feet inches and pounds but then switched to meters and kilometers when it comes to range of the missile 🤔
Depends if you want to be able to divide by three or not. 1/3 of a foot is exactly 4inches. 1/3 of a meter is only an approximation, spelt 'miss'.
Notice that the metric-loving USSR is no more...🤣
(Runs for cover...)
@@petesheppard1709the US Inch is defined by the meter today, your just awfully proud on an conversion factor.
@@flixri726 We enjoy tweaking each other. 😜
Not sure if you’re just getting the stories mixed up or if this sort of thing has happened many times, but I lean toward the latter…
Anyway, I know a similar thing happened with one of NASA’s Mars missions.
Great video mate!
Really great video!
Another great vid. Love this obscure stuff from the great age of the Cold War 😀
Pjotr not knowing vot Pavel voz planing was a notorious problem in the soviet union
R-60s make more sense on interceptors when you consider how the Soviets used them…
Given, in wartime they are meant to be shooting down bombers, where perhaps a R60 with its limited range small warheads, and rear aspect engagement is questionably useful.
But during the Cold War, there was also a need by the Soviets to shoot down other targets: things like small aircraft that could infiltrate and exfiltrate the Soviet Union by flying under the radar. The infamous flight of a Cessna into Moscow, landing in Red Square, exposed a major flaw in their Air Defense Force’s (separate branch from the Air Force it’s important to note) abilities. The heavy long range but not maneuverable missiles carried by most interceptors didn’t have the ability to hit something small, slow, and maneuverable like a civilian aircraft… meaning that they could not shoot down CIA/defectors aircraft! So the R-60 was stopgap fitted to numerous aircraft to compensate for this, and give interceptors some ability to hit targets at close range. This same role could be and was also filled by fitting gun pods, in the Su-15. It also led to the acquisition of the MiG-23P to replace older, missile only interceptors like the Su-11, and MiG-19P, which were in need of replacement anyways.
Also, in many cases, outside of war, there is a need to visually identify aircraft that are intercepted and decide if they are hostile before engagement. I believe that was technically also SOP for the Soviets, though their paranoia and government system meant they shot down everything anyways…
will you make a video about the british ic guided missiles from the 60's
while true, perhaps worth adding that mig-21bis production didn't go anywhere in the 1970s.
I.e. there was a right platform for the weapon, thousands of them.
Fascinating Video!!!
as an older electromechanic and engineer, very exciting to see these "electrical circuits"
afaik older missiles used lamps as "electrical circuits"
Nah, there's no electrical circuits, it's all dark majik!
Great video...👍
wow i never knew an F15 took a hit in combat. Crazy how if that pilot decided to eject the F15 wouldn’t have a 104-0 kill ratio.
"Copied from a weapon" For clarity, it was a copy of the Sidewinder based on a dud Sidewinder.
R37 next !
Hind is Mi-24 (or Mi-25), not -21. Otherwise great video.
Nice, but I had to speed up the video to 1.25 its original speed to make it normally sounding.
However a pair of things: 1- the R-60s range was better than you state: about 2.5 km at 1 km SL (manual of MiG-29) from behind, but over 5 km at 10 km H; head on it could have from 7 to 15 km range 2- the MiG-23 could dogfight more or less than the F-4, especially ML and MLK.
Surely the head-on range would be limited by the seeker's ability to lock the target rather than kinematics? So 10km might be possible against a very large heat signature (a B-1B with afterburners running?) But usually not possible.
Guys, I was inattentive: what’s the purpose of wheels in the control surfaces of R-60?
Rolleron, provides stability by helping prevent spin.
Dude, where do you dig all this stories from!?
Can you do the r37 or 33 please
Ty homie
The R-40 was the only Russian missile to get a kill on American 4th gen fighters.
In fact, all Soviet aviation was built in a hurry trying to catch up with the United States, but in reality there was no economic basis for the construction of air force like in USAF
12:55 where did you find that hud tape?????
I'm curious too! F16 gun kill on a mig 21 (notice dogfight mode bottom left).
Can't find the source of this footage, could be IAF but the snowy mountains make me think it could be Pakistan v India...
@johnarbuckle8984 Yes, it could be a pakistani f16 (even though i can't find anything for that either). It also looks like a block 30 or earlier variant
9:22 Thought the R-60 was '74 and R-60M was '82
You said in your video on the K-13 that the R-60 was developed to use on the MiG-23 because they K-13 would cause gas ingestion issues if used in the center pylons, and that it was "a subject another video", but you don't name the same claim in this video. You say they ended up developing the R-60 anyway and it was just a poor match for the MiG-23, and that could only carry the large R-23 _or_ the R-60 because the K-13 caused issues from the _wing glove_ pylons. Sorry if that seems less plausible to me. The massive R-23 can be fired without issues, but the K-13 can't? And i have only ever seen the R-60 on the center pylons. Question is, did they develop the R-60 because of this or not?
Also not sure i agree that it was a poor match. The R-23 was the primary weapon, it was meant to come in, make its BVR shot or two, and get out and let another MiG-23 come and shoot. The R-60 was essentially a backup melee weapon. A pistol isn't very good compared to any rifle, but it's useful to have one if your primary gun is a long range weapon. You don't carry a sniper rifle and an assault rifle for close range. This is all in accordance with typical Soviet doctrine, which doesn't have fighters engaging in long drawn or dogfights all over the sky until all 8 missiles are fired off. You are usually lucky to even get two opportunities to shoot at the enemy so what is the point in carrying around enough ordance to theoretically take down a squadron by yourself, or engage for half an hour before being out of ammo? Most of these jets were looking for disengagement and running for home with low fuel after five minutes of combat. Which is actually an eternity in a high stress situation.
Likewise with people who talk about how X jet can "take damage and stay in the fight", when was the last time you heard of any jet taking even a single 20mm hit and just ignoring it and continuing the dogfight? It might get you home, but no one is just going to keep pulling Gee with a potentially compromised structure and unknown intenal damage.
You forgot to mention how Indian Mig 21 armed with R-60 downed a Pakistani intelligence aircraft at LoC.
Where are you from
@@Endidixknsej that doesn't matter
Yea that French made recon aircraft right? Happened just some time after the 1999 Kargil War
Now, r23 and r24 missiles video 😅😅
With an effective range that low you could get out and throw it at the target
Why would you put U238 into a missile?
For shenanigans
Uranium is very dense, so the fragments from the exploding warhead will travel further through the air and penetrate further into the target upon impact. The R-60's small size meant the warhead was small and often failed to destroy the target if it exploded on a near miss, the uranium was an attempt to improve on this.
The same could be achieved with non radioactive tungsten, however depleted uranium is cheaper due to essentially being a waste product from making nuclear fuel.
7:43 That MiG-21 got 2 R-3R's and 4 R-60's?
The presence of R-60's indicate those are more likely K-13R's, not R-3R's. I know it's confusing (they're basically the same missile just with an improved seeker), Russian missile naming convention dosen't make a whole lot of sense to western audiences.
Anyways, yes, two K-13R and four R-60/R-60M are pretty much standard air intercept loadout for a 70's onwards MiG-21.
@@pyronuke4768 K-13 is just the research & development project index of the R-3. Do you mean R-13R? Thought there was only the R-13M in '74 and R-13M1 in '76. Both heat-seekers
@@TyrannoJoris_Rex no. Russia seems to use R and K almost interchangeably when it comes to their air-to-air missiles sometimes. The Atoll started off K-13, went to R-3, and then back to K-13. There was the Alkali K-5 and it's later semi-active version R-55, as well as the Anab K-8 and R-98. Then there's the Archer R-73 and it's improved version, K-74M; as well as the Adder R-77 and again it's improved version K-77M.
@@pyronuke4768 Hm. Didn't know about the K-74 and K-77 designations. Also whenever I look up K-13R the only thing that pops up is the R-3R, introduced 1967, NATO designation AA-2C
@@pyronuke4768K is when it's in development/testing. R when it is adopted.
R-60M is an all aspect variant though however just like the Aim-9L it's all aspect capability was rather short range.
1992 in Croatian-Yugoslavian war, MiG21 of YUAF shot down European community helicopter with R60 missile.
13:09 - what is this footage from? It it a gun kill? What are the aircraft?
I'm curious too! F16 gun kill on a mig 21 (notice dogfight mode bottom left).
Can't find the source of this footage, could be IAF but the snowy mountains make me think it could be Pakistan v India...
Was there a second Korean Airlines shoot-down in the USSR that I am unaware of? Korean Air 007 crashed into the sea after being shot down. It didn't land nearly intact near a forest with survivors. Something is very wrong here. Edit: I was somehow completely unaware of KAL 902. It seems to get a lot less coverage than 007 because it had a much happier ending for all involved.
Yes, and he gave everything you needed to look it up. Anyhow, look up Korean Air flight 902.
The KAL 007 was the greatest air victory for marshal ogarkov
nikolai, for it had 260+ james bond clones aboard.
@@sendi_sen If I ignore the first sentence of this reply, the snide pedantic one, your response is actually helpful.
@@MrArgus11111 That was my intent. If you can look up “KAL 902” you can look up “Korean Airlines USSR emergency landing” or any of the numerous other search strings that would have worked. Something _is_ very wrong, and I hope you understand how you can fix your part in it.
@@minhthunguyendang9900 Looking back, maybe this Boeing fiasco isn't as recent as some may think.
The upshot is that it can be carried by helicopters while the best non-soviet designs can hope for are glorified MANPADs. Utility is questionable but it's still something.
Why does it radioactive? What i miss -?
Of course the first use was on a civ airliner
11:11 the russian tradition of launching missiles at 707 and varients is a long stading tradition apparently.
Because air combat is a game of first strike wins, IRST can be extremely useful because it wont alert an enemy to the lock. Not terribly useful if you're being engaged at long range already but it has a time and place
It depends. For NATO planes - this feature was and still is worthless.
For Warsaw Pact planes - kinda useful, with right weaponry.
R-23T, R-24T or R-27T/ET is ideal missiles with IRST. Mid range all-aspect missiles with IRST is really scary thing. Use AWACS to intercept target by flying extremelly low and staying undetected by enemy, lock on IRST, get closer, slave seeker to lock, launch and run.
Nato planes use target pods as an ersatz for Irst. What's more, 18E/Fs have the capability of carrying IRSTs, but their optical sensor is hilariously installed into a drop tank
@@ГеоргийМурзич they anyway don't have good weaponry to use with IRST. AIM-9M/X is good short range missiles, but obviously have very limited range and agility further than 3km.
13:50 I am very tempted to make a joke, but that would be beneath me
i looked up the channel title, super cool
14:25 As far as I know, Ukraine's just been using R-27E's and base R-73's. But don't hold me to that
The Aphid could also be used on the Mi-24.
Definitely feel like a decent short-ranged missile, if only it has a maneuverable platform to match it
its a fit for all kinda missile.
R60 the only weapon that made the F15 bleed
105-0 still
@@treypeters1087
Do it really matter ? Most of its fights were like against 2nd GEN, and 3rd third GEN aircraft.
@@mbtenjoyer9487 the zero part absolutely matters, that is immaculate, not good, not great, but a perfect record. that is huge
@@treypeters1087 An F-15 was recently shot down in Yemen by a jerry-rigged R-27 launched from a technical.
@@treypeters1087
The plane is good , with a great record it but doesn’t really mean much these are 2nd GEN and 3rd GEN aircraft it killed
jesus, the soviets were just blasting anyone who accidentally wandered over the border, including passenger airliners. The cold war was different man
Cock up by the flight crew of 007 put them 160 miles off course. Multiple cock ups on the Soviet side at first saved it from ground-air shootdown before the event, then, finally, the air-air hit that took it down. It had not been positively identified in the darkness.
Access to the then military-only GPS was made available for civil use afterwards, to prevent any more such incidents.
The U.S shot down an Iranian airliner and USAF Capt. Ralph S. Parr Jr. shot one down from Aeroflot during the korean war.
Look up Iran Air 655. It wasn't uncommon whatsoever back then
Try crossing international airspace these days and see what happens. Do you think they just send you a sternly worded letter afterwards? They also had constant attempts by reconnaissance aircraft and worse to cross the borders, are the supposed to just assume that any target that crosses the border might be a passenger jet, so let it go, even though it's about to overfly your sensitive military defense areas or could be collecting important data on your radar systems the whole time? Every passenger plane I have read about that was shot down happened in the dark, all they know is that its a target, it has crossed the border, and it refuses to answer radio calls demanding it land immediately. The US would and still will shoot down a key under those circumstances, although now they would claim it was because they feared a terrorist attack instead. The fact that it's flashing nav lights and looks like a passenger jet (as much as you are able to see it in the strobes of light from the wings) doesn't make it immune to shootdown. If it did how long to you think it would be before the CIA was taking advantage of that fact and and "accidentally" getting "passenger planes" "lost", which just happen to cross the border and collect as much info as possible before "realizing their mistake" and leaving again. The solution is to not get lost and don't cross into restricted airspace, and monitor your radios in case someone is ordering you to land for internment immediately. Or you get shot down. Which is the fault of the pilots and airline, not the military whose job is to shoot down anything that invades their airspace.
It happens _less_ now, mostly because tensions aren't as high, but also because radios are better, transponders are a thing, and they can communicate with ATC to determine what plane it is and where it came from. It wasn't so easy to just telephone Tokyo ATC and find out what jet just left their airspace back then. Assuming you even knew exactly where it came from. All to know is that it came from the general direction of Japan.
And they will still shoot down a plane today, even if they know for a fact that it's a passenger plane, if it has left its planned course, penetrated restricted national airspace, and refuses to communicate, down is coming. They aren't going to wait until it pushes over into a final suicide dive on your major hydroelectric plant.
Triple launch rail? I am familiar with the double rail, and possibly that the double rail was in fact a triple rail that was used as an "ambidexterous" double rail, but did they ever and are there any photos of an aircraft with 3x R-60s on a triple rail?
The original intent for the ambidextrous rail was indeed three missiles. Like the under-intake pair of R-23s, this was eventually done away with
In the article about mig-23 in Wikipedia a story mentioned that in 1974 north-west Damascus (Syria's capital) had shot down 2 israeli F-4 phantoms and while the mig was manuvering to engage 3rd target with gun the SyAAD had shot down the mig accidentally!
any further data about the type of missiles used in this event?
Since it was a Mig-23MS that shot down the Phantoms and given the MS severe downgrade compared to the M model, we can narrow it down to the R-3S or R-13M though its more likely that the R-3s were used in this engagement
F-15 too robust
Why is when I look at SU-15 Flagon, I see face of Kathy Griffin.
Maverick, check your six! Too late, kablamo. Thanks for the military weapon history!
Always thought the F15 had never been shot down, or is that just US Eagles?
The F-15 managed to land back at base and was returned to service. That's not being shot down; that's nursing your crippled airplane home.
The F-15 was damaged not shot down.
The Eagle took battle damage without being shot down. It was even returned to service after repairs.
Missionkill as opposed to a kill.
And the F-15 has essentially never faced anything remotely truly dangerous to them, so it's not nearly as much of an accomplishment as some want to make it sound like.
@@DIREWOLFx75 That's because for 40 years nobody produced anything remotely truly dangerous to a trained F-15 pilot, which is the accomplishment.
Hearing that accent using predominantly Imperial measurements?
Subbed!🥹
Funny enough I think two of their missiles they reversed engineered from us. One simply got stuck in a one of their migs that failed to detonate and one was smuggled by a what I think was a KGB guy?
17:46 MiG-23M outmaneuvers the F-4E and J, and ML easily has their number. Now Teen Series, yes. M loses, and ML will struggle but still has a shot
Is this based on your video gaming experience? Interviews of Western pilots who have tested the Flogger indicate that it had poor maneuverability. Its strength is speed and acceleration.
@@timb3499 I know. Like I said, Teen Series fighters are more maneuverable and better dogfighters than MiG-23s
Please show me your data to support this assertion. My real life experience with the F-4E slat version and Mig-23 says otherwise.
@@JohnLocke-y9e Air Force F-4E's and Navy/Marine Corps F-4S's flying against MiG-23MS's in Constant Peg. West German Phantoms engaging East German MiG-23's in mock combat following reunification
@@timb3499 they flew MiG-23MS. Comparing it to ML is like comparing F-16 block 10 avionics to block 70 one
SAY WHAT YOU WANT, BUT TILL TODAY WEST AND EAST, STILL THRIVE BY DEVELOPING SOVIET IDEAS, THAT TODAY CAN BE MADE, DUE TO NEW TEC. IF RUSSIA OR USA........