Super Dude

IAF can be seen in two ways. Israeli Air Force and also Indian Air Force. InAF makes it more clear that it means Indian not Isreali.

Super Dude

Anything with russia comes with delays for indians. IAF is smart to load it with Isreali and french avionics. The MKI is very neat. Love it.

bugs

Despite the fact that the mirage f-1 is much modern plane ( service since 1973 ) the f-4 is a better fighter.
mirage f-1
Maximum speed: Mach 2.3 (2,573 km/h, 1,600 mph) at 11,000 m (36,000 ft)
Combat radius: 425 km (229 nm, 265 mi)
Ferry range: 2,150 km (1,160 nm, 1,335 mi)
Service ceiling 20,000 m (66,000 ft)
Rate of climb: 215 m/s (42,300 ft/min)
Wing loading: 450 kg/m² (91 lb/ft²)
Thrust/weight: 0.64
f-4 phantom
Maximum speed: Mach 2.23 (1,472 mph, 2,370 km/h) at 40,000 ft (12,190 m)
Cruise speed: 506 kn (585 mph, 940 km/h)
Combat radius: 367 nmi (422 mi, 680 km)
Ferry range: 1,403 nmi (1,615 mi, 2,600 km) with 3 external fuel tanks
Service ceiling 60,000 ft (18,300 m) ???
Rate of climb: 41,300 ft/min (210 m/s)
Wing loading: 78 lb/ft² (383 kg/m²)
Thrust/weight: 0.86
The advantage the f-1 had during iraq- iran war was the armament (matra magic II and the super 530 d).

__________________
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.

bugs

here is the mig 23 perfomance:
Maximum speed: Mach 2.4 2,445 km/h at altitude; Mach 1.14, 1,350 km/h at sea level (1,553 mph / 840 mph)
Range: 1,150 km with six AAMs combat, 2,820 km ferry (570 mi / 1,750 mi)
Service ceiling 18,500 m (60,695 ft)
Rate of climb: 240 m/s (47,245 ft/min)
Wing loading: 420 kg/m² (78.6 lb/ft²)
Thrust/weight: 0.88 .
Despite the mirage f-1 combat record , aircraft performance is below the f-4`s or the mig-23.

BenRoethig

Tactical and strategic nuclear strike are different roles.

__________________
F/A-18E/F Super Hornet: The Honda Accord of fighters.

bugs

After 1960 any deep intrusion in soviet airspace by a subsonic bomber it`s basicly suicide.

avon1944

While that might have been true for a single or a small strike, that is not the way the USAF's SAC or the Soviet PVO saw the situation. The Cuban Missile Crisis was a good study point. Six hundred B-52's (plus B-47's and B-58's) jamming and fighting their way to the targets would have made a mess of the USSR and the PRC!
Part of the reason the USA was so bold was because from intelligence reports which showed that despite the press reports, the USSR was not ready for combat!

GAU-8

bugs

Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-19 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

S-75 Dvina - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
SA-3 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Vympel K-13 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Soviet Air Defence Forces - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

bugs

We must take immediate steps to protect our present nuclear striking force from surprise attack. Today, more than 90 percent of our retaliatory capacity is made up of aircraft and missiles which have fixed un-protectable bases whose location is known to the Russians. We can only do this by providing SAC with the capability of maintaining a continuous airborne alert and by pressing projects such as the Hound Dog air-ground missile which will enable manned bombers to penetrate Soviet defenses with their weapons.
John F. Kennedy in a speech to the American Legion convention at Miami Florida, on October 18, 1960

bugs

Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara decided that the B-58 was not going to be a viable weapon system. It was during its introduction that the surface-to-air missile became a viable and dangerous weapon system, one the Soviet Union extensively deployed. The "solution" to this problem was to fly at low altitudes, minimizing the radar line-of-sight and thus minimizing detection (exposure) time.
While the Hustler was able to fly these sorts of missions, it could not do so at supersonic speeds, thereby giving up the high performance the design paid so dearly for. Its moderate range suffered further due to the thicker low-altitude air. Its early retirement, slated for 1970, was ordered in 1965, and despite efforts of the Air Force to earn a reprieve, proceeded on schedule.

In my opinion the b-58 is one of the bombers build before his time.
His retirement a bad decision because however vulnerable the b 58 was, the transonic b-52 was even more, ( as for low altitude penetration in a b-52.............)
The next strategic bomber ( b-1 lancer) would have to wait until 1986 before becaming operational...

glyn

__________________
Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

bugs

It was build for nuclear deterence so LIMITED does not cut it. B-52 was better in a conventional conflict as Vietnam but in a nuclear exchance i side with the B-58.
B-52 is largely subsonic but i was refering to wiki definition of transonic (about mach 0.8–1.2).
The Hound dog had a range of 785 miles so i do not see how the b-52 could reach cities in Kazahstan for instance.
As for the tomahawk ... it was in service in 1983 long after the b-58 was out, so the comparison is not fair.

What advantages do you see in a strategic bomber being supersonic now that SAMs are even more developed?
Not now but between 1960 and 1980 the b-58 had a number of advantages.
1 It was harder to intercept ( for instance a mig-19 could not catch it, even a mig-21 had to work with GCI to intercept as speeds were comparable and the mig-21 radar limited )
The soviets only started to receive mig-23 and mig-25 fighters after 1972-1973.
2 Low level penetration combined with air refueling means it could use a high -low -high mision profile to trick the sam net.
the sam-6 (effective range of 3-24 km) entered in service in 1970 and the sam-10 in 1979.

glyn

[quote=bugs;518542]It was build for nuclear deterence so LIMITED does not cut it.

It was intended for nuclear weapons delivery but its short legs precluded it from deep penetration.


B-52 was better in a conventional conflict as Vietnam but in a nuclear exchance i side with the B-58.

You are entitled to your opinion but the facts are against you.


B-52 is largely subsonic but i was refering to wiki definition of transonic (about mach 0.8–1.2).

Ah, the Wiki. Where would we be without it? The B-52 is firmly, entirely and wholly sub-sonic.

The Hound dog had a range of 785 miles so i do not see how the b-52 could reach cities in Kazahstan for instance.
As for the tomahawk ... it was in service in 1983 long after the b-58 was out, so the comparison is not fair.

The Inter Continental Ballistic Misilles in the US Armoury would have taken care of those targets.


What advantages do you see in a strategic bomber being supersonic now that SAMs are even more developed?
Not now but between 1960 and 1980 the b-58 had a number of advantages.
1 It was harder to intercept ( for instance a mig-19 could not catch it, even a mig-21 had to work with GCI to intercept as speeds were comparable and the mig-21 radar limited )


The planners at the highest levels of the Pentagon obviously did not think it worth persevering with.


The soviets only started to receive mig-23 and mig-25 fighters after 1972-1973.
2 Low level penetration combined with air refueling means it could use a high -low -high mision profile to trick the sam net.

Its short range at low level would have sent it on a suicide mission as it would not have been able to return.


the sam-6 (effective range of 3-24 km) entered in service in 1970 and the sam-10 in 1979.

The SAM 2s & 3s were still there in large numbers.

bugs

Its short range at low level would have sent it on a suicide mission as it would not have been able to return.

It could fly from Italy to Moskow only on internal fuel and back.