Active Military Fighter Aircraft of the 70'ies

[Kruska]

Personally I find that the 70'ies ushered into a new philosophy of military fighter aircraft - away from known standard designs to e.g. swept wing, all round visual canopies, double twin tails, right up to novel air-intake configurations.
I remember us teenagers viewing these Jane's-Aircraft pocketbooks in the 70'ies and Wow, there was this F-16 - unheard/unseen design - an air-intake located at the belly - an all round view canopy, could this machine actually fly and perform? Well nowadays we all know that it became one of the top fighter-aircraft of the world.

Any photos and input is most welcomed - but let us keep to "active" military aircraft of the 70'ies - thanks

https://simpleflying.com/general-dynamics-f-16-fighting-falcon-history/

F-16, initially a single-seat, single-engine jet fighter built by the General Dynamics Corporation (now part of the Lockheed Martin Corporation) for the United States and more than a dozen other countries and that has seen well over 4,000 examples produced. The F-16 originated in an order placed in 1972 for a lightweight cost-effective air-to-air fighter. Current models are also all-weather capable and effective for ground attack as well. The U.S. Air Force took first delivery in 1978.

And it all started with the YF-16

 

[Kruska]

Interesting to note is that despite the F-16's revolutionary design, it was also the last US Fighter Aircraft to enter service displaying a single fin

The Fighter Aircraft that would kick off the double or twin fins was to be the F-14 - aside from the YF-17 that only came into service in the 80'ies as the F-18.

F-14 (Tomcat)
First introduced in the mid-1970s, the F-14 "Tomcat" would become one of the most iconic American jet fighters of all time. After a distinguished career, the F-14s fame would perhaps reach its zenith in 1986 with the film "Top Gun".
It is an American carrier-capable, supersonic, twin-engined, twin-seater, variable-swept wing fighter. The United States Navy developed the fighter jet to meet its need for a new kind of aircraft to meet its Naval Fighter Experimental (VFX) ambitions for hunting and killing high-speed bombers and other threats.

Designed in the 1960s and first flown in December 1970, the "Tomcat" was officially brought into active service in 1974, with the first squadrons deployed to the venerable U.S. carrier USS Enterprise (CVN-65).

Grumman F-14 Tomcat

Page details technical specifications, development, and operational history of the Grumman F-14 Tomcat including pictures.

www.militaryfactory.com

Unfortunately - especially for "Top Gun" aficionados, the Super Tomcat didn't make it

 

[Kruska]

McDonnell Douglas F-15

Initially designed and devised as an air-superiority fighter – it quickly changed to become an all-round military fighter aircraft.

YF-15A-1-MC | This Day in Aviation

www.thisdayinaviation.com

The F-15 entered service with the United States Air Force in 1975. More than 1,500 fighter, two-seat trainer, and two-seat F-15E Strike Eagle fighter-bombers have been built by McDonnell Douglas and Mitsubishi. It is operated by allied air forces around the world and is expected to remain in front line service until 2030-35.

Displaying the visual “new concept” – twin tail fins and an all-round visibility canopy it marched on to stay in service until today – likely to remain the world’s best all-round fighter aircraft for another decade, if so an amazing 60 years !! Imagine the F-86 Sabre having been in service from 1950 onward and still representing the top of the line in 2010.

It all started with the YF-15A-1-MC “Eagle”

An anachronism of 1979, Luftwaffe F-104G in formation with USAF F-15’s.

 

[The Duke]

F-16 is still a Bad Mamma Jamma.

 

[Kruska]

The most iconic Fighter-Aircraft in the 70'ies, to me was the A-10 Fairchild Republic Thunderbolt II.

Literally an aircraft build around a canon - and most likely being the exact aircraft that would be needed most in the event of a war at the time. Revolutionary in design and purpose.

A-10 Thunderbolt II "Warthog"
The 30 mm GAU-8/A Avenger rests in the front of the aircraft. The front landing gear retracts from under the wings in an offset position, with the rear wheels in line with the fuselage. This set up allows room for the massive weapon. The barrel of the GAU-8/A extends out from the nose of the A-10. It is the heaviest automatic cannon ever mounted on an aircraft.

The A-10 Warthog. The official designation for this aircraft is the A-10 Thunderbolt II, named after its illustrious WWII predecessor the P-47 Thunderbolt. However, one interesting A-10 fact is that the nickname “Warthog” is so popular and well loved that it appears in official documents.

The Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II (Warthog)

The Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II (Warthog) , Hobbymaster New Photo Updates and Signed Hurricanes !

www.flying-tigers.co.uk

Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Ariz. received the first-ever production A-10 in October 1975. The first A-10 being accepted by the Air Force Tactical Air Command on 30th March 1976. Production continued at a rate of 15 aircraft per month.

It started of with the YA-10

 

[Vrenn]

McDonnell Douglas F-15

Initially designed and devised as an air-superiority fighter – it quickly changed to become an all-round military fighter aircraft.

YF-15A-1-MC | This Day in Aviation

www.thisdayinaviation.com

The F-15 entered service with the United States Air Force in 1975. More than 1,500 fighter, two-seat trainer, and two-seat F-15E Strike Eagle fighter-bombers have been built by McDonnell Douglas and Mitsubishi. It is operated by allied air forces around the world and is expected to remain in front line service until 2030-35.

Displaying the visual “new concept” – twin tail fins and an all-round visibility canopy it marched on to stay in service until today – likely to remain the world’s best all-round fighter aircraft for another decade, if so an amazing 60 years !! Imagine the F-86 Sabre having been in service from 1950 onward and still representing the top of the line in 2010.

It all started with the YF-15A-1-MC “Eagle”

View attachment 858238

An anachronism of 1979, Luftwaffe F-104G in formation with USAF F-15’s.

View attachment 858239

l was stationed a Bitburg AB when the F-15As and Bs showed up. Everything about the bird revolved around the radar. Lose that and you had a very expensive basic trainer since the guns and the AA-9s were also dependent on the radar working. When the As were upgraded to the C, they made the gun and Heat Seekers less dependent to the radar.

We did a wargame against Spangolem (sp). We generated 33% which was the best for the Airforce and the F-15A. Spang generated over 95% of the F-4Es and Gs. While we lost birds to radar, they launched the flying dead where only one or two F-4s had operational radar and they used Weaver Hunting Scopes to aim their heat seekers and guns. AT the end of the war games, the F-4s and F-14s The F-15 did a 4 to one kill rate. The F-15, with it's dismal 2 out of 3 fighters grounded, it made danged near won the war games. We didn't feel to good about the outcome but a win is a win. When the As were upgraded to Cs, the F-4 didn't stand a tinkers chance in hell.

 

[Vrenn]

The most iconic Fighter-Aircraft in the 70'ies, to me was the A-10 Fairchild Republic Thunderbolt II.

Literally an aircraft build around a canon - and most likely being the exact aircraft that would be needed most in the event of a war at the time. Revolutionary in design and purpose.

View attachment 859178


A-10 Thunderbolt II "Warthog"
The 30 mm GAU-8/A Avenger rests in the front of the aircraft. The front landing gear retracts from under the wings in an offset position, with the rear wheels in line with the fuselage. This set up allows room for the massive weapon. The barrel of the GAU-8/A extends out from the nose of the A-10. It is the heaviest automatic cannon ever mounted on an aircraft.

The A-10 Warthog. The official designation for this aircraft is the A-10 Thunderbolt II, named after its illustrious WWII predecessor the P-47 Thunderbolt. However, one interesting A-10 fact is that the nickname “Warthog” is so popular and well loved that it appears in official documents.

The Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II (Warthog)

The Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II (Warthog) , Hobbymaster New Photo Updates and Signed Hurricanes !

www.flying-tigers.co.uk

Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Ariz. received the first-ever production A-10 in October 1975. The first A-10 being accepted by the Air Force Tactical Air Command on 30th March 1976. Production continued at a rate of 15 aircraft per month.

It started of with the YA-10

View attachment 859177

View attachment 859181

The AF did not want the A-10 but Congress did. The original mission proposed for the A-10 was against heavy Russian armor in Europe. The problem is, by the time the T-72 was introduced, tanks could shoot back.

They even went as far to do a flyoff against the A-7E. They made the A-7E only use it's single internal 20mm instead of mounting the 30mm gun pods. No other weapons were used. Of course the GAU-8 won over the 20mm. We did some wargames ourselves and determined that the A-7 could beat the A-10 in a one on one combat. The Navy didn't bother sending topcap for the A-7 missions. If they were attacked by Migs, half of the A-7s pickled their ground loads and went Mig hunting. There was even a kit offered (not accepted) to reengine and extend the A-7 to make it into a supersonic fighter.

The AC-130 came online in 1969 and proved to be the terror we all know today. USAF kept buying them and improving them until they are what we have today. The job that the A-10 ended up doing was CAS. Over half of the clips for Afganistan and Iraq attributed to the A-10 was actually done by the AC.

 

[Kruska]

The AF did not want the A-10 but Congress did. The original mission proposed for the A-10 was against heavy Russian armor in Europe. The problem is, by the time the T-72 was introduced, tanks could shoot back.

They even went as far to do a flyoff against the A-7E. They made the A-7E only use it's single internal 20mm instead of mounting the 30mm gun pods. No other weapons were used. Of course the GAU-8 won over the 20mm. We did some wargames ourselves and determined that the A-7 could beat the A-10 in a one on one combat. The Navy didn't bother sending topcap for the A-7 missions. If they were attacked by Migs, half of the A-7s pickled their ground loads and went Mig hunting. There was even a kit offered (not accepted) to reengine and extend the A-7 to make it into a supersonic fighter.

The AC-130 came online in 1969 and proved to be the terror we all know today. USAF kept buying them and improving them until they are what we have today. The job that the A-10 ended up doing was CAS. Over half of the clips for Afganistan and Iraq attributed to the A-10 was actually done by the AC.

In view of the A-10's mission parameters, I don't think you can compare it with the A-7E. (though the latter was indeed a good ground strike/attack aircraft). The A-10 came in conjunction with with the Anti-tank helicopters - e.g. Cobra, Apache or the PAH-105. NATO had the basic requirement that these ground attack aircraft could take of from meadows and roads - due to anticipating that the Russian would render the standard airbases to rubble within the first 24 hours.

The mission wasn't (aside from loads of propaganda or e.g. the PAH-105) solely anti-tank, but to destroy and disrupt road and train supply columns and to literally annihilate medium hardened to soft targets. The loitering time in conjunction with the 16,000 Lbs of weapon-load and the A-10's phenomenal turning radius of less then 400m (an A-7 with around 2.5 km? in comparison) made this aircraft absolutely deadly, not even to mention it's armor protection that enabled it to operate even way below 1000 feet.

Fortunately it never had to proof its worth in Europe during the cold-war. Due to the tactics of the US military having significantly changed, no more "onslaughts" against an equal foe, but pinpoint strikes against underdogs (in vast majority conducted via long range artillery, and or ground/air and maritime based missiles, the A-10 had indeed become meaningless from 1990 onward.

As for the AC-130 - only a country such as the USA conducting wars against underdogs and therefore having total air-supremacy or e.g. Afghanistan with no viable antiaircraft capability - not to mention a non existing air-force, can make use of a weapon-platform such as an AC-130. I don't believe that e.g. an AC-130 would have had any chance of survival in a confrontation with Russia in the 70'ies or 80'ies.

It is also interesting to note that due to military budget restrictions incl. the huge increase in purchase costs for "new" weapon-platforms such as the above mentioned F-14, F-15, F-16 and the latter F-18 all these "medium" fighter aircraft such as the A-4, A-7, F-5, Alpha Jets, Hawks, Harriers and Jaguars - more or less totally vanished in the inventories of NATO and the US Armed Forces.

As such the F-16 having become the all-round workhorse of NATO and many other countries.

 

[Vrenn]

In view of the A-10's mission parameters, I don't think you can compare it with the A-7E. (though the latter was indeed a good ground strike/attack aircraft). The A-10 came in conjunction with with the Anti-tank helicopters - e.g. Cobra, Apache or the PAH-105. NATO had the basic requirement that these ground attack aircraft could take of from meadows and roads - due to anticipating that the Russian would render the standard airbases to rubble within the first 24 hours.

A war that never came to fruition. Could it have worked? Like I said, with the introduction of the T-72 where they can shoot back, as of 1973, the A-10 could no longer do the mission that it was designed for. Design a parring knife to open wine bottles.

The mission wasn't (aside from loads of propaganda or e.g. the PAH-105) solely anti-tank, but to destroy and disrupt road and train supply columns and to literally annihilate medium hardened to soft targets. The loitering time in conjunction with the 16,000 Lbs of weapon-load and the A-10's phenomenal turning radius of less then 400m (an A-7 with around 2.5 km? in comparison) made this aircraft absolutely deadly, not even to mention it's armor protection that enabled it to operate even way below 1000 feet.

A-10 Combat range 390 nmi, Radius half that.
A-7 Combat range 1070 nmi Radius half that.

A-10 16,000 payload.
Top speed 439 mph
Hard Points 11
Sustained mobility fully loaded isn't loaded because it's so poor\
Thrust to weight ration .35.
Rate of climb 6000 fpm
Titanium Bathtub

A-7E 14,000 payload
Top speed 690 mph.
Hard Points 10
Carried more types of weapons including Harms.
Sustained mobility 4.6gs at 580 mph fully loaded
Thrust to weight .5
Rate of climb 15,000 fpm
Titanium Fuselage

Now comes the KING of CAS. The A-1E

• Maximum speed: 322 mph (518 km/h, 280 kn) at 18,000 ft (5,500 m)
• Cruise speed: 198 mph (319 km/h, 172 kn)
• Range: 1,316 mi (2,118 km, 1,144 nmi)
• Service ceiling: 28,500 ft (8,700 m)
• Rate of climb: 2,850 ft/min (14.5 m/s)
• Wing loading: 46.6 lb/sq ft (228 kg/m2)
• 15 Hardpoints
• Titanium Bathtub

I was involved in some Downed Pilots in enemy territory. We weren't involved in the rescue, we did monitor it though with our Gunships. When things got hot, we had to move our gunships off.

The first AC on site were the fighters like the F-4, F-8. They also lacked the loiter time.

The next birds that showed up were the A-7s And they began attacking closing ground troops.

When the A-1s showed up the Fighters have already gone home or back to their original mission and the A-7 are nearing bingo. The A-1 will have a loiter time of more than 4 hours and if you ever saw a cartoon of attacking bees, that is what the A-1E looked like.

Every good point of the A-10 is equaled or exceeded by the other two. For instance, I helped to pull tree limbs out of the A-1Es engine cowling. And it was running and flying carrying that. Of course, the Prop will be bent and a couple of jugs will only have a Rod throwing engine oil. And then there was the one that flew in that could only make right hand turns because he was missing most of his right wing.

Fortunately it never had to proof its worth in Europe during the cold-war. Due to the tactics of the US military having significantly changed, no more "onslaughts" against an equal foe, but pinpoint strikes against underdogs (in vast majority conducted via long range artillery, and or ground/air and maritime based missiles, the A-10 had indeed become meaningless from 1990 onward.

It was meaningless the day it rolled off the assembly plant in 1977. In the first Iraq war, it began looking for a mission. They tried using it to go after the Scud sites but after all was recorded, the A-10s only attacked Dummy Scud Sites.

The fact that the A-10 could inflight refuel meant that you could double it's CAS range. The problem there is, Tanker Time is at a premium. As Iraq began losing hard, the A-10 could be stationed closer where it's range was no longer a factor. Plus, like the AC-130, the A-10 completely is dependent on the US having a complete dominance in air power. While the A-10 would probably take a single ground to air hit, he won't survive an attacking fighter that will easily hit him numerous times with much larger warheads.

As for the AC-130 - only a country such as the USA conducting wars against underdogs and therefore having total air-supremacy or e.g. Afghanistan with no viable antiaircraft capability - not to mention a non existing air-force, can make use of a weapon-platform such as an AC-130. I don't believe that e.g. an AC-130 would have had any chance of survival in a confrontation with Russia in the 70'ies or 80'ies.

The US would have established air superiority even then. When the F-15, F-14 and F-16 came along, there was no Air Force on tghe face of the Earth that could tangle with it until the production of the M-29 introduced in 1983. And even then, it was thought that a Mig-29 could out dogfight a F-15 but that was proven wrong a few times. Meaning, the AC-130 would still be used when air superiority was established.

It is also interesting to note that due to military budget restrictions incl. the huge increase in purchase costs for "new" weapon-platforms such as the above mentioned F-14, F-15, F-16 and the latter F-18 all these "medium" fighter aircraft such as the A-4, A-7, F-5, Alpha Jets, Hawks, Harriers and Jaguars - more or less totally vanished in the inventories of NATO and the US Armed Forces.

The point I made was, the A-10 was obsolete the day it rolled off the assembly line. The problem was, nothing was offered for many years (decades) to replace the venerable A-1E or A-7.

As such the F-16 having become the all-round workhorse of NATO and many other countries.

No disagreement there. Out of all the Gen 4 fighters, in a pure dogfight, the F-16 is one bad MOF. Of course, we can't go without mentioning that the F-18E is pretty damned good as well even against non carrier fighters.

 

[Kruska]

A war that never came to fruition. Could it have worked? Like I said, with the introduction of the T-72 where they can shoot back, as of 1973, the A-10 could no longer do the mission that it was designed for. Design a parring knife to open wine bottles.

Okay a lot of good points by you - however we or this thread is about the 70'ies and not weapon developments used in the 90'ies - e.g. your Iraq comparison.
T-72 shooting back - I don't get your meaning - shooting back at an e.g. A-10 with what? Those T-72's in Iraq (just coming back onto your timeline) didn't shoot at any aircraft. They were obliterated by any available means including A-10 strafing runs and their Mavericks.

The A-1E and AFAIK neither the A-7E didn't posses any interlinked capability for conducting forward air control - they were simply set onto pre-specified/ identified targets. For that the US used the A-6 Intruder and Prowler versions. Unlike in a cold-war scenario the USA in Vietnam was more or less unobstructed in regards to recon. And could fly/conduct missions more or less anywhere as they pleased. I never saw or got acquainted with an A-1E - but the specs clearly indicate that an A-!E's, an A-6 or A-7E's survival towards ground-fire would have been way less then that of an A-10.

Sure the A-1E could carry a substantial payload - just as the A-10, it however did not have a 30mm revolver cannon to reek havoc against previous unknown concentrations of troops and vehicles. The A-10 due to the anticipated Russian mass attack was concentrated on the immediate front-line and not to fly missions like the A-1E or A-7E hundreds of miles over a poorly defended aerial territory.

IMO one can't compare a guerrilla and infantry based war (on behalf of the NVA) with the material onslaught of the Warsaw Pact in a cold-war scenario of the 70'ies and 80'ies targeting and making use of a top developed infrastructure in e.g. Germany. Those Russian tanks wouldn't be rolling through forests but on the best roads of Europe. The NATO forward strategy was only developed in the 80'ies. Taking into account of the then available new aircraft generation of F-14, F-16, F-15, F-18, the F-4 and the ground attack fighter A-10.

Thus an AC-130 could only have been used from the mid 80'ies onward.

I think you totally overestimate the NATO capability of the 70'ies - the NATO mainstream fighter-aircraft was by far the F-104 and some F-5E users - about as good or useless as a Mig-21 - only the latter was 5 times the numbers not to mention the thousands of Mig-19's and the introduction of the Su-17 family. No NATO country fielded any significant numbers of the F-4 before the end of the 70ies - aside from the USA. And the only European NATO countries that fielded the F-4 at the time were Britain and Germany. It's the mid eighties onward were NATO overtook, and outclassed the Warsaw Pact - thanks to those "new" designs aka F-14,F-15, F-18, F-16 (replacing all these F-104's and F-5E's).

The A-10 simply couldn't proof it's worth - and from the mid 80'ies onward the task of the A-10 had been taken over by the "new" generation of fighter aircraft - and their enhanced weaponry, (e.g. Mavericks) and e.g. by the Panavia Tornado. As such the A-10 was an aircraft that simply arrived to late, (in regards to the 70'ies) and to early in view of the "new" generation.

IIRC the A-10 was specifically developed and specified to replace the A-1E - due to the Vietnam experience, that had shown the clear limitations of the A-1E. Today as of the 2000's onward due to the foremost COIN & CAS based operations of the US military - a modernized version of the A-1E would do the job - but would they be cheaper to purchase and maintain, and better then a Predator B drone?

Why the USA has never delivered it's non used A-10's to Ukraine (independent of the canon not living up to it's theoretical capability) - will always remain a mystery to me. Whilst both Russia and Ukraine are making extensive use of their Su-25's.

And the Su-25 came into service around 20 years after the A-10 !! - beholding a very different war concept of the 90'ies

BTW an interesting comparison between the A-10 and the Su-25

Su-25 Vs A-10: here’s why the Frogfoot might be better suited than the Warthog for CAS - The Aviation Geek Club

Su-25 Vs A-10: here’s why the Frogfoot might be better suited than the Warthog for CAS

theaviationgeekclub.com

 

[Kruska]

What did IVAN have to offer in regards to "new" fighter aircraft developments of the 70'ies?

Not much really - the Mig-23 was rendered mostly useless due to being fitted with outdated radars and avionics. Therefore aside from it's swept-wing design and the ability to take off from field-strips - there wasn't much left to hold it in esteem.

It had become evident in the 70'ies that the USSR was facing a 10year+ technological gap to the West - and it wasn't before the mid 80'ies that the USSR came up with the MiG-29 to counter the "new" generation of NATO.

The only USSR Fighter Aircraft that pops into my mind in regards to being "unique" or creating a Wow effect would be the Mig-25 Foxbat that also displayed as Russia's first Fighter Aircraft, a twin tail fin configuration.

Initially designed and intended as an interceptor for the USAF anticipated XB-70 Valkyrie - it was deployed foremost in the recon role, though other variants such as the MiG-25R, MiG-25RB and MiG-25BM - derivatives from the MiG-25P. The MiG-25R is a tactical reconnaissance aircraft. The MiG-25RB is a variant for bombing area and large targets.

News from Israel had it on a very early stage - reporting that the Mig-25 engines had to be fully exchanged after it had exceeded Mach 2.5 during it's recon runs. It was massively hyped by the West - foremost to ensure further orders of NATO's new generation fighter aircraft.

Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-25 (Foxbat) Supersonic Interceptor / Reconnaissance Bomber Aircraft

Page details technical specifications, development, and operational history of the Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-25 (Foxbat) Supersonic Interceptor / Reconnaissance Bomber Aircraft including pictures.

www.militaryfactory.com

It all got started with the Ye-155

These were prototypes of what would become the Mig-25 Foxbat. After the airplane appeared in public for the first time in July 1967 and went on a record-setting spree, it appeared the Soviets had a wonder weapon that could match the best in the West — the Mach 3.2 Lockheed SR-71 spy-plane. The lightened MiG-25 prototypes, designated YE-155R (reconnaissance) and YE-155P (interceptor), set 29 speed, altitude and time-to-climb records, some of which still stand. For pure speed, they notched 1,852 mph. They could climb to 98,425 feet in four minutes and 3.86 seconds and ultimately reached an absolute altitude record of 123,520 feet.

Instead of titanium, the Soviets turned to stainless steel, even though steel weighs three times as much as the correspondingly strong aluminum. Fueled but without any ordnance, a steel MiG-25 weighed 64,000 pounds. A composites-and-titanium Lockheed-Martin F-35A, the Air Force’s heaviest fighter, grosses just under 50,000 pounds.

The cancellation of the XB-70 made the Foxbat a machine without a mission. The airplane had powerful pulse doppler radar, weighing over half a ton and full of delicate vacuum tubes, yet that radar had a range of barely 56 miles. One pilot noted that it would kill a rabbit at 300 yards, if the unlucky bunny got in the way while a MiG-25 was taxiing — but the radar was designed to search up into an open sky and burn through any bomber’s jamming tech from below. Countering a Northrop Grumman B-2 Stealth Bomber jinking through valleys and riverbeds demanded look-down/shoot-down radar that the Foxbat didn’t have. In fact, the Soviets wouldn’t develop look-down/shoot-down radar until the 1980s, and the Foxbat’s radar was blind below 500 meters (1,650 feet) above the ground.

The MiG-25 Terrified the West Until a Defector Exposed Its True Nature

The once-top-secret Soviet interceptor turned out to be a Potemkin Village of an airplane.

www.historynet.com

 

[Vrenn]

Okay a lot of good points by you - however we or this thread is about the 70'ies and not weapon developments used in the 90'ies - e.g. your Iraq comparison.
T-72 shooting back - I don't get your meaning - shooting back at an e.g. A-10 with what? Those T-72's in Iraq (just coming back onto your timeline) didn't shoot at any aircraft. They were obliterated by any available means including A-10 strafing runs and their Mavericks.

The title is for 70s AND 80s. And in the 1991 Gulf War, there wasn't anything available that wasn't available in the 80s. What was learned by USAF was to use Mavericks and such before using your gun against a line of armor. Common sense says to kill your enemy as quickly and efficiently as possible with the least amount of effort or danger. Firing on a bunch of ragheads armed with AKs means you can use the least expensive weapon which is the Cannon. But go against weapons that can shoot back like T-72s,

The following are considered Surface to Air weapons and all were available at the beginning of the 1991 Gulf War.
Anti-aircraft

• ZSU-57-2 SPAAA (Self-Propelled Anti-Aircraft Artillery)
• ZSU-23-4 Shilka SPAAA (Self-Propelled Anti-Aircraft Artillery)
• NIIP\Vympel 2K12 "Kub" SA-6a Gainful Self-Propelled SAM (Surface-To-Air Missile) Launcher
• Antey 9K33M Osa-AK SA-8b Gecko Self-Propelled SAM (Surface-To-Air Missile) Launcher
• Nudelman 9K31 "Strela-1" SA-9 Gaskin Self-Propelled SAM (Surface-To-Air Missile) Launcher
• ZRK-BD 9K35 "Strela-10" SA-13 Gopher Self-Propelled SAM (Surface-To-Air Missile) Launcher
• AMX-30 Roland 2 Self-Propelled SAM (Surface-To-Air Missile) Launcher
• Lavochkin OKB S-75 Dvina SA-2 Guideline SAM (Surface-To-Air Missile) Launcher
• Isayev S-125M "Neva-M" SA-3b Goa SAM (Surface-To-Air Missile) Launcher
• Roland 2 SAM (Surface-To-Air Missile) Launcher
• ZPU-1 14.5 mm Towed AAA (Anti-Aircraft Artillery)
• ZPU-2 14.5 mm Towed AAA (Anti-Aircraft Artillery)
• ZPU-4 14.5 mm Towed AAA (Anti-Aircraft Artillery)
• ZU-23-2 23 mm Towed AAA (Anti-Aircraft Artillery)
• M1939 37 mm Towed AAA (Anti-Aircraft Artillery)
• S-60 57 mm Towed AAA (Anti-Aircraft Artillery)
• S-60 Twin 57 mm Towed AAA (Anti-Aircraft Artillery)
• KS-19 100 mm Towed AAA (Anti-Aircraft Artillery)

Most of these are limited to line of sight and probably below 20,000 feet. You have to understand that the Iraq Military was rated as 5th in the world.

The A-1E and AFAIK neither the A-7E didn't posses any interlinked capability for conducting forward air control - they were simply set onto pre-specified/ identified targets. For that the US used the A-6 Intruder and Prowler versions. Unlike in a cold-war scenario the USA in Vietnam was more or less unobstructed in regards to recon.

You have no idea what "Going Downtown" means. The US fighters (Navy, Marine and USAF) flew into a virtual wall of surface to air and Migs on every mission when attacking "Up North". The North "Going Downtown" made flying over Bagdad look like a summer walk in the woods.



This is why the F-117 was so important for the 2nd Gulf war.

And could fly/conduct missions more or less anywhere as they pleased. I never saw or got acquainted with an A-1E - but the specs clearly indicate that an A-!E's, an A-6 or A-7E's survival towards ground-fire would have been way less then that of an A-10.

The A-1E was the same kind of Titanium Bathtub that the A-10 is. But taking out a Recip is much harder than a Jet. What helped the A-10 was the placement of engines, high and to the rear partial covered by the wings. That means, it was harder to take out from below but simple to take out air to air. Here is a neat question. How many Mig Kills has the A-10 done in combat? How about zero. The A-1E hosts two Mig kills. And a shitload of Mig avoidance where the F-4 and F-8 would intercede.

I know what it felt to fly into the Flak with a Gunship. Those red fingers that were trying to touch you were 37mm AntiAircraft rounds with an occasional 57mm and 88., WE had the ACs come back with engines missing, over 300 holes in it and, sometimes, not come back at all. When it got bad, some of the F-4Es would try and draw the Sams and AA onto themselves by floating down with landing lights on, gear down and full flaps. I have no idea where the pilot stored his balls on that one because as large as the F-4 is, the Pilots Balls would be the size of a swimming pool. Got a couple of tales about those Phantom Drivers that you just would not conceive.

Sure the A-1E could carry a substantial payload - just as the A-10, it however did not have a 30mm revolver cannon to reek havoc against previous unknown concentrations of troops and vehicles. The A-10 due to the anticipated Russian mass attack was concentrated on the immediate front-line and not to fly missions like the A-1E or A-7E hundreds of miles over a poorly defended aerial territory.

Poorly defended? Just cross the DMZ and get a huge surprise. And the

A1-EH and the A-7DE regularly operated above the DMZ supporting downed pilots for pickup. While we were sending in everything that flew into that area to support the rescue choppers (Jolly Greens usually) the north was redistrubuting their defense and going on the attack. And you seem to believe that this was wide open territory. It wasn't. It was mostly Jungle broken up by farm plots.

IMO one can't compare a guerrilla and infantry based war (on behalf of the NVA) with the material onslaught of the Warsaw Pact in a cold-war scenario of the 70'ies and 80'ies targeting and making use of a top developed infrastructure in e.g. Germany. Those Russian tanks wouldn't be rolling through forests but on the best roads of Europe. The NATO forward strategy was only developed in the 80'ies. Taking into account of the then available new aircraft generation of F-14, F-16, F-15, F-18, the F-4 and the ground attack fighter A-10.

Thus an AC-130 could only have been used from the mid 80'ies onward.

I think you totally overestimate the NATO capability of the 70'ies - the NATO mainstream fighter-aircraft was by far the F-104 and some F-5E users - about as good or useless as a Mig-21 - only the latter was 5 times the numbers not to mention the thousands of Mig-19's and the introduction of the Su-17 family. No NATO country fielded any significant numbers of the F-4 before the end of the 70ies - aside from the USA. And the only European NATO countries that fielded the F-4 at the time were Britain and Germany. It's the mid eighties onward were NATO overtook, and outclassed the Warsaw Pact - thanks to those "new" designs aka F-14,F-15, F-18, F-16 (replacing all these F-104's and F-5E's).

I was involved in the Weisbotten (sp) War games. Nato against Warsaw. I was on the Warsaw side. What came out of it was NATO had to cheat to hold Warsaw off. They made the tanks only operate on well defined roads and were kept single file. That isn't the way they operated. When the firing starts, the Armor scatters and begins to fight. Like the Japanese from their Midway wargames, NATO cheated and would have been met with a disaster in real life. Yes, the F-15A was involved and did a decent 4 to one kill rate but NATO was outnumbered many times that. In the end, Warsaw used the SU-7 (ground attack) as an air to air fighter while the A-10s were stranded in England because the SU-7 would take out an A-10 on a heads up fight. Essentially, neither side had much of an Air Force left. So to win, NATO had to cheat on the ground.

The A-10 simply couldn't proof it's worth - and from the mid 80'ies onward the task of the A-10 had been taken over by the "new" generation of fighter aircraft - and their enhanced weaponry, (e.g. Mavericks) and e.g. by the Panavia Tornado. As such the A-10 was an aircraft that simply arrived to late, (in regards to the 70'ies) and to early in view of the "new" generation.

IIRC the A-10 was specifically developed and specified to replace the A-1E - due to the Vietnam experience, that had shown the clear limitations of the A-1E. Today as of the 2000's onward due to the foremost COIN & CAS based operations of the US military - a modernized version of the A-1E would do the job - but would they be cheaper to purchase and maintain, and better then a Predator B drone?

The A-10, as a coin or CAS is rapidly being replaced by the USAF AT-6 and Navy AT-29. They don't need the huge canon or the excess speed or the ability to take direct hits and keep on ticking. What they need is agility, range, keep it a small package and for the least amount of operating costs.

Why the USA has never delivered it's non used A-10's to Ukraine (independent of the canon not living up to it's theoretical capability) - will always remain a mystery to me. Whilst both Russia and Ukraine are making extensive use of their Su-25's.

In Ukraine, the A-7 would be preferable to the A-10. I bring that up because the A-7 and the SU-25 have about the same amount of everything going for it. Speed is life and the A-10 doesn't really have the speed nor the power to extend after the target. You fire the A-10s gun and the Aircraft drastically slows down. It only has a .35 power to weight ratio while the SU-25 has about a .5. What a low powered attack bird has to do after it hits it's target is to keep low, build up speed and then pop up. It's called extending. This leaves the A-10 much more vulnerable than the SU-25.

And the Su-25 came into service around 20 years after the A-10 !! - beholding a very different war concept of the 90'ies

You mean 3 years after. The A10 was put into service in 1978 while the SU-25 went into service in 1981. Before that, the SU-7 was the primary ground attack fighter. The SU-7 was introduced in 1955 and served honorably until the newer SU-25 replaced it almost 30 years later. The flight characteristics of the SU-7 was slightly less than the A-7E.

BTW an interesting comparison between the A-10 and the Su-25

Su-25 Vs A-10: here’s why the Frogfoot might be better suited than the Warthog for CAS - The Aviation Geek Club

Su-25 Vs A-10: here’s why the Frogfoot might be better suited than the Warthog for CAS

theaviationgeekclub.com

I know it would. But would it be better than the upgrade they were going towards for the A-7E in the 70s? There was an upgrade for the A-7E for 3.3 million per airframe where the engines were upgraded and the fuselage was extended about 2 feet and the top speed was increased to about Mach 1.3. But the F-16 was already on the planning boards and that killed the A-7 upgrade.

 

[Vrenn]

What did IVAN have to offer in regards to "new" fighter aircraft developments of the 70'ies?

Not much really - the Mig-23 was rendered mostly useless due to being fitted with outdated radars and avionics. Therefore aside from it's swept-wing design and the ability to take off from field-strips - there wasn't much left to hold it in esteem.

Believe it or not, the Mig-17 gave western fighters fits in a dogfight. Much better than the Mig-21. Even the Mig-19 did a pretty good job. But the Mig-21 had the speed. Neither of the three had any range to speak of and were point defense fighters only.

It had become evident in the 70'ies that the USSR was facing a 10year+ technological gap to the West - and it wasn't before the mid 80'ies that the USSR came up with the MiG-29 to counter the "new" generation of NATO.

The only USSR Fighter Aircraft that pops into my mind in regards to being "unique" or creating a Wow effect would be the Mig-25 Foxbat that also displayed as Russia's first Fighter Aircraft, a twin tail fin configuration.

Initially designed and intended as an interceptor for the USAF anticipated XB-70 Valkyrie - it was deployed foremost in the recon role, though other variants such as the MiG-25R, MiG-25RB and MiG-25BM - derivatives from the MiG-25P. The MiG-25R is a tactical reconnaissance aircraft. The MiG-25RB is a variant for bombing area and large targets.

News from Israel had it on a very early stage - reporting that the Mig-25 engines had to be fully exchanged after it had exceeded Mach 2.5 during it's recon runs. It was massively hyped by the West - foremost to ensure further orders of NATO's new generation fighter aircraft.

Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-25 (Foxbat) Supersonic Interceptor / Reconnaissance Bomber Aircraft

Page details technical specifications, development, and operational history of the Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-25 (Foxbat) Supersonic Interceptor / Reconnaissance Bomber Aircraft including pictures.

www.militaryfactory.com

It all got started with the Ye-155

These were prototypes of what would become the Mig-25 Foxbat. After the airplane appeared in public for the first time in July 1967 and went on a record-setting spree, it appeared the Soviets had a wonder weapon that could match the best in the West — the Mach 3.2 Lockheed SR-71 spy-plane. The lightened MiG-25 prototypes, designated YE-155R (reconnaissance) and YE-155P (interceptor), set 29 speed, altitude and time-to-climb records, some of which still stand. For pure speed, they notched 1,852 mph. They could climb to 98,425 feet in four minutes and 3.86 seconds and ultimately reached an absolute altitude record of 123,520 feet.

View attachment 861046

Instead of titanium, the Soviets turned to stainless steel, even though steel weighs three times as much as the correspondingly strong aluminum. Fueled but without any ordnance, a steel MiG-25 weighed 64,000 pounds. A composites-and-titanium Lockheed-Martin F-35A, the Air Force’s heaviest fighter, grosses just under 50,000 pounds.

The cancellation of the XB-70 made the Foxbat a machine without a mission. The airplane had powerful pulse doppler radar, weighing over half a ton and full of delicate vacuum tubes, yet that radar had a range of barely 56 miles. One pilot noted that it would kill a rabbit at 300 yards, if the unlucky bunny got in the way while a MiG-25 was taxiing — but the radar was designed to search up into an open sky and burn through any bomber’s jamming tech from below. Countering a Northrop Grumman B-2 Stealth Bomber jinking through valleys and riverbeds demanded look-down/shoot-down radar that the Foxbat didn’t have. In fact, the Soviets wouldn’t develop look-down/shoot-down radar until the 1980s, and the Foxbat’s radar was blind below 500 meters (1,650 feet) above the ground.

The MiG-25 Terrified the West Until a Defector Exposed Its True Nature

The once-top-secret Soviet interceptor turned out to be a Potemkin Village of an airplane.

www.historynet.com

View attachment 861060

Th recon version didn't have weapons. It was the one that flew Mach 3.2 at over 98K altitude. But for it to exceed over Mach 2.8, it sacrificed at least one engine on the return flight. The fighter version could not come close to that performance due to it being heavier and more drag. The Fighter Version could hit Mach 2.8 but it's engines were sacrifice. Before anyone bad mouths the fighter version of the Mig-25, it grew into world class point defense fighter with look down radar and extremely long ranged weapons. B-1s and B-52s would have been in trouble facing the Foxbat. This is why both went to standoff nuclear weapons and still do today due to the Foxbat's replacement, the M-31.

 

[Kruska]

The title is for 70s AND 80s.

No, the Title is:

Active Military Fighter Aircraft of the 70'ies​

And for a good reason, since in the early to late 70'ies the Warsaw Pact still had NATO on it's balls, on every aspect regarding land and air. (I am not knowledgeable in naval issues).
That is why the "new" generation developed and placed into active service, starting in the 70'ies, was to extremely important, and totally outclassed/outmatched the Warsaw Pact from the 80'ies onward.

But go against weapons that can shoot back like T-72s,

A T-72 doesn't really shot back at aircraft - aside from those mounted with the 12,7mm Dushka. - and they aren't operated during battle. The latter was already in service on T-10's, T-55's or T-62's - as such no improvement or surprise via a T-72. The same goes for the Warsaw pact's 37 and 57mm AA guns being around and known since WW2. And the A-10 was specifically armored/hardened in view of the Dushka and in regards to the widespread ZU-23 AA gun.

You have to understand that the Iraq Military was rated as 5th in the world.

Only in numbers and US/NATO propaganda - factually they were a nobody. I had been there just shortly before Desert-Storm, they couldn't even place AA guns in such a manner, so that they wouldn't obliterate each other. Even their Republican Guards were a joke in regards to training and tactical proficiency.
Around half of their fighter aircraft only existed on paper and taxing on the ground. No pilots, no training not even weaponry - I was very well aware of that due to contacts to Dassault and the French Air-force in regards to Iraq's F-1's in the No. 79 Squadron. Those units operating the F-1 had even flown a far lower number of combat sorties against Iran than those operating MiG-21s or Su-22s. Out of around 100 F-1's, less then 25 could be flown and only around 15 crews were factually proficient in flying that type.

If you remember during Desert Storm - more then half of the "operational" IrAF were send for "safekeeping" to Iran.

You have no idea what "Going Downtown" means.

Poorly defended?

I was referring to the South - since an A-10 would hardly fly all the way and into the North. The A-10 was specifically designed and placed into service for CAS - and as such always operated in conjunction with air-cover provided by the fixed wings and additionally actually foremost, covered/assisted by the ground forces - and there were no US ground forces in the North. As such using a A-10 in the North would defy CAS, and would be pure suicidal.

What helped the A-10 was the placement of engines, high and to the rear partial covered by the wings. That means, it was harder to take out from below.

Exactly

How many Mig Kills has the A-10 done in combat? How about zero.

Since it never faced combat against other countries air-forces or was in any danger in that respect - that question doesn't even make sense. The A-10 wasn't meant to engage enemy fixed wing aircraft - neither was the A-1E.
The A-10 however was also intended to engage the Warsaw Pact's massive helicopter fleet.

What you totally ignore about the A-10 was the intention of the loitering capability of that aircraft during CAS missions - and due to it's phenomenal turn radius - it was able to not totally overshot a target before or after engaging it - but to continuously "turn it's rounds" over recognized ground targets. I had witnessed numerous times during maneuvers as to how these A-10's kept harassing and continuously engaging ground targets - no one on the ground was able to shake off these buggers - unlike an e.g. F-104G or Fiat G-91, that would swoop in, drop it's weapon load all over the place and vanish as in "not to return".

A1-EH and the A-7DE regularly operated above the DMZ supporting downed pilots for pickup. While we were sending in everything that flew into that area to support the rescue choppers (Jolly Greens usually)

That is known - and the A-10 was never used nor intended for such a mission by NATO in the 70'ies nor 80'ies. It did however perform such missions in Iraq, due to the given US air supremacy and virtually non existing Iraqi AA effectiveness.

I was involved in the Weisbotten (sp) War games. Nato against Warsaw. I was on the Warsaw side. What came out of it was NATO had to cheat to hold Warsaw off. They made the tanks only operate on well defined roads and were kept single file. That isn't the way they operated. When the firing starts, the Armor scatters and begins to fight. Like the Japanese from their Midway wargames, NATO cheated and would have been met with a disaster in real life. So to win, NATO had to cheat on the ground.

I am aware - as I had stated on before; in the 70'ies the Warsaw Pact would have overrun NATO or at least Germany and Denmark. That is why the NATO forward strategy of the 50'ies was entirely revised in the 70'ies and came into full effect in the 80'ies due to these "new" generation Fighter Aircraft and the factual availability of the F-4 incl. Wild Weasel and the Panavia Tornado in NATO, incl. the CAS concept involving the A-10 - and not some A-7 or A-6 - that couldn't loiter and harass.

The A-10, as a coin or CAS is rapidly being replaced by the USAF AT-6 and Navy AT-29. They don't need the huge canon or the excess speed or the ability to take direct hits and keep on ticking. What they need is agility, range, keep it a small package and for the least amount of operating costs.

Correct - basically taken care of by Drones and long range missile artillery (HIMARS/MARS/PzH2000 etc.) - I don't really see a purpose or advantage in using an AT-6 or AT-29 for such tasks. especially not in regards to reaction time and vulnerability to AA. It's an antiquated concept IMO.

Provide e.g. Ukraine with sufficient HIMARS etc. and modern Drones (Predator) and the war would already be over, and there would be no need for those old-timer F-16's and nonsensical Leopard 1's and II A4's.

In Ukraine, the A-7 would be preferable to the A-10. I bring that up because the A-7 and the SU-25 have about the same amount of everything going for it. Speed is life and the A-10 doesn't really have the speed nor the power to extend after the target. You fire the A-10s gun and the Aircraft drastically slows down. It only has a .35 power to weight ratio while the SU-25 has about a .5. What a low powered attack bird has to do after it hits it's target is to keep low, build up speed and then pop up. It's called extending. This leaves the A-10 much more vulnerable than the SU-25.

Again an A-10 is about CAS in conjunction with air-superiority and ground support. The A-7 would face the same horrid losses as the SU-25, used and lost on both sides. Because no side has air-superiority over Ukraine and the respective ground troops are not capable of offensive drives - thus not able to set up an own AA support and can't get at the respective opponents AA units - aside from e.g. HIMARS.

You mean 3 years after. The A10 was put into service in 1978 while the SU-25 went into service in 1981. Before that, the SU-7 was the primary ground attack fighter. The SU-7 was introduced in 1955 and served honorably until the newer SU-25 replaced it almost 30 years later. The flight characteristics of the SU-7 was slightly less than the A-7E.

The SU-25 wasn't around in any significant numbers before end of the 80'ies. The first of the Warsaw Pact countries to receive the Su-25K was the Czechoslovakian Air Force, receiving it's first 5 units somewhere in 1984.
I remember that very well - since during an aircraft recognition training of a Roland and Gephard unit around 1985 - someone had asked as to what the SU-25 looks like. (it hadn't been depicted on the recognition chart) By then the A-10 was roaming in full strength over Germany and the production of the A-10 had IIRC already come to an end in 1984.
With the introduction of the "new" generation fighter aircraft and the deployment of foremost Roland and also the Gephard units alongside the Patriot system - the Warsaw Pact air-force had ceased to being a threat to NATO from the mid 80'ies onward.

But the F-16 was already on the planning boards and that killed the A-7 upgrade.

Exactly - and the immediate CAS mission was given to the A-10's.

 

[Kruska]

Before anyone bad mouths the fighter version of the Mig-25, it grew into world class point defense fighter with look down radar and extremely long ranged weapons. B-1s and B-52s would have been in trouble facing the Foxbat. This is why both went to standoff nuclear weapons and still do today due to the Foxbat's replacement, the M-31.

Do you have any idea as to the Radar cross-section and the antenna measurement the MiG-25 or the MiG-31 emits?

It's an absolute hopeless and outdated fighter-aircraft - that doesn't stand a chance against e.g. a B-1 or a B-52 coordinating it's flight with AWACS and ELINT/FISINT - you name it, equipped/capable aircraft - e.g. an accompanying EA-18G Growler, or their own EW suite on board aka SIGINT, EW and it's three sub-disciplines EA, EP and ES.

We tested a MiG 31 on the RASIGMA 2 system, amongst many other aircraft, and via a far more complex and further developed system - see below photo

 

[Vrenn]

Do you have any idea as to the Radar cross-section and the antenna measurement the MiG-25 or the MiG-31 emits?

In the areas that the Mig-25 and Mig-35 are protecting, you won't have any fighter escort. It's well beyond any fighter ever made with the possible exception of the XF-103. That means the US Bombers are targets while the Migs are launch platforms.

It's an absolute hopeless and outdated fighter-aircraft - that doesn't stand a chance against e.g. a B-1 or a B-52 coordinating it's flight with AWACS and ELINT/FISINT - you name it, equipped/capable aircraft - e.g. an accompanying EA-18G Growler, or their own EW suite on board aka SIGINT, EW and it's three sub-disciplines EA, EP and ES.

Coming over the cap, you won't have fighter escorts.

We tested a MiG 31 on the RASIGMA 2 system, amongst many other aircraft, and via a far more complex and further developed system - see below photo

View attachment 861178

The RASIGMA System, for bombers, will only apply on stealth bombers coming over the cap where most bombers will be routed. That means it doesn't apply to the B-1 or Buff at all. And it won't apply to the defending 25/31 fighters either. Nice try to deflect, though.

 

[AveMarica]

B-1s and B-52s would have been in trouble facing the Foxbat. This is why both went to standoff nuclear weapons and still do today due to the Foxbat's replacement, the M-31.

B-52s went to standoff nuclear weapons due to General Operational Requirement 148 which was released in 1956. It called for a standoff nuclear weapon for B-52 that could outrange Soviet SAMs, which at the time primary threat to US bombers was the SA-2 Guideline. This resulted in development of the Hound Dog missile, which was arming B-52s by 1959.

This predates MIG-25, which entered full rate production 10 years later in 1969.

 

[Flash]

The AF did not want the A-10 but Congress did. The original mission proposed for the A-10 was against heavy Russian armor in Europe. The problem is, by the time the T-72 was introduced, tanks could shoot back.

The original mission of the A-10 was to rack up Soviet armor losses on the Fulda Gap should there be an invasion. The aircraft was designed very well to do that.

The Soviets always had substantial battlefield anti aircraft capabilities. It was never expected that every A-10 mission during the war would result in the aircraft returning home. However, it was expected that the deployed A-10 fleet would inflict substantial Soviet losses before being depleted.

The A-10s were designed to fly low and slow and pilots were trained to use the mountainous terrain of the Fulda Gap as cover to sneak up and attack the armor before the Soviets could shoot them down.

During the Gulf War and even the Iraq War the A-10s did fine against Soviet designed anti aircraft systems but the opposition was never as heavy as what it would have been on the Fulda Gap.

My favorite aircraft.

 

[Kruska]

In the areas that the Mig-25 and Mig-35 are protecting, you won't have any fighter escort. It's well beyond any fighter ever made
Coming over the cap, you won't have fighter escorts.

Name me a single spot in Russia in regards to range that e.g. an F-15 (approx. 2300mls/4000km) without refueling - couldn't reach and return. Not to mention with inflight refueling.

The RASIGMA System, for bombers, will only apply on stealth bombers coming over the cap where most bombers will be routed. That means it doesn't apply to the B-1 or Buff at all. And it won't apply to the defending 25/31 fighters either. Nice try to deflect, though.

You don't seem to understand the concept of RASIGMA 2

It gives a clear indication to the Radar Signature that an object reflects - right down to defining a "catalogue" to the weaponry it carries. Secondly it measures the Electronic and Magnetic emission of an object and therefore enables the capability to counter and disrupt the electronic suit of such an object and even points out as to which antenna suit is the most prone one to go for.

The presently used Rasigma4 system, doesn't even need to get their hands onto an aircraft anymore - they get the data via distant means.
The Rasigma2 & 3 are used to define the functioning of stealth applications - thus documenting the factual RCS and the factual antenna emissions of an aircraft that has been chosen to fly a respective stealthy mission. Any issue that impacts the e.g. RCS or antenna emission can be pinpointed to maintenance. An e.g. F-22 is only stealthy on paper.

Those measurements obtained via Rasigma2/3 & 4 enable the development of algorithms - that in turn tell you everything about an e.g. MiG-31 approaching you from the moment of takeoff. That MiG-31 is dead from the moment it takes off, and would be taken out by an e.g. F-15 BVR of 200mls and more. The accompanying EW capable aircraft and/or the own EW suit of an e.g. B-1 or B-52 would over-plot, shade and decoy the electronics of that MiG-31. - it would have to get into visual range of a B-1 to take it down.

Knowing what weapons aka missiles that MiG-31 carries, enables the EW suit to prepare the necessary electronic counter measures from blocking to diverting to disabling the missile. And Rasigma 2 measurements have shown that the MiG-31 is about the worst shielded Russian aircraft.

You think that the mediocre performance of the e.g. MiG-31 in regards to firing long range missiles and hitting a target in Ukraine is due to manufacturing issues of the missile?

Russia is absolutely nowhere in regards to the present developed and deployed HighTec of the West. The only reason why people still bother to talk to them, is due to their ICBM/s, SRBMs, IRBMs and GLCMs, of which most likely 80% don't work.

 

[AveMarica]

View attachment 859177

Your A-10 bomb truck picture reflects how much the A-10's loadout has evolved over the decades. From dumb bombs and Mavericks to A-10C flying with Paveways and JDAMs to today where it can carry 16 SDBs on just the inner weapons stations.