Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Su-15 and Saab 37

    avatar
    andalusia

    Posts : 212
    Points : 268
    Join date : 2013-10-01

    Su-15 and Saab 37 Empty Su-15 and Saab 37

    Post  andalusia on Wed Jul 10, 2019 9:54 am

    could Russia have modernized the su 15 and brought it to the level of the French Mirage? It seems they could have sold it to poor countries in Asia, Africa and Central America.  It was a delta wing like the Mirage and seems like they could have improved the technology.  Was it possible or it simply was an outdated jet?

    Also what is people's opinion about the Saab 37? I read it was a good jet and where did it rank among the jet fighters at the time and why didn't Sweden try to sell this jet to poor countries in Asia, Africa and Central America?  I read that it was easy and inexpensive to maintain.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_37_Viggen
    miketheterrible
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 4422
    Points : 4400
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Su-15 and Saab 37 Empty Re: Su-15 and Saab 37

    Post  miketheterrible on Wed Jul 10, 2019 10:00 am

    andalusia wrote:could Russia have modernized the su 15 and brought it to the level of the French Mirage? It seems they could have sold it to poor countries in Asia, Africa and Central America.  It was a delta wing like the Mirage and seems like they could have improved the technology.  Was it possible or it simply was an outdated jet?

    Also what is people's opinion about the Saab 37? I read it was a good jet and where did it rank among the jet fighters at the time and why didn't Sweden try to sell this jet to poor countries in Asia, Africa and Central America?  I read that it was easy and inexpensive to maintain.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_37_Viggen

    Not sure your question tbh.

    Su-17 has been modernized over the years with various different tech all the way up to Su-22M5 which had a lot of modern tech in it (join venture between France and Russia).

    Its a strike aircraft an in all its purposes, it does its job well, even with minor upgrades.

    I guess only real upgrade now that would make it even better is Gefast & T system.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 5296
    Points : 5288
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Su-15 and Saab 37 Empty Re: Su-15 and Saab 37

    Post  Isos on Wed Jul 10, 2019 10:06 am

    Su-22 uses pretty much all the tactical missiles that russia has. It is a very good and cheap to operate bomber that should have been kept in big numbers.
    Big_Gazza
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 1925
    Points : 1927
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Su-15 and Saab 37 Empty Re: Su-15 and Saab 37

    Post  Big_Gazza on Wed Jul 10, 2019 10:29 am

    Su-15 was a specialised interceptor for the V-PVO. Fast and high flying, and IIRC much more expensive than the MiG-23s used by FA. It was never exported, even to WarPac allies on account of its higher tech levels.
    avatar
    andalusia

    Posts : 212
    Points : 268
    Join date : 2013-10-01

    Su-15 and Saab 37 Empty Re: Su-15 and Saab 37

    Post  andalusia on Wed Jul 10, 2019 10:36 am

    miketheterrible wrote:
    andalusia wrote:could Russia have modernized the su 15 and brought it to the level of the French Mirage? It seems they could have sold it to poor countries in Asia, Africa and Central America.  It was a delta wing like the Mirage and seems like they could have improved the technology.  Was it possible or it simply was an outdated jet?

    Also what is people's opinion about the Saab 37? I read it was a good jet and where did it rank among the jet fighters at the time and why didn't Sweden try to sell this jet to poor countries in Asia, Africa and Central America?  I read that it was easy and inexpensive to maintain.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_37_Viggen

    Not sure your question tbh.

    Su-17 has been modernized over the years with various different tech all the way up to Su-22M5 which had a lot of modern tech in it (join venture between France and Russia).

    Its a strike aircraft an in all its purposes, it does its job well, even with minor upgrades.

    I guess only real upgrade now that would make it even better is Gefast & T system.

    I was talking about the su-15

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-15
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 5296
    Points : 5288
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Su-15 and Saab 37 Empty Re: Su-15 and Saab 37

    Post  Isos on Wed Jul 10, 2019 11:11 am

    Mig 25 was a much better interceptor, widely exported. Anyone who wants su-15 can get a mig-25. Mig 31 is also better and offered for export. Mirage is a fighter while su 15 an interceptor with bad manoeuvrability. 

    Modernization is possible but unlikely to find anyone who will buy it. And it can't be transformed into a fighter. 

    Modern air forces want multirole jets that can do everything and if they had to choose btw su 15 and mirage they will take mirage.
    avatar
    andalusia

    Posts : 212
    Points : 268
    Join date : 2013-10-01

    Su-15 and Saab 37 Empty Re: Su-15 and Saab 37

    Post  andalusia on Fri Jul 12, 2019 10:52 am

    Isos wrote:Mig 25 was a much better interceptor, widely exported. Anyone who wants su-15 can get a mig-25. Mig 31 is also better and offered for export. Mirage is a fighter while su 15 an interceptor with bad manoeuvrability. 

    Modernization is possible but unlikely to find anyone who will buy it. And it can't be transformed into a fighter. 

    Modern air forces want multirole jets that can do everything and if they had to choose btw su 15 and mirage they will take mirage.

    Good response. I want to know is the SU-33 available for export? What are the reasons why it is not available; it seems like a good jet. Moreover, why hardly any Russian allies want the MIG 35? It seems like a country can get a very capable jet for a good price.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 24514
    Points : 25056
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Su-15 and Saab 37 Empty Re: Su-15 and Saab 37

    Post  GarryB on Wed Feb 26, 2020 3:44 am

    The Su-33 is not in production, so anyone who wants any would need to pay for tooling up a factory to build some... that is not cheap and the problem is that being a carrier based aircraft you probably wont want more than 40-50 or so at the most which means the tooling up costs are not spread across many airframes...


    500 million to tool up the factory to build 24 aircraft means tooling up adds about 21 million to the price of each aircraft just for tooling... a 40 million dollar plane becomes a 60 million dollar plane...

    The problem for the MiG-35 is that the vast majority of countries that needed medium sized fighters from the Soviet Union and could afford them are now part of NATO and so the MiG-35 is no longer a politically acceptable option.

    The second problem is that for not much more money they can have an Su-30, which has better range and payload and the bean counters will say that because the Su-30 has twice the flight range and external hard points of the MiG-35 you only need half as many so they work out about the same price.

    Problem with that of course is that they both generally fly at similar speeds so having two MiG-35s means much better coverage than a bigger longer ranged aircraft.

    The MiGs offer about 90% of the performance of the Su-35 but are cheaper to operate.

    For Russia in the far east and the far north where there is a lot of empty open ground then a big long range aircraft makes sense, but in western Russia where there are more airfields and more things to defend then having more smaller aircraft makes a lot more sense.

    In fact MiG have done an even better job as the MiG-29M2 has the same airframe as the MiG-35 so you can save money initially by buying MiG-29M2s.... perhaps 200-250 of them at what would probably be a reasonable price. A relatively rich country like India could buy 250 MiG-29M2s and 50 MiG-35s with all the bells and whistles. They could then operate them for 5 years and decide what more advanced features of the 35 they find useful and what they don't need... they can then buy the improved bits from the 35s and fit them to the 29M2s to upgrade them while saving money not buying stuff they don't use.

    This means they effectively have 300 MiG-35s with all the useful features of the 35 but after 5 years the new features will be much cheaper.

    If they just bought all 35s then they probably would have gotten about 90 or 100 35s for the money they spent on the 250 M2s, so instead of 300 aircraft they would have had 140-150.

    The M2 is a modern datalinked fighter bomber more capable than the MiG-27 or Jaguar in strike roles and more capable than the MiG-21 and old model MiG-29 in interceptor and dogfight roles and cheaper to operate than Flankers.
    avatar
    nastle77

    Posts : 230
    Points : 308
    Join date : 2015-07-25

    Su-15 and Saab 37 Empty Re: Su-15 and Saab 37

    Post  nastle77 on Fri Apr 17, 2020 4:08 am

    andalusia wrote:could Russia have modernized the su 15 and brought it to the level of the French Mirage? It seems they could have sold it to poor countries in Asia, Africa and Central America.  It was a delta wing like the Mirage and seems like they could have improved the technology.  Was it possible or it simply was an outdated jet?

    Also what is people's opinion about the Saab 37? I read it was a good jet and where did it rank among the jet fighters at the time and why didn't Sweden try to sell this jet to poor countries in Asia, Africa and Central America?  I read that it was easy and inexpensive to maintain.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_37_Viggen

    viggen was like an equivalent of mig-29 9.12 , ofcourse it didnt have the excellent R73 but otherwise same tech , some might say its like mig-23M but I would think one would need three mig-23M/MF to shoot down one JA37 [ with skyflash]

    su-15 is one of my fav aircraft , and Ive always wondered the same why it wasnt sold
    funny thing is in 1985 nearly 600 + su-15TM are in service by 1987 only 225 , so a lot of airframes with lots of flying hrs left were retired as flanker and foxhounds entered service in large numbers in late 80s

    soviets sold huge numbers of mig-23ml a far more technologically advanced fighter to angola ethiopia so why not su15 ?

    su-15 TM had gunpods and R60 so I wish it could atleast tangle with enemy strike planes like delta mirages /f104/f4 when they are loaded with ordanance and force a mission kill if nothing else

    in late 80s i see pics of su15 in two tone green camo? maybe some were transferred to VVS ? not sure

    strike adaptation of su-15 was probably a nonstarter there were tons of mig23bn and su17 airframes around in the 80s to be sold

    but su15 can be a decent fighter [depsite its lack of agility] for some airforces as like i mentioned above could hold its own against mirage III/V /f-104/F-4 ?
    definately more than sufficent for those airforces that face J-6/J-7 in the 80s

    avatar
    nastle77

    Posts : 230
    Points : 308
    Join date : 2015-07-25

    Su-15 and Saab 37 Empty Re: Su-15 and Saab 37

    Post  nastle77 on Fri Apr 17, 2020 4:15 am

    Big_Gazza wrote:Su-15 was a specialised interceptor for the V-PVO. Fast and high flying, and IIRC much more expensive than the MiG-23s used by FA.  It was never exported, even to WarPac allies on account of its higher tech levels.

    the TM version could handle low level operations but not as well as mig-23P
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 24514
    Points : 25056
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Su-15 and Saab 37 Empty Re: Su-15 and Saab 37

    Post  GarryB on Fri Apr 17, 2020 2:31 pm

    The Su-15 was an interceptor... and that was all it was.

    Its missiles were AA-3 Anabs that pretty much would only be any good shooting down non manouvering targets like bombers or civilian airliners.

    They were not dogfighters and were never expected to be used as dogfighters... they were directed by ground control to a point in space behind and above the threat and when ordered to launched two missiles to shoot down that target.

    They sometimes carried gunpods for warning shots but ironically those gun pods were not loaded with ammo that used tracer so unless the target saw the muzzle flash they would not see or hear the cannons being fired.

    They were not upgraded or adapted for the same reason the Tu-128 was not upgraded or adapted and sold for export... no one else needed long range high speed interceptors to stop American bombers coming over the north pole to launch an attack on their country.

    They were highly specialised for their role and were not really good designs to be adapted to anything else.

    The MiGs that replaced them exceeded their performance in every way... speed, range, missile performance, radar, etc etc...

    An upgraded MiG-23 with R-73s and R-27s or R-77s and an Al-31 engine and small AESA radar would be a very potent fighter... but aerodynamics have moved on.

    The thing is that you start changing this and that and eventually you end up with a modified plane that is still not as good as a MiG-29... a 29 has fixed wings but can take off from short runways and fly at supersonic speed... the MiG-23 needed wings that moved from straight to swept to allow it to take off from reasonable length runways and fly at supersonic speeds. The Su-15 just used enormous runways... 3-5km long....

    The fundamental problem is that no matter how much you change and fix and upgrade even a basic MiG-29 is better and a MiG-29M is rather better than anything you could get to them in terms of cost and performance... and with the MiG-29M there is the further upgrades to 35 level if you want them...
    avatar
    nastle77

    Posts : 230
    Points : 308
    Join date : 2015-07-25

    Su-15 and Saab 37 Empty Re: Su-15 and Saab 37

    Post  nastle77 on Fri Apr 17, 2020 6:46 pm

    GarryB wrote:The Su-15 was an interceptor... and that was all it was.

    Its missiles were AA-3 Anabs that pretty much would only be any good shooting down non manouvering targets like bombers or civilian airliners.

    They were not dogfighters and were never expected to be used as dogfighters... they were directed by ground control to a point in space behind and above the threat and when ordered to launched two missiles to shoot down that target.

    They sometimes carried gunpods for warning shots but ironically those gun pods were not loaded with ammo that used tracer so unless the target saw the muzzle flash they would not see or hear the cannons being fired.

    They were not upgraded or adapted for the same reason the Tu-128 was not upgraded or adapted and sold for export... no one else needed long range high speed interceptors to stop American bombers coming over the north pole to launch an attack on their country.
    ..

    it is not a dogfight if the su-15 is vectored by GCI to conduct a tail attack on a formation of bomb laden f-104/f4/delta mirages
    it shoots its missiles and disengages
    its like mig21 vs f-105
    no real agility or manouvering required
    speed/accelaration and a good connection with GCI radars

    obviously this will not work against USAF/top tier NATO like airforces but for less sophistricated air forces it is a possibility
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 5296
    Points : 5288
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Su-15 and Saab 37 Empty Re: Su-15 and Saab 37

    Post  Isos on Fri Apr 17, 2020 7:21 pm

    obviously this will not work against USAF/top tier NATO like airforces but for less sophistricated air forces it is a possibility

    Nato will have an AWACS to detect the interseptor and tell its fighter to engage the interceptor. If you take out the AWACS the airspace and they just send their jets then GCI is still working. Iraqi and servs detected a lot of NATO jets and launched their migs to intercept them but with 2 or 3 awacs behind the nato fighters the migs are easily spotted.
    avatar
    nastle77

    Posts : 230
    Points : 308
    Join date : 2015-07-25

    Su-15 and Saab 37 Empty Re: Su-15 and Saab 37

    Post  nastle77 on Sat Apr 18, 2020 4:44 am

    Isos wrote:
    obviously this will not work against USAF/top tier NATO like airforces but for less sophistricated air forces it is a possibility

    Nato will have an AWACS to detect the interseptor and tell its fighter to engage the interceptor. If you take out the AWACS the airspace and they just send their jets then GCI is still working. Iraqi and servs detected a lot of NATO jets and launched their migs to intercept them but with 2 or 3 awacs behind the nato fighters the migs are easily spotted.

    yes and serbs and iraqis were horribly outnumbered too

    if its a big all out war , then it makes things even easier for the soviet side as single mission aircraft will be more useful than multi-role performers
    esp if you outnumber your opponent 2-3 to 1
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 24514
    Points : 25056
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Su-15 and Saab 37 Empty Re: Su-15 and Saab 37

    Post  GarryB on Sat Apr 18, 2020 6:46 am

    obviously this will not work against USAF/top tier NATO like airforces but for less sophistricated air forces it is a possibility

    Most third world countries don't have GCI capacity, or it would be defeated electronically by any western supported enemy.

    High speed and high altitude and acceleration performance gave their missiles their best chance for a kill in any given encounter and also the ability to run away to avoid any response from any surviving enemy aircraft.

    In Vietnam they used to use MiG-21s to try to intercept bomb laiden F 100 series fighter/bombers... the MiGs would dive on their targets and use R-3s and then fly past at supersonic speed minimising the chance of the target aircraft to do anything while still having a reasonable chance of a kill with a missile... on at least one occasion the Americans sent F-4s pretending to be 100 series aircraft on a bombing mission to surprise them... high speed targets are less manouverable and easier for Sparrow kills.

    Su-15 would probably have been more effective because their missiles could have been launched from greater distances and would have good kill chances against bomb laiden aircraft, and their higher flight speed and altitude would have made them much harder targets for any fighter escort... but the Su-15 was expensive and needed long runways and would have had to have been based in China.... I don't think it would have changed that much regarding the results...


    Nato will have an AWACS to detect the interseptor and tell its fighter to engage the interceptor.

    If there was a simple upgrade for ancient aircraft that made them invincible that any third world country could buy that would allow them to take on any enemy force no matter where it came from then that aircraft would sell very very well... the Americans claim it is the F-35, but I am not so sure... perhaps the only aircraft that could fit such a role would be the original Firefox... but you would need Clint Eastwood to fly it of course...
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 24514
    Points : 25056
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Su-15 and Saab 37 Empty Re: Su-15 and Saab 37

    Post  GarryB on Sat Apr 18, 2020 6:49 am

    What I am trying to say is that no upgrade of an old aircraft will make the next best thing and I hope the person who created this thread was not hoping for that.

    The lessor goal of a useful cheap plane made available because it is no longer wanted or needed in its original role creates the problem that the Su-15 was a very specialised plane that is not particularly suited to much else... and certainly many air forces would struggle to keep it operational.

    New missiles and new radar and new engines would transform its performance, but still not enough to make it better than the aircraft that replaced it.
    avatar
    nastle77

    Posts : 230
    Points : 308
    Join date : 2015-07-25

    Su-15 and Saab 37 Empty Re: Su-15 and Saab 37

    Post  nastle77 on Sat Apr 18, 2020 5:59 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    obviously this will not work against USAF/top tier NATO like airforces but for less sophistricated air forces it is a possibility

    Most third world countries don't have GCI capacity, or it would be defeated electronically by any western supported enemy.

    High speed and high altitude and acceleration performance gave their missiles their best chance for a kill in any given encounter and also the ability to run away to avoid any response from any surviving enemy aircraft.

    In Vietnam they used to use MiG-21s to try to intercept bomb laiden F 100 series fighter/bombers... the MiGs would dive on their targets and use R-3s and then fly past at supersonic speed minimising the chance of the target aircraft to do anything while still having a reasonable chance of a kill with a missile... on at least one occasion the Americans sent F-4s pretending to be 100 series aircraft on a bombing mission to surprise them... high speed targets are less manouverable and easier for Sparrow kills.

    Su-15 would probably have been more effective because their missiles could have been launched from greater distances and would have good kill chances against bomb laiden aircraft, and their higher flight speed and altitude would have made them much harder targets for any fighter escort... but the Su-15 was expensive and needed long runways and would have had to have been based in China.... I don't think it would have changed that much regarding the results...


    Nato will have an AWACS to detect the interseptor and tell its fighter to engage the interceptor.

    If there was a simple upgrade for ancient aircraft that made them invincible that any third world country could buy that would allow them to take on any enemy force no matter where it came from then that aircraft would sell very very well... the Americans claim it is the F-35, but I am not so sure... perhaps the only aircraft that could fit such a role would be the original Firefox... but you would need Clint Eastwood to fly it of course...

    no su15 would have not changed the bigger picture
    but would be interesting to see it in action against bombladen F-4 and maybe even the few F104 deployed there

    vietnam could have bought a sanitized version it could have been useful against hoardes of chinese H-5/H-6 bombers in the late 70s/80s? and probably sophisticated enough still to bring them down

    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 5296
    Points : 5288
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Su-15 and Saab 37 Empty Re: Su-15 and Saab 37

    Post  Isos on Sat Apr 18, 2020 6:07 pm

    I saw that the su-15 was used against airliners and its missiles kinda suck because they often missed. No gun and bad manoeuvrability makes the aircraft pretty bad interceptor.

    Mig-25/23 were better options IMO. But they were probably newer.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 24514
    Points : 25056
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Su-15 and Saab 37 Empty Re: Su-15 and Saab 37

    Post  GarryB on Sun Apr 19, 2020 6:53 am

    They shot down the airliners they fired upon, so I am not sure what you mean by them sucking.

    They often carried belly pylon mounted gun pods, but they didn't use tracer ammo... they were for finishing off targets rather than warning shots.

    Manouverablity would have been redundant as I said before... fly to optimum launch position and launch and then return home and refuel and rearm and repeat... manouverability didn't come in to it... max speed and max altitude to give max SAM range on launch was all that really mattered and in that regard they were pretty much better than most.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 5296
    Points : 5288
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Su-15 and Saab 37 Empty Re: Su-15 and Saab 37

    Post  Isos on Sun Apr 19, 2020 8:56 am

    They shot down the airliners they fired upon, so I am not sure what you mean by them sucking

    Many missiles missed and one airliner could land which means the warhead is not big enough.

    Airliners fly straight, no ecm, big RCS so even the primitive missile back then should have had no issues with such targets.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 24514
    Points : 25056
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Su-15 and Saab 37 Empty Re: Su-15 and Saab 37

    Post  GarryB on Sun Apr 19, 2020 11:36 am

    What missiles missed?

    Which airliners got away?

    The Americans loved to test the Soviets... a lot of old former bomber aircraft got shot down during the cold war... renamed RB for recon (ex)bomber...

    Airliners fly straight, no ecm, big RCS so even the primitive missile back then should have had no issues with such targets.

    All bombers fly straight... all of them had big RCS, and ECM doesn't stop 23mm cannon shells.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 5296
    Points : 5288
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Su-15 and Saab 37 Empty Re: Su-15 and Saab 37

    Post  Isos on Sun Apr 19, 2020 12:28 pm

    GarryB wrote:What missiles missed?

    Which airliners got away?

    The Americans loved to test the Soviets... a lot of old former bomber aircraft got shot down during the cold war... renamed RB for recon (ex)bomber...

    Airliners fly straight, no ecm, big RCS so even the primitive missile back then should have had no issues with such targets.

    All bombers fly straight... all of them had big RCS, and ECM doesn't stop 23mm cannon shells.

    A su15 fired 2 missiles at a japanese P-2 Neptune and they both missed.

    A korean civilian airliner landed in Soviet Union after being targeted by su-15 missiles. 2 missile fored but one touched the aircraft.

    Another civilian aircraft was successfully destroyed killing more than 200 passengers.

    But were guns always carried ?
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 24514
    Points : 25056
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Su-15 and Saab 37 Empty Re: Su-15 and Saab 37

    Post  GarryB on Mon Apr 20, 2020 4:18 am

    AFAIK they were normally carried, but were carried for kills.

    During the KAL007 shootdown I seem to remember the pilot mentioning firing warning shots but even he admitted it was an empty gesture because they didn't use tracers.

    Was the Japanese Neptune in Soviet airspace?

    The US was testing Soviet defences so it started out flying near the international border with Soviet territory... they would record radio communications and radar frequencies used and locations... how many interceptors were sent up for different threats... that sort of stuff... basically casing the place for a home invasion later on... well the Soviets are not stupid so they stopped responding so they started flying towards Soviet airspace and then turning away at the last minute... which initially worked and activated the defences, but soon enough it stopped working, so they started pulling silly shit like finding places where Soviet territory stuck out and cutting across so they were in and out of Soviet airspace fairly quickly... and the usual... eventually they started choosing places that were further from Soviet bases and flying into and staying in Soviet airspace for a while and then leaving. They also started getting South Korean Airliners to cut across Soviet airspace too... when it is in international airspace the Soviets just escorted and monitored... inside airspace they generally tried to force them to land or fired at them.

    As I said... lots and lots of bombers got shot down... a few airliners too. And at least one cargo plane from memory...

    Sponsored content

    Su-15 and Saab 37 Empty Re: Su-15 and Saab 37

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Jun 04, 2020 6:32 pm