US Air-to-Air Missiles

Militarov wrote:F14 as itself was decent machine, but i must also say most of the fame surrounding it is coming from movies and low IQ Americans that served on carriers that can say only: "BRING BACK THE TOMCATS" without actually basing that request on anything but "Obama sux".

When its about AIM54A, every time it was launched in combat it failed. Even on exercises it would very often fail, despite looking insane on paper it wasnt performing very well. Why Iranians are trying to reverse engineer it? Well their original AIMs that were delivered are probably very hard to be kept in service if they are even around these days, even with extended lifetime refit they should have been retired by now and i am not sure if Iranians were capable of it. Second and most important reason is that they tried integrating Russian and Chinese missiles on F14 but they apparently failed, coz they lack radar core software and codes, thats why they even mentioned F14 refit with Chinese built radars 2-3 years ago. So they got an idea to build their own domestic AIM54 which they will be able to use on F14s without rogue integration.

AIM54A was a crap, F14 was a fine fighter.

Really? Did you ask the Iranian airforce about that - they used it in Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s and are supposed to have shot down some aircraft with the AIM-54A. How successful was R-33 missile in combat? If the Iranians had no success with the AIM-54 missile maybe they wouldn't still be trying to use this missile?

BlackArrow wrote:

Militarov wrote:F14 as itself was decent machine, but i must also say most of the fame surrounding it is coming from movies and low IQ Americans that served on carriers that can say only: "BRING BACK THE TOMCATS" without actually basing that request on anything but "Obama sux".

When its about AIM54A, every time it was launched in combat it failed. Even on exercises it would very often fail, despite looking insane on paper it wasnt performing very well. Why Iranians are trying to reverse engineer it? Well their original AIMs that were delivered are probably very hard to be kept in service if they are even around these days, even with extended lifetime refit they should have been retired by now and i am not sure if Iranians were capable of it. Second and most important reason is that they tried integrating Russian and Chinese missiles on F14 but they apparently failed, coz they lack radar core software and codes, thats why they even mentioned F14 refit with Chinese built radars 2-3 years ago. So they got an idea to build their own domestic AIM54 which they will be able to use on F14s without rogue integration.

AIM54A was a crap, F14 was a fine fighter.

Really? Did you ask the Iranian airforce about that - they used it in Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s and are supposed to have shot down some aircraft with the AIM-54A. How successful was R-33 missile in combat? If the Iranians had no success with the AIM-54 missile maybe they wouldn't still be trying to use this missile?

Key word is supposed. No real indication or proof that the AIM-54 has seen any combat success in Iran. The US Navy sure hasn't. Meanwhile the R-33/R-37 has yet to see combat. Besides the battlefield has greatly evolved since the 1980s, I rather fly in with R-33/R-37s anytime over the ancient AIM-54 that has failed to hit a single target in its +30 years of service.

Ivan the Colorado wrote:

BlackArrow wrote:

Militarov wrote:F14 as itself was decent machine, but i must also say most of the fame surrounding it is coming from movies and low IQ Americans that served on carriers that can say only: "BRING BACK THE TOMCATS" without actually basing that request on anything but "Obama sux".

When its about AIM54A, every time it was launched in combat it failed. Even on exercises it would very often fail, despite looking insane on paper it wasnt performing very well. Why Iranians are trying to reverse engineer it? Well their original AIMs that were delivered are probably very hard to be kept in service if they are even around these days, even with extended lifetime refit they should have been retired by now and i am not sure if Iranians were capable of it. Second and most important reason is that they tried integrating Russian and Chinese missiles on F14 but they apparently failed, coz they lack radar core software and codes, thats why they even mentioned F14 refit with Chinese built radars 2-3 years ago. So they got an idea to build their own domestic AIM54 which they will be able to use on F14s without rogue integration.

AIM54A was a crap, F14 was a fine fighter.

Really? Did you ask the Iranian airforce about that - they used it in Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s and are supposed to have shot down some aircraft with the AIM-54A. How successful was R-33 missile in combat? If the Iranians had no success with the AIM-54 missile maybe they wouldn't still be trying to use this missile?

Key word is supposed. No real indication or proof that the AIM-54 has seen any combat success in Iran. The US Navy sure hasn't. Meanwhile the R-33/R-37 has yet to see combat. Besides the battlefield has greatly evolved since the 1980s, I rather fly in with R-33/R-37s anytime over the ancient AIM-54 that has failed to hit a single target in its +30 years of service.

No, the AIM-54 has been officially confirmed to have shot down some aircraft in that war - look it up. But we can both agree that missiles such as AIM-54, R-33, R-40 are pretty old hat today and technology has moved on.

BlackArrow wrote:

Ivan the Colorado wrote:

BlackArrow wrote:

Militarov wrote:F14 as itself was decent machine, but i must also say most of the fame surrounding it is coming from movies and low IQ Americans that served on carriers that can say only: "BRING BACK THE TOMCATS" without actually basing that request on anything but "Obama sux".

When its about AIM54A, every time it was launched in combat it failed. Even on exercises it would very often fail, despite looking insane on paper it wasnt performing very well. Why Iranians are trying to reverse engineer it? Well their original AIMs that were delivered are probably very hard to be kept in service if they are even around these days, even with extended lifetime refit they should have been retired by now and i am not sure if Iranians were capable of it. Second and most important reason is that they tried integrating Russian and Chinese missiles on F14 but they apparently failed, coz they lack radar core software and codes, thats why they even mentioned F14 refit with Chinese built radars 2-3 years ago. So they got an idea to build their own domestic AIM54 which they will be able to use on F14s without rogue integration.

AIM54A was a crap, F14 was a fine fighter.

Really? Did you ask the Iranian airforce about that - they used it in Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s and are supposed to have shot down some aircraft with the AIM-54A. How successful was R-33 missile in combat? If the Iranians had no success with the AIM-54 missile maybe they wouldn't still be trying to use this missile?

Key word is supposed. No real indication or proof that the AIM-54 has seen any combat success in Iran. The US Navy sure hasn't. Meanwhile the R-33/R-37 has yet to see combat. Besides the battlefield has greatly evolved since the 1980s, I rather fly in with R-33/R-37s anytime over the ancient AIM-54 that has failed to hit a single target in its +30 years of service.

No, the AIM-54 has been officially confirmed to have shot down some aircraft in that war - look it up. But we can both agree that missiles such as AIM-54, R-33, R-40 are pretty old hat today and technology has moved on.  

Already have and again nothing confirmed. No solid info has come out of Iran casting any claimed AIM-54 kills into serious doubt and every AIM-54 that the USN fired under combat conditions has failed to hit its target. All those ultra long range missiles are not old hat tech. Various nations are working on such missiles and if anything, now technology has advanced to a point where such long range interceptions are feasible.

Ivan the Colorado wrote:

No, the AIM-54 has been officially confirmed to have shot down some aircraft in that war - look it up. But we can both agree that missiles such as AIM-54, R-33, R-40 are pretty old hat today and technology has moved on.  

Already have and again nothing confirmed. No solid info has come out of Iran casting any claimed AIM-54 kills into serious doubt and every AIM-54 that the USN fired under combat conditions has failed to hit its target. All those ultra long range missiles are not old hat tech. Various nations are working on such missiles and if anything, now technology has advanced to a point where such long range interceptions are feasible.[/quote]

Well I'm sorry if you can't look these thing up correctly - btw, there is no objective evidence as to how well AIM-54 or any other aerial weapons system has worked in that particular war. The USN fired the AIM-54 twice in combat and failed to hit targets - so what?

All those ultra long range missiles are not old hat tech. Various nations are working on such missiles and if anything, now technology has advanced to a point where such long range interceptions are feasible.

I never said long-range missiles were old hat - I was referring to particular missile designs dating from the 1960s.

BlackArrow wrote:Well I'm sorry if you can't look these thing up correctly

Care to provide an objective source? Looked through my books and the web and I can't seem to find anything other than probably BS pilot claims.

- btw, there is no objective evidence as to how well AIM-54 or any other aerial weapons system has worked in that particular war. The USN fired the AIM-54 twice in combat and failed to hit targets - so what?

It means that the AIM-54 is 0% reliable.

I never said long-range missiles were old hat - I was referring to particular missile designs dating from the 1960s.

The vanilla versions of the missiles, yes I agree. But modernized versions are not like the R-37 which is derived from the R-33. Development of the R-37 is still ongoing as well. You wouldn't say that the AIM-9X is outdated despite being fundamentally based on a design that was conceived in the 1950's.

Ivan the Colorado wrote:

BlackArrow wrote:Well I'm sorry if you can't look these thing up correctly

Care to provide an objective source? Looked through my books and the web and I can't seem to find anything other than probably BS pilot claims.

- btw, there is no objective evidence as to how well AIM-54 or any other aerial weapons system has worked in that particular war. The USN fired the AIM-54 twice in combat and failed to hit targets - so what?

It means that the AIM-54 is 0% reliable.

I never said long-range missiles were old hat - I was referring to particular missile designs dating from the 1960s.

The vanilla versions of the missiles, yes I agree. But modernized versions are not like the R-37 which is derived from the R-33. Development of the R-37 is still ongoing as well. You wouldn't say that the AIM-9X is outdated despite being fundamentally based on a design that was conceived in the 1950's.

Care to provide an objective source? Looked through my books and the web and I can't seem to find anything other than probably BS pilot claims.

Is there such athing as an objective source - what would be an objective source in the Iran-Iraq war? Actually I believe the Iraqis themselves admit that at least one of their aircraft were shot down by F-14.

What do you have to say to the R-27 missile's almost 100% fail rate in the in the Eritrean-Ethiopian war in the 1990s? is R-27 a failure too?

The vanilla versions of the missiles, yes I agree. But modernized versions are not like the R-37 which is derived from the R-33. Development of the R-37 is still ongoing as well. You wouldn't say that the AIM-9X is outdated despite being fundamentally based on a design that was conceived in the 1950's.

Good, we can agree then. And BTW there is almost no commonality between an AIM-9B from the 1950s and today's AIM-9X.

BlackArrow wrote:Is there such a thing as an objective source - what would be an objective source in the Iran-Iraq war?

Of course there is never a 100% objective source but I am asking for the most objective source possible. I can't believe Iranian pilots when many other statistics say otherwise.

Actually I believe the Iraqis themselves admit that at least one of their aircraft were shot down by F-14.

Right, but the Iraqis never said what sort of missile downed their aircraft.

What do you have to say to the R-27 missile's almost 100% fail rate in the in the Eritrean-Ethiopian war in the 1990s? is R-27 a failure too?

Last I checked, ~4% hit rate is still better than 0%. But the low R-27 hit rates are likely due to a few variables like the missile was not used in their intended roles (unlike the Phoenix) and the mercenary pilots skills were not on the caliber of regular AF pilots (unlike the well trained F-14 aviators).

Good, we can agree then. And BTW there is almost no commonality between an AIM-9B from the 1950s and today's AIM-9X.

Correct, as there is no commonality in parts between the first R-33 and the modern R-37 missiles. However, like the AIM-9 variant, the fundamentals in design have not changed.

Ivan the Colorado wrote:

BlackArrow wrote:Is there such a thing as an objective source - what would be an objective source in the Iran-Iraq war?

Of course there is never a 100% objective source but I am asking for the most objective source possible. I can't believe Iranian pilots when many other statistics say otherwise.

Actually I believe the Iraqis themselves admit that at least one of their aircraft were shot down by F-14.

Right, but the Iraqis never said what sort of missile downed their aircraft.

What do you have to say to the R-27 missile's almost 100% fail rate in the in the Eritrean-Ethiopian war in the 1990s? is R-27 a failure too?

Last I checked, ~4% hit rate is still better than 0%. But the low R-27 hit rates are likely due to a few variables like the missile was not used in their intended roles (unlike the Phoenix) and the mercenary pilots skills were not on the caliber of regular AF pilots (unlike the well trained F-14 aviators).

Good, we can agree then. And BTW there is almost no commonality between an AIM-9B from the 1950s and today's AIM-9X.

Correct, as there is no commonality in parts between the first R-33 and the modern R-37 missiles. However, like the AIM-9 variant, the fundamentals in design have not changed.

Of course there is never a 100% objective source but I am asking for the most objective source possible. I can't believe Iranian pilots when many other statistics say otherwise.

Why not believe some of the thing they say - do you distrust everything the Iraqi pilots say as well?

Right, but the Iraqis never said what sort of missile downed their aircraft.

No, but the Iranians did.

Last I checked, ~4% hit rate is still better than 0%.

Maybe, but it is still a piss poor record. the problem is, the AIM-54 is long time retired so its combat record record is irrelevent - but the R-27 is still the main armament for most of the MiG-29s and Su-27s out there.

But the low R-27 hit rates are likely due to a few variables like the missile was not used in their intended roles (unlike the Phoenix) and the mercenary pilots skills were not on the caliber of regular AF pilots (unlike the well trained F-14 aviators).

Or maybe F-14 pilots are just as capable of screwing up as well - nobody's perfect.

BlackArrow wrote:Why not believe some of the thing they say - do you distrust everything the Iraqi pilots say as well?

As the Navy confirms and provides record of the use of the AIM-54, I am much more inclined to trust them. I have yet to see any military agency back up the claims of the Iranian pilots so I can't trust them. Nor will I trust an Iraqi pilot unless there is a more credible agency backing the claim up.

No, but the Iranians did.

Refer to the point above, I need something better than d!ck measuring Iranian pilots.

Maybe, but it is still a piss poor record. the problem is, the AIM-54 is long time retired so its combat record record is irrelevant - but the R-27 is still the main armament for most of the MiG-29s and Su-27s out there.

 
Sure it is a poor record, might be why the VVS is opting for R-77s. A lot of the info we need to make a solid conclusion is classified anyway, so this is all speculation. Why not disregard the R-27 too? The R-77 is quickly supplanting it in the Russian arsenal, so you'd most likely be going up against R-77s instead of R-27s. Iranians are still using and building the AIM-54 so its combat record may matter in the popular Israel vs. Iran scenario.

Or maybe F-14 pilots are just as capable of screwing up as well - nobody's perfect.

You missed the point. If you got that chance, who would you fly with. Those F-14 pilots or the untrained mercenary Su-27 and MiG-29 pilots?

Lets say that i was using somewhat overstatement there when i said "every time" but it certainly underperfomed compared to what US claimed AIM54 to be, there is one confirmed kill of Mig25R by Soviet Union from 1980. tho by F14, however number of launched AIM54s is probably limited due to reason they were half out of resources even during Iran-Iraq war. One of the rare sources about F14 a and AIM54 performance is article on democraticunderground.com named "Iranian combat experiences with AIM-54 Phoenix" however even there its marked as "The factual accuracy of this article or section is disputed." whoever is interested can check it.

Militarov wrote:Lets say that i was using somewhat overstatement there when i said "every time" but it certainly underperfomed compared to what US claimed AIM54 to be, there is one confirmed kill of Mig25R by Soviet Union from 1980. tho by F14, however number of launched AIM54s is probably limited due to reason they were half out of resources even during Iran-Iraq war. One of the rare sources about F14 a and AIM54 performance is article on democraticunderground.com named  "Iranian combat experiences with AIM-54 Phoenix" however even there its marked as "The factual accuracy of this article or section is disputed." whoever is interested can check it.

Thank you Militarov. Because of the lack of supporting evidence from the Iran-Iraq War, the only truly accurate source from where we can see a picture of the AIM-54's combat record is from the US Navy.

Militarov wrote:Lets say that i was using somewhat overstatement there when i said "every time" but it certainly underperfomed compared to what US claimed AIM54 to be, there is one confirmed kill of Mig25R by Soviet Union from 1980. tho by F14, however number of launched AIM54s is probably limited due to reason they were half out of resources even during Iran-Iraq war. One of the rare sources about F14 a and AIM54 performance is article on democraticunderground.com named  "Iranian combat experiences with AIM-54 Phoenix" however even there its marked as "The factual accuracy of this article or section is disputed." whoever is interested can check it.

Well there is suppossed to be a MiG-25R shot down- perhaps even a Tu-22 shotdown as well. But hey, if we can't trust the Iraqi and Iranian sources, why should we believe that any aircraft on both sides - either MiG, Sukhoi, Mirage F1 or F-4 and F-14 - were ever shot down - or was there even any kind of airwar?

Ivan the Colorado wrote:

Militarov wrote:Lets say that i was using somewhat overstatement there when i said "every time" but it certainly underperfomed compared to what US claimed AIM54 to be, there is one confirmed kill of Mig25R by Soviet Union from 1980. tho by F14, however number of launched AIM54s is probably limited due to reason they were half out of resources even during Iran-Iraq war. One of the rare sources about F14 a and AIM54 performance is article on democraticunderground.com named  "Iranian combat experiences with AIM-54 Phoenix" however even there its marked as "The factual accuracy of this article or section is disputed." whoever is interested can check it.

Thank you Militarov. Because of the lack of supporting evidence from the Iran-Iraq War, the only truly accurate source from where we can see a picture of the AIM-54's combat record is from the US Navy.

Is there any 'supporting evidence' to say that the R-27 missile has even managed a 4% kill rate - perhaps its only 00%? Whose sources can we trust?

BlackArrow wrote:

Militarov wrote:Lets say that i was using somewhat overstatement there when i said "every time" but it certainly underperfomed compared to what US claimed AIM54 to be, there is one confirmed kill of Mig25R by Soviet Union from 1980. tho by F14, however number of launched AIM54s is probably limited due to reason they were half out of resources even during Iran-Iraq war. One of the rare sources about F14 a and AIM54 performance is article on democraticunderground.com named "Iranian combat experiences with AIM-54 Phoenix" however even there its marked as "The factual accuracy of this article or section is disputed." whoever is interested can check it.

Well there is suppossed to be a MiG-25R shot down- perhaps even a Tu-22 shotdown as well. But hey, if we can't trust the Iraqi and Iranian sources, why should we believe that any aircraft on both sides - either MiG, Sukhoi, Mirage F1 or F-4 and F-14 - were ever shot down - or was there even any kind of airwar?

I am not saying that there was never any air war or those aircraft were shot down. When those aircraft don't appear in the inventory and they were said to be shot down, then it is safe to assume that they were shot down. I am saying that because of all the BS floating around from unverified sources, we cannot conclude how the aircraft were downed. When some Iranian pilot claims that he shot down a enemy fighter with an AIM-54 when USN records show that is unlikely and not the IRIAF nor the IQAF or any sort of intelligence agency backs up the claim. I have amble reason to doubt the Iranian pilot.

BlackArrow wrote:

Ivan the Colorado wrote:

Militarov wrote:Lets say that i was using somewhat overstatement there when i said "every time" but it certainly underperfomed compared to what US claimed AIM54 to be, there is one confirmed kill of Mig25R by Soviet Union from 1980. tho by F14, however number of launched AIM54s is probably limited due to reason they were half out of resources even during Iran-Iraq war. One of the rare sources about F14 a and AIM54 performance is article on democraticunderground.com named  "Iranian combat experiences with AIM-54 Phoenix" however even there its marked as "The factual accuracy of this article or section is disputed." whoever is interested can check it.

Thank you Militarov. Because of the lack of supporting evidence from the Iran-Iraq War, the only truly accurate source from where we can see a picture of the AIM-54's combat record is from the US Navy.

Is there any 'supporting evidence' to say that the R-27 missile has even managed a 4% kill rate - perhaps its only 00%? Whose sources can we trust?

Despite the fact that a MiG-29 received major damage from an R-27 and was destroyed later, you are right. Perhaps more R-27s were fired that we do not know about.

BlackArrow wrote:

Ivan the Colorado wrote:

Militarov wrote:Lets say that i was using somewhat overstatement there when i said "every time" but it certainly underperfomed compared to what US claimed AIM54 to be, there is one confirmed kill of Mig25R by Soviet Union from 1980. tho by F14, however number of launched AIM54s is probably limited due to reason they were half out of resources even during Iran-Iraq war. One of the rare sources about F14 a and AIM54 performance is article on democraticunderground.com named  "Iranian combat experiences with AIM-54 Phoenix" however even there its marked as "The factual accuracy of this article or section is disputed." whoever is interested can check it.

Thank you Militarov. Because of the lack of supporting evidence from the Iran-Iraq War, the only truly accurate source from where we can see a picture of the AIM-54's combat record is from the US Navy.

Is there any 'supporting evidence' to say that the R-27 missile has even managed a 4% kill rate - perhaps its only 00%? Whose sources can we trust?

Very few R27s were fired around, only "massive" use of them was from what i am aware during war between Eritrea and Ethiopia however most of the missiles were fired during "chase" so they never reached their target other on other hand were launched at very short ranges, missiles have parameters in which they are ment to be used when some of those parameters are not adequate missile has very high chance of missing. Judging by some sources around 25 R27s were launched during that war and only 1 fused on target. Most of the actual kills were scored by R73s.

On other hand Serbian pilots on half functioning Mig29 dodged multiple AIM120s, so missiles in general are not extremly successful.

Very important aspect of the AA missiles is pilot training, many pilots with lack of experience and training especially during local wars in Africa would launch their missiles at their maximum range or with ground as a background to the target, or towards the sun and similar stuff that affect different types of missiles and their guidance (or range). Missiles unlike common belief require knowledge, its not just "lock and launch" you need to know how that missile performs, what are its weaknesses, its overall performance what angle seeker can handle, what background, ranges at which it can reach target on what altitudes etc, this again depends alot on type of fighter that you fly, and what information are you being fed with from its sensors. There is much more to the missiles than wikipedias: 50km range, 10kg warhead, semi active radar guidance.

GarryB wrote:And why shouldn't that be true... it would match US experience in Vietnam where sparrows were regularly ineffective, while sidewinder was much more effective. In the case of the R-73 I would say it was a real killer.

Garry, but then with the advent of energetic all aspects short range AA missiles and helmet mounted sights, doesn't that mean an older fighter can go toe to toe with a 5th gen fighter in a dog fight?

="Militarov"

Very few  R27s were fired around, only "massive" use of them was from what i am aware during war between Eritrea and Ethiopia however most of the missiles were fired during "chase" so they never reached their target other on other hand were launched at very short ranges, missiles have parameters in which they are ment to be used when some of those parameters are not adequate missile has very high chance of missing. Judging by some sources around 25 R27s were launched during that war and only 1 fused on target. Most of the actual kills were scored by R73s.

I believe that the USN F-14 pilots also fired their AIM-54s at were fleeing, i.e. while in a chase mode and outside the maximum range. Any missile that is fired outside its launch parameters is doomed to fail.

On other hand Serbian pilots on half functioning Mig29 dodged multiple AIM120s, so missiles in general are not extremly successful.

Got a link for that? Most Serbian pilots had bad luck with the AIM-120.

GarryB wrote:
The R-27s in Africa are hardly a measure to be used to consider the performance of Russian R-27s, but the missile is a contemporary of Sparrow which had about a 14% kill success rate in the hands of well trained pilots... like the AMRAAM in the Middle East if you fire at retreating aircraft some distance away then the kill probability becomes very low to zero... no matter how good the missile is.

You are comparing 1980s R-27 with 1960s Vietnam era AIM-7 Sparrow. 1980s AIM-7M had a much better kill rate in the 1991 Gulf war.

BlackArrow wrote:

="Militarov"

Very few  R27s were fired around, only "massive" use of them was from what i am aware during war between Eritrea and Ethiopia however most of the missiles were fired during "chase" so they never reached their target other on other hand were launched at very short ranges, missiles have parameters in which they are ment to be used when some of those parameters are not adequate missile has very high chance of missing. Judging by some sources around 25 R27s were launched during that war and only 1 fused on target. Most of the actual kills were scored by R73s.

I believe that the USN F-14 pilots also fired their AIM-54s at were fleeing, i.e. while in a chase mode and outside the maximum range. Any missile that is fired outside its launch parameters is doomed to fail.

On other hand Serbian pilots on half functioning Mig29 dodged multiple AIM120s, so missiles in general are not extremly successful.

Got a link for that? Most Serbian pilots had bad luck with the AIM-120.

Lieutenant colonel Dragan Milenković: "Uzleteo sam 8. aprila iz Kraljeva, izbegao četiri neprijateljske rakete, a potom sleteo. To nije bilo ništa u odnosu na Iljin podvig”, kaže Milenković." - I took off at 8th april from Kraljevo, managed to dodge 4 missiles and then landed, still that is nothing compared what Ilja managed (Refering to Ilja Arizanov who dodged one missile but second one caught him in the clouds he ejected and survived). This is the source i am posting you this from: http://www.politika.rs/rubrike/Drustvo/Zaboravljeni-branioci-srpskog-neba.lt.html

However if you would like to learn more about other pilots and general happenings i guess you could watch two documentary movies "Niko nije rekao neću" 1 and 2, but i am not sure if you will find them with english subtitles. Literally translated name would be "Noone said no" refering to fact that none of the pilots refused to fly even tho they were greatly outnumbered and their machines were partially out of order.

In the book "F-15 Eagle Engaged: The World's Most Successful Jet Fighter" you can find story by the "other side" however there its claimed AIM120s "failed to lock" which i do not find very likely in such scenario where they had good weather, no countermeasures and enemy pilots were not even aware of radar illumination.

Militarov wrote:

Lieutenant colonel Dragan Milenković: "Uzleteo sam 8. aprila iz Kraljeva, izbegao četiri neprijateljske rakete, a potom sleteo. To nije bilo ništa u odnosu na Iljin podvig”, kaže Milenković." - I took off at 8th april from Kraljevo, managed to dodge 4 missiles and then landed, still that is nothing compared what Ilja managed (Refering to Ilja Arizanov who dodged one missile but second one caught him in the clouds he ejected and survived). This is the source i am posting you this from: http://www.politika.rs/rubrike/Drustvo/Zaboravljeni-branioci-srpskog-neba.lt.html

However if you would like to learn more about other pilots and general happenings i guess you could watch two documentary movies "Niko nije rekao neću" 1 and 2, but i am not sure if you will find them with english subtitles. Literally translated name would be "Noone said no" refering to fact that none of the pilots refused to fly even tho they were greatly outnumbered and their machines were partially out of order.

In the book "F-15 Eagle Engaged: The World's Most Successful Jet Fighter" you can find story by the "other side" however there its claimed AIM120s "failed to lock" which i do not find very likely in such scenario where they had good weather, no countermeasures and enemy pilots were not even aware of radar illumination.

Well the pilot believes he physically dodged the Amraams - although was is not dark at the time, so I don't know how he might have seen the missiles in the first place? Any way his claim of avoiding 4 AIM-120s probably does not tally with the number of a AIM-120s actually fired?

BlackArrow wrote:

Militarov wrote:

Lieutenant colonel Dragan Milenković: "Uzleteo sam 8. aprila iz Kraljeva, izbegao četiri neprijateljske rakete, a potom sleteo. To nije bilo ništa u odnosu na Iljin podvig”, kaže Milenković." - I took off at 8th april from Kraljevo, managed to dodge 4 missiles and then landed, still that is nothing compared what Ilja managed (Refering to Ilja Arizanov who dodged one missile but second one caught him in the clouds he ejected and survived). This is the source i am posting you this from: http://www.politika.rs/rubrike/Drustvo/Zaboravljeni-branioci-srpskog-neba.lt.html

However if you would like to learn more about other pilots and general happenings i guess you could watch two documentary movies "Niko nije rekao neću" 1 and 2, but i am not sure if you will find them with english subtitles. Literally translated name would be "Noone said no" refering to fact that none of the pilots refused to fly even tho they were greatly outnumbered and their machines were partially out of order.

In the book "F-15 Eagle Engaged: The World's Most Successful Jet Fighter" you can find story by the "other side" however there its claimed AIM120s "failed to lock" which i do not find very likely in such scenario where they had good weather, no countermeasures and enemy pilots were not even aware of radar illumination.

Well the pilot believes he physically dodged the Amraams - although was is not dark at the time, so I don't  know how he might have seen the missiles in the first place? Any way his claim of avoiding 4 AIM-120s probably does not tally with the number of a AIM-120s actually fired?

They saw missiles leaving "booster" phase of the flight, moment when they start guidance basically and they would start evading maneuvers, however there are few occasions when pilots escaped missiles so i cant tell how the scenario looked in every one of them. I am not aware of all launched missiles, i dont think there exists such documentation available to wide public.

BlackArrow wrote:

GarryB wrote:
The R-27s in Africa are hardly a measure to be used to consider the performance of Russian R-27s, but the missile is a contemporary of Sparrow which had about a 14% kill success rate in the hands of well trained pilots... like the AMRAAM in the Middle East if you fire at retreating aircraft some distance away then the kill probability becomes very low to zero... no matter how good the missile is.

You are comparing 1980s R-27 with 1960s Vietnam era AIM-7 Sparrow. 1980s AIM-7M had a much better kill rate in the 1991 Gulf war.

The AIM-7M had a much better kill rate in GW1 because it was used to hit archaic 3rd or already outdated and very early 4th generation aircraft at best. The early R-27 was being utilized against super-maneuverable Su-27s and MiG-29s. Of course there is going to be a difference in how they perform against their targets.