Egyptian Air Force (EAF)

.

starman wrote:

awmz wrote: SAM-6 Wasn't part of the Sam wall along the Suez It was among the land formations and were very few in numbers

I didn't say the SAM-6 was part of the SAM wall or it was numerous, just that it was effective.

SAM-2/3 Did most of the heavy work

But could be jammed by F-4s, which often flew too low for them.

You just said " It was the most effective" and I've proved to you how that's not true now you've backtracked again I mean no offence but you just keep embarrassing yourself

The SA-2 was designed to shoot down high flying bombers so its effectiveness against fighters should not be too impressive, the SA-3 was a low to medium altitude system that should be better against fighters but still not exactly amazing.

The combined rocket ramjet design of the SA-6 was revolutionary at the time which is largely ignored in the west really.

GarryB wrote:The SA-2 was designed to shoot down high flying bombers so its effectiveness against fighters should not be too impressive, the SA-3 was a low to medium altitude system that should be better against fighters but still not exactly amazing.

The combined rocket ramjet design of the SA-6 was revolutionary at the time which is largely ignored in the west really.

That's not the argument

Isos wrote:
Strela-2 did a good job too.

The SA-7 didn't have sufficient warhead to be much of a killer. The SA-9 was better but was acquired by arabs after '73.

awmz wrote:
You just said " It was the most effective" and I've proved to you how that's not true now you've backtracked again….

You didn't provide stats. I didn't mean other systems didn't achieve kills--flak was quite effective in Syria on the 7th for example. I meant the SAM-6 was very effective considering its low numbers. It was renowned as the most effective system even if there weren't enough to achieve more than the older, more numerous systems put together.

GarryB wrote:
The SA-2 was designed to shoot down high flying bombers so its effectiveness against fighters should not be too impressive, the SA-3 was a low to medium altitude system that should be better against fighters but still not exactly amazing.

In addition the F-4s could jam them and flew under radar.

The combined rocket ramjet design of the SA-6 was revolutionary at the time which is largely ignored in the west really.

From what I've read, in Both Sides of the Suez back in '75, the SAM-6 was based on a design "originally developed in the west but never produced."

From what I've read, in Both Sides of the Suez back in '75, the SAM-6 was based on a design "originally developed in the west but never produced."

Hahahahaha... fucking hilarious... suggests your reading sources are a bit suspect.

The Kh-31 used a similar propulsion concept/layout and when it entered the US Navy competition to get their hands on Soviet supersonic sea skimming missiles it was put forward as a candidate and despite all these superior western companies it won because it was the best for the job.

Even then I remember talking to Tom about how a dirty stinking Soviet missile won the MA-31 programme and back then he was wimpering about some US design that looked very similar to the Kh-31 and was slightly older but was never more than a paper project idea and it was not older than the SA-6 design which also used the same layout and engine configuration.

Even in the 1990s the Europeans wanted a 600kg missile able to fly at mach 2 for 70-80km range that could be carried by tactical aircraft to attack ships... the Kh-31 had already been in service... the newer models flying at mach 3 plus with much greater range and a similar weight... the European missile never got past the paper project stage despite having inferior performance to a Soviet missile that had already been in service for some time.

I am sure they will claim they invented that too.

GarryB wrote:

From what I've read, in Both Sides of the Suez back in '75, the SAM-6 was based on a design "originally developed in the west but never produced."

Hahahahaha... fucking hilarious... suggests your reading sources are a bit suspect.

The Kh-31 used a similar propulsion concept/layout and when it entered the US Navy competition to get their hands on Soviet supersonic sea skimming missiles it was put forward as a candidate and despite all these superior western companies it won because it was the best for the job.

Even then I remember talking to Tom about how a dirty stinking Soviet missile won the MA-31 programme and back then he was wimpering about some US design that looked very similar to the Kh-31 and was slightly older but was never more than a paper project idea and it was not older than the SA-6 design which also used the same layout and engine configuration.

Even in the 1990s the Europeans wanted a 600kg missile able to fly at mach 2 for 70-80km range that could be carried by tactical aircraft to attack ships... the Kh-31 had already been in service... the newer models flying at mach 3 plus with much greater range and a similar weight... the European missile never got past the paper project stage despite having inferior performance to a Soviet missile that had already been in service for some time.

I am sure they will claim they invented that too.

I mean the guy is obviously a troll why is he still on this forum

GarryB wrote: suggests your reading sources are a bit suspect.

The article was written by the editors of AW&ST, who included Egyptian complaints about a variety of Soviet technology they had…such as its reliance on vacuum tubes.

The interesting part of "sources" and "claims" from one side or the other and especially proof certainly have their merits.  To question where was all the proof of wreckage from the Battle of Al Mansoura if in fact the EAF had shot down 17 Israeli fighters to the loss of 3 and sent the rest packing with their tails tucked between their legs is perfectly legitimate.  

Here's one of the 17 downed aircraft in the Delta and these are very rare.  The reason they are is pay attention to the guy in the background in the first pic.  See him gesturing with his hand at the fella taking the photo?  He's basically yelling at the guy "WTF are you doing taking a picture of this!  This is top secret, and you must have permission from the military" etc. and probably mentioned a name to the guy.  At any rate, here's a few pics of one of the surprised A4 Skyhawks that took a raking from an EAF MiG-21 cannon straight up the wazoo, and down she went!







Keep in mind, the importance of pointing out the guy's reaction as taking pictures of anything militarily related was a no-no and completely frowned upon.  Only designated military photographers were actually allowed to take photos during the conflict and even then, they were severely restricted and controlled.  The film would be unloaded from the cameras at the MoD's headquarters, taken into secured developing dark rooms and then the photos were securely delivered to military intelligence who worked with Al Ahram Newspaper (state sanction primary news paper even till today) and given whichever ones they wished to have printed in the papers.

This was strictly adhered to unfortunately as it has seriously worked against Egypt in that they never really cared to show much of these things and when they did, they were strictly limited in numbers and to only local newspapers.  No books were published with tons of these pics and things of that sorts except for sanctioned memoirs of only certain military individuals etc.

I am certain there are A LOT more photos just like these of that battle that either some had made the papers and have since been lost in the decades of time, or put away in the military archives with no access to them.  Hopefully by some miracle a lot more will be eventually either released or found, since some of them could certainly be in some of the publications at the time but never caught up with the new world of the Internet and information superhighway.  

But these are some good ones for those wondering where are any pics of any wreckage from that "phantom" battle that all Egyptians celebrate as air force day.

GarryB wrote:The SA-2 was designed to shoot down high flying bombers so its effectiveness against fighters should not be too impressive, the SA-3 was a low to medium altitude system that should be better against fighters but still not exactly amazing.

The combined rocket ramjet design of the SA-6 was revolutionary at the time which is largely ignored in the west really.

Indeed.  But, in this war, the SA-2 was extensively used as the primary SAM that downed most of the Israeli aircraft.  Their size and packing enough fuel to fly at 3-1/2 times the speed of sound and have a max altitude of apprx. 80,000ft was why it was so successful in this war.

As a matter of fact, there's an EAD commander of one of the 2nd army SAM regiments who said he was awarded by the Soviets for setting the record for most downed aircraft using the least number of missiles.  I completely forget his name and being able to find the interview, but he mentioned something about the process was to use 3 missiles per aircraft and he was able to down most of his regiment's kills using an average of 2 missiles per aircraft.  I remember seeing the interview many years ago and ever since have not been able to find it again! lol.  But certainly interesting.

EADS has upgraded them and produce them locally and still uses them today.



Bringing this thread back to its original purpose, thanks a lot for starting all of this, TMA-1 lol!  Just kidding.

MiG-29M.  



Hopefully soon we should find out about some major news regarding the acquisition of 24 Eurofighter Typhoons and a major weapons package from MBDA as well as a major contract with South Korea for the 40% - 60% transfer of technology for the building of 75 - 100 FA-50 Golden Eagle advanced trainers in Egypt.



The Black Eagles with their FA-50 Golden Eagle jets performing at the pyramids a few days ago with the EAF K-8E aerobatic team the Silver Stars.

The article was written by the editors of AW&ST, who included Egyptian complaints about a variety of Soviet technology they had…such as its reliance on vacuum tubes.

I am sure it included every complaint the Egyptians had... and a few more they added from sources that wanted to remain anonymous from the CIA.

The use of vacuum tubes is not that odd... the first colour TV I ever saw in the early 1980s still had vacuum tubes... as did our black and white TV we watched in the 1970s... vacuum tubes were still widely used for a variety of things.

Wasn't till the mid 1980s that I saw a transistor radio from Japan...

The west used a few different rocket ramjet powered weapons and all of them were two stage weapons like the British Sea Dart naval SAM, or the various US Navy ramjet powered SAMs which also used solid rocket boosters attached in tandem...

I mean the guy is obviously a troll why is he still on this forum

No one is banned on this forum for having a different opinion or being "wrong"...

If he can back up claims then we discuss, otherwise it becomes opinion, which we are not responsible for changing to the correct opinion (in our view).

I remember seeing the interview many years ago and ever since have not been able to find it again! lol. But certainly interesting.

Been there myself...

I completely forget his name and being able to find the interview, but he mentioned something about the process was to use 3 missiles per aircraft and he was able to down most of his regiment's kills using an average of 2 missiles per aircraft.

Certain versions of the missiles had SARH, while others were ARH or used command guidance and the different designs of guidance meant sometimes firing more than one missile was simply a waste of a missile, but with SARH... as long as you maintained your lock firing multiple missiles could be very successful because all three missiles would be flying the same path but with a gap of a few thousand metres or so... when the target started to manouver to evade because they detected they were being marked by the radar illumination beam the turns and manouvers would bleed energy and speed and normally altitude too and as it manouvered it lost more and more energy making it more vulnerable to being hit... it might out turn the first missile but the second missile has more time to react to the turn and will be more likely to get a hit, while a third missile is now going after a plane in full AB desperately trying not to stall... no guarantee of a kill but certainly better chance than the first missile had.

They made those early missiles in enormous numbers and they are still used today around the world...

EADS has upgraded them and produce them locally and still uses them today.

There is good money upgrading SA-2 and SA-3 missiles... modern electronics and modern rocket fuels improve the performance too.

That is why talking about the SA-2 is difficult because there are so many different models... the first ones couldn't reach the altitude the U-2 flew at but by the time Francis Gary Powers flew over they managed to solve that issue, and ever since they have been tweaking the performance and capabilities to make them better.

They are not as good as their replacements... S-200 and S-300 (SA-5 and SA-10), but certainly not worthless, and form a useful part of an IADS.

AFAIK the Russians themselves no longer have SA-2s in service as SAMs but they do make mobile versions for export and also use old missiles for target drones for air defence practise.

GarryB wrote:
No one is banned on this forum for having a different opinion or being "wrong"...

If he can back up claims then we discuss, otherwise it becomes opinion, which we are not responsible for changing to the correct opinion (in our view).

Absolutely 100% and I would have never expected anything different from you.

On top of that, I can actually vouch for @Starman (not that anything I say has any clout anyway hahaha but it's worth putting in the good word) since I've actually known him (on another forum and not personally) since 2009, and he's never been anything else but a gentleman and very knowledgeable about this particular war which is very unique in of itself when you think about it and consider the rarity of that. He's never been or said anything out of line. As a matter of fact, I'm much more guilty of that infraction than he could ever be, even if he tried lmaooooo!

GarryB wrote:Certain versions of the missiles had SARH, while others were ARH or used command guidance and the different designs of guidance meant sometimes firing more than one missile was simply a waste of a missile, but with SARH... as long as you maintained your lock firing multiple missiles could be very successful because all three missiles would be flying the same path but with a gap of a few thousand metres or so... when the target started to manouver to evade because they detected they were being marked by the radar illumination beam the turns and manouvers would bleed energy and speed and normally altitude too and as it manouvered it lost more and more energy making it more vulnerable to being hit... it might out turn the first missile but the second missile has more time to react to the turn and will be more likely to get a hit, while a third missile is now going after a plane in full AB desperately trying not to stall... no guarantee of a kill but certainly better chance than the first missile had.

They made those early missiles in enormous numbers and they are still used today around the world...

There is good money upgrading SA-2 and SA-3 missiles... modern electronics and modern rocket fuels improve the performance too.

That is why talking about the SA-2 is difficult because there are so many different models... the first ones couldn't reach the altitude the U-2 flew at but by the time Francis Gary Powers flew over they managed to solve that issue, and ever since they have been tweaking the performance and capabilities to make them better.

They are not as good as their replacements... S-200 and S-300 (SA-5 and SA-10), but certainly not worthless, and form a useful part of an IADS.

AFAIK the Russians themselves no longer have SA-2s in service as SAMs but they do make mobile versions for export and also use old missiles for target drones for air defence practise.

Good stuff. One of the last posts on the Egyptian Air Defense thread was by @George1 was the entire list of SAMs in the EADS minus the relatively recent purchase of the 8 batteries of the German IRIS=T=SL SAM system, which supposedly is ridiculously effective and the Israelis lost their minds to the Germans when they found out a deal had been made for those to Egypt. They also flipped a lid on the 4 Type 209 Submarines from Germany and gave them an earful on those, too. Imagine having the gall and balls to go around bitching other major countries for doing what is perfectly in their right to do just because you don't like it?! What friggin nerve.

I'd like to see Egypt get past this whole dilemma with CAATSA and solve the delays with the Su-35Ss and get on with their deliveries. It's interesting when you hear comments by other Egyptians and how they're so positive and super hopeful that the deal will still go through and they refuse to think otherwise. I wish I was that optimistic, but I am one miserably pessimistic bastard from hell lool. I hate to say it but I see those beauties eventually not coming to Egypt because it's been strong-armed by the US and they somehow end up settling for another BVR-less pos in the F-15. There might be a mini revolution in Tahrir Square if that happens, seriously. So many people are fed up with the US bullying, more so than ever before for obvious reasons.

I'd love to know exactly how India got to circumvent CAATSA for their purchase of the S-400. Not sure which item between the two present a bigger threat in general, not that it's the issue, but just out of curiosity when comparing the two in the grand scheme of the threat of sanctions. I would think the Su-35s would be but either way, how did India get the US to nullify CAATSA in their case? I have a feeling that in return, they agreed to eventually purchase the F/A-18 Super Hornet for their new aircraft carrier instead of the Rafale M., giving the US another chance at sticking it to the French those poor bastards! Like it wasn't enough to lose what, $17 billion in nuclear submarine deals with Australia, now they're sticking it to them a 2nd time. Gaddam US is one bully bastard I tell ya lol. Hopefully Egypt jumps in and takes advantage of this.

This is one of the EAF MiG-29M/M2 squadrons. Another reason why I wish the Russians would actually NAME their gaddam aircraft on top of numerical and letter & numerical designations only. Like I've bitched about this many times before, this would force NATO to give up the bullcrap insulting names they throw out for Russian aircraft. I suppose 'Fulcrum' isn't bad, but who the frig are they to give Soviet & Russian aircraft any designation names?! The perfect example of this is the Su-57 CHECKMATE! Now NATO has its thumb up its ass and can't come up with a name for it since it ALREADY HAS ONE! Hello! The "Felon" is what threw me off the edge with that crap.

Anyway...I hope MiG gets its act together with the Zhuk-AE and start to officially produce the MiG-35 since I think that would really workout very well for them as far as export contracts. Everyone know is much more likely to purchase an aircraft with an AESA radar than a PESA, especially a 4th gen fighter. The EAF has already said it would order 75 or more MiG-35s if they had the AESA radar and Russia supplied the RVV-SD and the R37M.

Gomig-21 wrote:
Here's one of the 17 downed aircraft in the Delta and these are very rare….  At any rate, here's a few pics of one of the surprised A4 Skyhawks that took a raking from an EAF MiG-21 cannon straight up the wazoo, and down she went!

A Skyhawk downed in the battle of Mansoura? From what I've read only Phantoms attacked then.
Btw thanks for your kind remarks in the other post.

Just to make a mention that the houthi turned Sa-2 into surface to surface missiles and with a degree of success.

Yeah... sorry homie haha

Starman knows a lot but I'd like to note something that when he give certain sources it is a given that they are accurate and not laced with propaganda. This is one of many reasons why I started to see israeli stories with extreme cynicism. Same with the usual attack on military equipment having vacuum tubes when in the 60s military equipment across the world still used mixtures of analog and digital equipment.

Sorry for causing the issues but in spite of it you guys have given a lot of solid info.

starman wrote:
A Skyhawk downed in the battle of Mansoura? From what I've read only Phantoms attacked then.
Btw thanks for your kind remarks in the other post.

Wuuuut?!  Come owwwnnn, maaaan! lol. of course it was a mixed group of F-4 Phantoms and A-4 Skyhawks in 2 separate waves.  I mean, I just posted a photo for you right there, right in the middle of all the greenery of the Nile Delta how much more do you want lmaooooooo! You crack me up.  You'll see more as I acquire them in time.

Anyway, gaddam I love this damned thing!  Most of the time with almost every single fighter aircraft, there is always that one, ill-fated angle that makes it look like an ugly duckling or an awkwardly designed goof.  But not this thing.  This thing looks like gold from every conceivable angle possible!  This one here is just da nutz!

They better set up a suicide hotline if and when they officially announce this deal as dead and defunct.  This aircraft represents a lot more than just its ultimately deadly capabilities that the EAF has never really had in a heavy fighter.  

Electronics that work is better than electronics that don't and it may sound surprising but valve technology that was proven even if it had to be replaced after every few flights is cheaper than redesigning the whole system to add more modern electronics that might not stand up to the heat and dust and vibration in an aircraft.

There was talk of the radars of the MiG-25 having vacuum tubes for EMP resistance, but the reality is that vacuum tubes were perfectly normal products in production when the systems were designed and put into service and it just made sense to keep producing them for as long as they needed... BTW look up the power levels the MiG-25s radar and the radar on the SA-2 systems were operating at and you might actually be a bit impressed at how powerful they were.

Gomig-21 wrote: of course it was a mixed group of F-4 Phantoms and A-4 Skyhawks in 2 separate waves.

Mansoura on the 14th? What published sources say there were A-4s? A while ago, I noted that in the list of confirmed EAF kills provided by Cooper there were no Skyhawks among them, anywhere, in any battle. Thinking this was odd I brought it to Tom's attention, and he replied. "An answer is at hand." He went on to say that Skyhawks were used for tactical bombing on the canal front, where many were lost to SAMs, whereas Phantoms hit strategic targets beyond the SAM belt, where MIGs often had to deal with them (although Tom concluded the phantom lost on the 15th was downed by a SAM-3).

At secretprojectsuk Cooper has a slight reputation. I know he has done valuable research but there seems to also be a lot of personal bias.

TMA1 wrote:At secretprojectsuk Cooper has a slight reputation. I know he has done valuable research but there seems to also be a lot of personal bias.

He does appear to be sympathetic to the arabs. In his ARAB MIGs volumes he concluded the true number of israeli jets downed in air to air combat in '73 is 25-30. Later in another forum he listed confirmed air to air combat kills of the EAF and SAF in '73, which totaled only about a dozen.

Wuuuut?!  Come owwwnnn, maaaan! lol. of course it was a mixed group of F-4 Phantoms and A-4 Skyhawks in 2 separate waves

And more than that , it was three waves ,the first to take Egyptian fighters away from it's bases , second is to attack the air defences and third to just destroy the bases itself .

Anyway they used as much capability as they could and they FAILED with all the US jam Pods and missiles and new aircrafts , their tactics were completely known by the Egyptian generals that time .

ahmedfire wrote:
And more than that , it was three waves ,the first to take Egyptian fighters away from it's bases , second is to attack the air defences and third to just destroy the bases itself .

That's from the old ACIG narrative. Based on more recent research, TC et al wrote a new version in their 1973: The First Nuclear War Crucial Air Battles of the October 1973 Arab-Israeli war. The # of F-4s committed was much smaller than originally claimed.

ahmedfire wrote:
And more than that , it was three waves ,the first to take Egyptian fighters away from it's bases , second is to attack the air defences and third to just destroy the bases itself

Yeah I know, what are you gonna do. This will always be the case. The Jews did their work well. They knew quite well how history judged them in the past and they made sure they controlled the narrative in this historical context, while us dumbass ass Egyptians never cared about what the world thought to be sure our stories were well recorded & documented and passed through the "beneficial" channels.

And Tom Cooper can spare ALL us Arabs his sympathies.