The AA-8 would probably not engage fighters from the front, but a su-25 can be maneuvered much more safetly at 100 fts and at lower speeds. If the Eagle could not destroy them, with sidewinders first, it will have to climb a few more hundreds feets to take advantage over the Frogfoots, and will have to forget about the SAMs for a minute.  flying at that altitude is already more dangerous than soviet missiles.

 

Even a Strike Eagle would not naneuver at 100 fts, if I´m not wrong their lowest combat altitude is around 300 or 400 fts. That is one reason why they build specialized aircrafts.

This link about the Indian Airforce indicated that the early AA-8's were tail chase (it was deployed in 1975) but the later ones were all aspect. I'm not sure when the later models were deployed but it would be safe to assume that ground attack squadrons would get them last so an SU-25 in 1980 would probably have the earlier models.

However, you have to remember that the combined closing speed of these aircraft would be in the order of 1000mph. You would expect a maximum sighting range of about 2 miles nearly front on at low level, less depending on how close the Eagle was to the ridgeline when the SU-25 popped out. That would give it a maximum of 8 seconds after spotting to aircraft to identify it as a threat which would be more challenging nearly front on, decide what course of action to take and undertake the required actions to engage. By the time that happenned I would expect that they aircraft would be within gun range and approaching if not in the minumum range for the Sidewinder.

At that height and speed, any dogfight is going to have more casualties from controlled flight into terrain than air to air shots.

 

 

I'd suspect both sides would blow right through each other,

 

Ian

 

 

Thanks for the link!

I guess this situation will depend more on the pilot´s skills. 

I don´t konw how the Eagles fire control system could calculate firing solutions for the cannon without radar, if it can´t do that the combat diferences between both types of aircrafts would be even smaller in that scenario. 

Thanks Gents, heres my thoughts.

 

Senty, I doubt that the Eagles would be transiting a Western European battlefield at high altitude unless they were escorted by weasals and offensive jammers. Their maximum altitude is within that of an SA-2 even when they have full tanks and can use burners. In this scenario the tanks are quite empty and they would have to transit at a lower altitude and at subsonic speed. Doing so in that environment would be suicidal as they would be in range of both SA-2's and SA-3's (possibly
SA-5's too, I don't know if they were deployed in Western Europe though). That is not mentioning that they would have to climb to that altitude after the fight with the Migs, during which time they would be even more vulnerable.

 

I have read accounts of how Cold War fighter sweeps were to be conducted at low altitude. It wasn't just because of the SAM's, but because it range of detection with the fighters radar looking up while reducing that of the enemy looking down. The Israelis set up low level fighter traps doing this over the Bekea and so did the Iraqis during the Iran/Iraq war. It does put the fighter in range of smallarms, small bore autocannon and shoulder launched SAM's but those are a less deadly threat than a SAM when travelling at high altitude. I've been on a gun position that has been buzzed at low leve by F-111's during peacetime and believe me you don't get a lot of warning to raise your rifle when they travel at that altitude and speed. During wartime with the safety limits removed and the aircraft travelling lower and faster, you would have even less.

 

I don't know the exact time that the SU-25 entered Frontal Aviation service but I know that production started in 1978. It is reasonable to assume that if the Soviets didn't have it in service already in 1980 that it would be rushed in in the case of a war. That leaves us with the possibility of a hapless F-15 pilot not knowing its capabilities and trying to engage it, finding out that it is a tougher cookie than he expected. Apart from the manouverability and the big cannon, the big factor that would be in its favour is that its armour would mean that the F-15 pilot would basically have to get a Sidewinder up the tailpipe to ensure destroying it. I agree that should the F-15 pilot know this that he would be better to bug out, though I'd say that he'd be better off to change course away fromt the US rather than trying to fly by otherwise he risks a near head on shot with cannon followed by the SU-25 turning and putting an AA-8 up his tailpipe before he can get away (remember, no afterburner).

 

The best odds that the F-15s would have if they did decide to engage would be to use the fact that they are fighter pilots with superior tactical training to the SU-25's attack pilots and try something like splitting, hooking around behind and then fooling the SU's into showing their tailpipes by using a scissors manouver. I agree however that the whole thing would pose a risk of somebody flying into a tree or a power pylon.

The other factor is individual pilot skill and training.  Would a a late 70s era SU-25 ground pounder pilot have received extensive ACM training or practiced much AtoA? 

Probably just basic acm when they were doing their advanced flight training I'd imagine, versus post-Vietnam advanced ACM with aggressors for the F-15's. I'd say that is probably going to be a major factor though the advantages of low speed manouverabilty and armour that the SU-25's would enjoy in this scenario would equalise sthe odds somewhat. Its really easy to see an F-15 pilot trying to manouvering his aircraft into a position for a Sidewinder shot only to find himself in cannon range, firing on the SU-25 with multiple hits but little effect due to armour then being forced to overshoot when it rolls into a turn and those big wings slow it right down to a speed where the F-15 can't manouver. At altitude a good F-15 pilot might be able to compensate with a manouver in the vertical like a yo-yo but at this altitude that would be a very dangerous thing to try.

The other factor is individual pilot skill and training.  Would a a late 70s era SU-25 ground pounder pilot have received extensive ACM training or practiced much AtoA? 

Probably just basic acm when they were doing their advanced flight training I'd imagine, versus post-Vietnam advanced ACM with aggressors for the F-15's. I'd say that is probably going to be a major factor though the advantages of low speed manouverabilty and armour that the SU-25's would enjoy in this scenario would equalise sthe odds somewhat. Its really easy to see an F-15 pilot trying to manouvering his aircraft into a position for a Sidewinder shot only to find himself in cannon range, firing on the SU-25 with multiple hits but little effect due to armour then being forced to overshoot when it rolls into a turn and those big wings slow it right down to a speed where the F-15 can't manouver. At altitude a good F-15 pilot might be able to compensate with a manouver in the vertical like a yo-yo but at this altitude that would be a very dangerous thing to try.