A better bet would be to say the Eagles would lob what remaining munitions they have at the Frogfoots to dissuade them from engaging and continue west on full military at low altitude. Being that close to the front and considering the density of air defenses there the F-15s would probably be using a narrow corridor blasted open for them to egress and would not have the room to dogfight without straying outside of the SAM gap they are flying through.

 

Also the AA-8 being only a rear-aspect missile in 1980 would most likely not get a lock-up on the close and by the time the Su-25s would have maneuvered to avoid the incoming missiles and regrouped the Eagles would probably be outside the engagement envelope of the AA-8, especially if they had to chase the F-15s. Now a clean Frogfoot can reach Mach 1 but any that would continue the pursuit towards the front with short range AAMs and no air to ground ordinance would be suicidal on their part

 

End result: The Frogfoots scatter with maybe one lost to a lucky hit or a maneuver into terrain and everyone else lives to fight another day.

Isn't this whole scenario kind of set up as an F15 damned if ya do and damned if ya don't scenario? I mean enemy a/c at 10 o'clock is not head on exactly. If F15's were heading 270 and the SU-25 were at 10 o'clock they would be heading about 030 degrees and if both a/c continue on their present headings the SU-25 is going to fall naturally right in behind the F15 for a missile shot. If the F15 turns to the right the tail shot comes sooner. The F15 is out of gas so can't run? So they have no choice but to fight? Since no gas the F15's can't climb either and if they do and the SU-25 pilots are paying any attention at all they notice no AB with the F15s in the climb and would surely know the reason why. If they turn at the SU-25s and don't get a lucky shot right off the bat, again the SU25s are gonna notice no AB by the F15's and act accordingly? If AB is employed maybe they get them all but don't get home. So seems like unless there is some serious superior F15 pilot skills employed AND a lot of LUCK as well, the F15's ain't going home.

 

Beazz

Which, if I'm correct, is exactly what AGA is doing: setting up a scenario where Su-25s could shoot down F-15s.  The scenario really doesn't work and is predicated on F-15 drivers being idiots, but AGA wants the dogfight, so that's what we have to go on.

 

Flipping the scenario on its head: MiG-29s vs. A-10s.  Do the MiGs get down in the weeds to take on the Hogs, or do they step it for home and vodka?

 

Considering the skill (or lack thereof) of Frontal Aviation pilots and their reliance on GCI, they would probably just book it for home. If I were a MiG pilot, I would be damned scared of turning into the fight and flying through a hail of 30mm Avenger fire.

The damn software dropped my previous response and I've only just had time to get back to this.

 

Beaz is correct that I have put the American aircraft into a difficult situation to see how they would deal with it, it would be a pretty boring thread otherwise ("the F-15's detect inbound SU-25's on radar at 30NM, what happens? Umm ... dunno?"). I don't think it is an unrealistic situation though, but since it seems to bother everybody so much that these F-15's are operating at low level, you imagine them as F-16's coming of a low altitude battlefield interdiction mission if you like, or any other similar scenario you can dream up. It doesn't make much difference.

 

I also think Beaz is correct that if the F-15's just tryed to fly by the SU-25's without the benefit of burner, then they would be exposed to the risk that the SU-25's would be able to pull in behind and take an AA-8 shot up the tailpipe. Whether or not the SU-25's would do this is another matter. Based on the performance of most Soviet fighter pilots during conflicts like the War of Attrition and the Pakistani/Soviet clashes in Afghanistan, I would say that most of their attack pilots would be more likely to shit their pants at the sight of the Eagles, light burners and fly off in all directions in "Argentine style", hoping that their mates get noticed by the F-15's and they don't. However, in this instance the SU-25 leader has demonstrated some aggression by turning into the F-15's in the first place... he might just be trying to get a near head on shot with the 30mm then force a full 180 on the part of the Eagles, making it harder to catch up, but it would seem imprudent to take the risk that he would in fact turn in on the Eagle.

 

If there was a fight irrespective of the advantages that the SU-25's have in this environment, I suspect that the F-15 pilot's superior training would prevail. They would just need to be careful to set up Sidewinder shots and avoid getting into gun range, because the guns aren't going to be very effecitive against an SU-25 and there would be too much risk of an overshoot. It would be interesting to know whether USAF and other airforces pilots drill particular tactics for this sort of situation.

What tactics fighters and weasals used depended on the specific situation. In the Bekea the F-15's stayed at high altitude back from the SAM's to cover approaches not covered by the AWAC's with their superior radars, while the F-16's operated at low level to allow their radars to operate in look up mode and to ambush approaching Syrian fighters. The Weasals came in at very low level and then popped up when the Syrians turned on their fire control radars in response to the decoy drones that the Israelis sent.

During the first Gulf War the Coalition fighters initially operated away from the SAM's at high altitude while the Weasals (operating at low level, I think), TLAM's and F-117's took them apart. When the Iraqi IADS was down the Coalition started using strike packages at medium altitude escorted by fighters and weasals to nail any remaining SAM's that popped up, though by that stage the Iraqis were too scared to fire them using their radars so fired them unguided.

 

Europe in 1980 would have been different again because:

 

1. there were so many more SAM's;

2. there were no F-117's and GPS guided conventional TLAM's to quickly destroy the INS;
3. the SAM screen moved forward forcing strike missions to occur to hit the Soviet columns before the SAM screen had been disected; and

4. The Soviets were better disciplinarians than the Arabs and would have had a political officer in each SAM battery with a gun to the commanders head, making sure the radar went on when needed.

 

Basically it would have taken a lot longer to destroy the Soviet IADS than in the Bekea or in Iraq and NATO aircraft would have been forced to continue to operate at low level for a lot longer.