Alternate uses of PVO interceptors

[Monk78]

The PVO had bases all over the frontiers of USSR and they were ideally positioned to perform roles other than just strategic bomber interception by mid 1970s to mid 1980s
We are going to limit our discussion to
Su-9/11
Yak-28P
Su-15
Tu-128/28

Other PVO assets like MiG-23/25/31 already were more flexible and have shown capabilities against tactical aircraft in other wars anyway

Of the above mentioned 4 planes almost all of them were obsolete by 1980 ( except for su-15TM of which 400 were operational then )

Yet most of them soldiered on until 1985 when larger number of MiG-31 and finally su-27 started replacing them , even though most of them would struggle against b-52 let alone b-1 or fb-111

So why not use the 400 su-15P , 300+ su-9/11 , 250 + yak-28p and 120 tu-128 as auxiliary interceptors for VVS ?
They can still be potent against
1 Transport / recon / MPA
2 possibly helicopters ?
3 intercepting tactical aircraft like mirage 5 / f-104 and even F-4 before Soviet borders forcing them to dump their ordinance and thus achieve mission kills
4 given their relative long range ( compared to MiG-29) escorting Soviet tactical strike planes
This can free up regular VVS fighters for other tasks incase of a global war

 

[Pioneer]

Looking very forward to how this will hopefully evolve Monk78!

By my own admission, as a kid, I had two ignorant chains of thought:
a/ why the hell would you divide your assets between two organisations, as opposed to one?
b/ why the hell not, after all the American, British also had dedicated interceptor commands, so why should the Soviets be any different.

But as I've got older and questionably wiser, I've come to realise that the Soviet's truely had a reason to legitimately fear U.S./NATO penatration and attack by nuclear armed tactical and strategic aircraft. After all, let's face it, the American irrufutably dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan. It's undeniable that the U.S. alone had (and still does have) the greatest number of strategic-ranged bombers in the world - by the 1960's the U.S. had produced over one thousand Boeing B-47's alone. Then there was the massive number of US Navy's aircraft carrier, strategically positioned and armed with specialised nuclear delivery aircraft like the Neptune P2V-C3, AJ-1 Savage, A-3 Sky Warrior, A-5 Vigilante, A-4 Skyhawk, A-6 Intruder and A-7 Corsair II....

On top of this, which many appear to either deny or justify, is the tremendous amount of times that American and British strategic bombers and reconnaissance aircraft deliberately penatrated Soviet aerospace, so as to test Soviet systems and reaction times (now I know I'll probably get a flurry af flag waving patriots say 'what about Soviet probing and penatration of US/Canadian/British aerospace!!!' But the truth is, like it or lump it, such deliberately and aggressive aerospace penatration was done by the US and Britain on a far greater and often occasion than that of the Soviets).
Add to the reality that the vast majority of US and British 'strategic reconnaissance' aircraft were in fact derivatives of strategic bombers, which the Soviet would be wise to see and fear as strategic bombers.

Then of course, many of us in the West are happy to promote the 'suprised' attack on Pearl Harbor and yet are either ignorant or deliberately chose to overlook the pre German invasion of Russia by specialised Luftwaffe reconnaissance aircraft, let alone the massive suprised air strikes on day one of Operation Barbarossa......

So yes, I'm look most forward to the way your thread develops.

My initial token input would be that PVO puts a much higher priority on developing and operationally deploying air refuelling tankers and AEW/AWACS aircraft [I'm thinking an earlier use of Tu-4's (even better Tu-75 cargo derivative of the Tu-4) maybe even an earlier incarnation like of the Chinese adaptation of Tu-4 to EJ-1) for both these roles] to both elevate pressure on PVO, as well as creating a critical force multiplier, saving dramatic costs in airfield, flight and maintenance time and costs and perhaps, even mitigate the need for so many specialised and expensive interceptors - period.

Earlier appreciation and development of specialised anti-AEW/AWACS missiles to eliminate US/NATO force multipliers like AEW/AWACS, Elint and Airborne Command and Control aircraft on day one of any war...


Regards
Pioneer

 

[Scott Kenny]

The PVO had bases all over the frontiers of USSR and they were ideally positioned to perform roles other than just strategic bomber interception by mid 1970s to mid 1980s
We are going to limit our discussion to
Su-9/11
Yak-28P
Su-15
Tu-128/28

Other PVO assets like MiG-23/25/31 already were more flexible and have shown capabilities against tactical aircraft in other wars anyway

Of the above mentioned 4 planes almost all of them were obsolete by 1980 ( except for su-15TM of which 400 were operational then )

Yet most of them soldiered on until 1985 when larger number of MiG-31 and finally su-27 started replacing them , even though most of them would struggle against b-52 let alone b-1 or fb-111

So why not use the 400 su-15P , 300+ su-9/11 , 250 + yak-28p and 120 tu-128 as auxiliary interceptors for VVS ?
They can still be potent against
1 Transport / recon / MPA
2 possibly helicopters ?
3 intercepting tactical aircraft like mirage 5 / f-104 and even F-4 before Soviet borders forcing them to dump their ordinance and thus achieve mission kills
4 given their relative long range ( compared to MiG-29) escorting Soviet tactical strike planes
This can free up regular VVS fighters for other tasks incase of a global war

I'm guessing because the old Interceptors were not good dogfighters and had weapons and radars optimized for minimally maneuverable bombers.

 

[MadRat]

Su-15 with the heatseeking missiles and the refined wing could have been a credible fighter threat. (Honestly, I see no reason its predecessor the Su-11 wouldn't have been deadly as it had a better view for the pilot over MiG-21.) Su-15 also was the basis for what became the Su-24. The ground attack role version got cancelled. It did have some custom reconn airframes stuffed full of sigint gear. Sukhoi in that era had less design freedom, and the guts were literally built to not maintain but rather use it 1200 hours and build a new replacement. Not great when engine inspections were every 150 hours.

All of the airframes you mentioned had a small number of custom airframes for special purposes. The Soviets had their own equivalent of CiA special mission aircraft, NASA research planes, and Civil Air Patrol. Take the Yak-25, there were some apparently used for ferrying secure mail for military lines of communications in the Far Easterner area. I believe that was in an Air Force mag that detailed a wide range of Soviet MiGs and Sues for alternative purposes. Back in the 80s they published a gold mine of information regarding Soviet practices.

 

[Monk78]

I'm guessing because the old Interceptors were not good dogfighters and had weapons and radars optimized for minimally maneuverable bombers.

Correct and my suggestion is that recon MPA and tactical strike aircraft ( when loaded with bombs and fuel right before they cross the WP territory ) are mostly quite non maneuverable targets and if they dump ordinance then they fail in their mission.

 

[Monk78]

Looking very forward to how this will hopefully evolve Monk78!

By my own admission, as a kid, I had two ignorant chains of thought:
a/ why the hell would you divide your assets between two organisations, as opposed to one?
b/ why the hell not, after all the American, British also had dedicated interceptor commands, so why should the Soviets be any different.

But as I've got older and questionably wiser, I've come to realise that the Soviet's truely had a reason to legitimately fear U.S./NATO penatration and attack by nuclear armed tactical and strategic aircraft. After all, let's face it, the American irrufutably dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan. It's undeniable that the U.S. alone had (and still does have) the greatest number of strategic-ranged bombers in the world - by the 1960's the U.S. had produced over one thousand Boeing B-47's alone. Then there was the massive number of US Navy's aircraft carrier, strategically positioned and armed with specialised nuclear delivery aircraft like the Neptune P2V-C3, AJ-1 Savage, A-3 Sky Warrior, A-5 Vigilante, A-4 Skyhawk, A-6 Intruder and A-7 Corsair II....

On top of this, which many appear to either deny or justify, is the tremendous amount of times that American and British strategic bombers and reconnaissance aircraft deliberately penatrated Soviet aerospace, so as to test Soviet systems and reaction times (now I know I'll probably get a flurry af flag waving patriots say 'what about Soviet probing and penatration of US/Canadian/British aerospace!!!' But the truth is, like it or lump it, such deliberately and aggressive aerospace penatration was done by the US and Britain on a far greater and often occasion than that of the Soviets).
Add to the reality that the vast majority of US and British 'strategic reconnaissance' aircraft were in fact derivatives of strategic bombers, which the Soviet would be wise to see and fear as strategic bombers.

Then of course, many of us in the West are happy to promote the 'suprised' attack on Pearl Harbor and yet are either ignorant or deliberately chose to overlook the pre German invasion of Russia by specialised Luftwaffe reconnaissance aircraft, let alone the massive suprised air strikes on day one of Operation Barbarossa......

So yes, I'm look most forward to the way your thread develops.

My initial token input would be that PVO puts a much higher priority on developing and operationally deploying air refuelling tankers and AEW/AWACS aircraft [I'm thinking an earlier use of Tu-4's (even better Tu-75 cargo derivative of the Tu-4) maybe even an earlier incarnation like of the Chinese adaptation of Tu-4 to EJ-1) for both these roles] to both elevate pressure on PVO, as well as creating a critical force multiplier, saving dramatic costs in airfield, flight and maintenance time and costs and perhaps, even mitigate the need for so many specialised and expensive interceptors - period.

Earlier appreciation and development of specialised anti-AEW/AWACS missiles to eliminate US/NATO force multipliers like AEW/AWACS, Elint and Airborne Command and Control aircraft on day one of any war...


Regards
Pioneer

Thank you for the kind thoughts

What are your thoughts on soviet GCI esp the one deployed to assist PVO rather than VVS aircraft?

 

[Monk78]

Su-15 with the heatseeking missiles and the refined wing could have been a credible fighter threat. (Honestly, I see no reason its predecessor the Su-11 wouldn't have been deadly as it had a better view for the pilot over MiG-21.) Su-15 also was the basis for what became the Su-24. The ground attack role version got cancelled. It did have some custom reconn airframes stuffed full of sigint gear. Sukhoi in that era had less design freedom, and the guts were literally built to not maintain but rather use it 1200 hours and build a new replacement. Not great when engine inspections were every 150 hours.

All of the airframes you mentioned had a small number of custom airframes for special purposes. The Soviets had their own equivalent of CiA special mission aircraft, NASA research planes, and Civil Air Patrol. Take the Yak-25, there were some apparently used for ferrying secure mail for military lines of communications in the Far Easterner area. I believe that was in an Air Force mag that detailed a wide range of Soviet MiGs and Sues for alternative purposes. Back in the 80s they published a gold mine of information regarding Soviet practices.

Su-11 and even the SU 9 could be fitted with one gunpod in place of a fuselage tank, this obviously restricted the range, but did give it a lot more tactical flexibility
Do you have any idea where I can obtain this information about the experimental uses of the soviet interceptors ?
In English I have yefim Gordon’s works and they do touch upon some of the experimental versions

Point of limited number of flying hours per airframe is very valid and is an important way to counter the myth of soviet numerical superiority in aircraft, that also explains why so many trading versions were built by the Soviet, because they provided training flying hours in the airframe for the crew.

 

[MadRat]

Did through mid-80s

Magazine Issues Archive | Air & Space Forces Magazine

www.airandspaceforces.com

 

[Monk78]

Regarding the anti-AWACS activities of the Soviet deFENces probably the best bet was a combination of mobile S 200 and loitering Tu-128 fiddlers.
MiG-25BM equipped with ARM and directed by GCI could also be considered

 

[lancer21]

To comment on a few ideas.

First, regarding guns, it was obviously a bad idea to leave them out (this due to the missile craze in the 1950s-1960s). Gunpods severely limited the aircraft range on Su-9/11/15 because they couldn't carry drop tanks at the same time. So obviously the best solution is for the Su-9/11/15 to have retained guns, let's say 2x lighter AM-23 on the Su-9/11 in the wingroots (originally intended to carry NR-30s), and 1x GSh-23L on Su-15. And not mentioned here, but obviously the MiG-21P/S series must retain an internal gun, also the GSh-23L.

So, for a small reduction in overall range, tactical efficiency and practical range are significantly improved, because they could carry all the OTL drop tanks, PLUS the internal guns.

I left out the Yak-28P because i haven't found yet any visual reference of it carrying guns, even in gunpods, though some russian articles keep mentioning GSh-23 for it. Has anyone seen any Yak-28P with guns, whether in gunpods or internal?
And i left the Tu-28P as it's way too big and clumsy to have any use for guns. While the MiG-25P not mentioned here is too fast/specialized to need guns (though they put a gun on the MiG-31 so there's that)

Secondly, there were actually experiments to give at least the Sukhois air to ground capability, so carrying various bombs and rocket pods. This capability can be added relatively easily either during construction or later on to pretty much all the interceptors listed. Plus of course, tactical nukes could have been carried as well. In this respect, the big Tu-28 would have been useful as a bombtruck, either with 2 or more tactical nukes under the wings, or with say twin launchers for up to 8x500kg bombs.

Regarding ARM use against AWACS planes, indeed the iraqis thought of doing just that, using MiG-25Rs to fire i think H-58 ARMs at american planes, but they haven't finished that project. So the soviets could have done this as well i guess, they had various ARMs to chose from, H-28, H-58, H-25MP etc. Or alternatively and probably more straightforward, build passive versions of the bigger and longer ranged missiles like R-40 or R-80 for the same role, like they did with the later R-27P.

 

[lancer21]

One final thought, if the money was there, it would have been useful to modernize the more recent planes, certainly the Su-15 could have used the modern LD/SD S-23ML radars and even the IRST, thus greatly increasing low altitude interception capability.

Not sure if it would have worth for the likes of Yak-28P and Tu-28P, but come to think of it, the older Smerch radars from modernized MiG-25PDs (replaced with S-23ML derived Sapfir-25s) could have been refurbished, brought to the latest Smerch standard like A3 or A4 which aiui had a limited LD/SD capability, fitted with a bigger dish and retrofitted to the Tu-28s.

Similar story to a potential Su-15 upgrade, if fitted with a S-23ML derivative then the older Taifun radar could have been refurbished, modernized and fitted in the noses of Yak-28P and/or older Oryol Su-15s.

In such a scenario these models gaining a useful increase in radar range and a limited LD/SD capability.

 

[Monk78]

To comment on a few ideas.

First, regarding guns, it was obviously a bad idea to leave them out (this due to the missile craze in the 1950s-1960s). Gunpods severely limited the aircraft range on Su-9/11/15 because they couldn't carry drop tanks at the same time. So obviously the best solution is for the Su-9/11/15 to have retained guns, let's say 2x lighter AM-23 on the Su-9/11 in the wingroots (originally intended to carry NR-30s), and 1x GSh-23L on Su-15. And not mentioned here, but obviously the MiG-21P/S series must retain an internal gun, also the GSh-23L.

So, for a small reduction in overall range, tactical efficiency and practical range are significantly improved, because they could carry all the OTL drop tanks, PLUS the internal guns.

I left out the Yak-28P because i haven't found yet any visual reference of it carrying guns, even in gunpods, though some russian articles keep mentioning GSh-23 for it. Has anyone seen any Yak-28P with guns, whether in gunpods or internal?
And i left the Tu-28P as it's way too big and clumsy to have any use for guns. While the MiG-25P not mentioned here is too fast/specialized to need guns (though they put a gun on the MiG-31 so there's that)

Secondly, there were actually experiments to give at least the Sukhois air to ground capability, so carrying various bombs and rocket pods. This capability can be added relatively easily either during construction or later on to pretty much all the interceptors listed. Plus of course, tactical nukes could have been carried as well. In this respect, the big Tu-28 would have been useful as a bombtruck, either with 2 or more tactical nukes under the wings, or with say twin launchers for up to 8x500kg bombs.

Regarding ARM use against AWACS planes, indeed the iraqis thought of doing just that, using MiG-25Rs to fire i think H-58 ARMs at american planes, but they haven't finished that project. So the soviets could have done this as well i guess, they had various ARMs to chose from, H-28, H-58, H-25MP etc. Or alternatively and probably more straightforward, build passive versions of the bigger and longer ranged missiles like R-40 or R-80 for the same role, like they did with the later R-27P.

Firebar had no internal or external guns ever even experimental ones
But later ones had 2 atolls in addition to Anabs
Gun on mig31 was likely more to destroy subsonic missiles not for dog fighting

 

[Monk78]

One final thought, if the money was there, it would have been useful to modernize the more recent planes, certainly the Su-15 could have used the modern LD/SD S-23ML radars and even the IRST, thus greatly increasing low altitude interception capability.

Not sure if it would have worth for the likes of Yak-28P and Tu-28P, but come to think of it, the older Smerch radars from modernized MiG-25PDs (replaced with S-23ML derived Sapfir-25s) could have been refurbished, brought to the latest Smerch standard like A3 or A4 which aiui had a limited LD/SD capability, fitted with a bigger dish and retrofitted to the Tu-28s.

Similar story to a potential Su-15 upgrade, if fitted with a S-23ML derivative then the older Taifun radar could have been refurbished, modernized and fitted in the noses of Yak-28P and/or older Oryol Su-15s.

In such a scenario these models gaining a useful increase in radar range and a limited LD/SD capability.

I see what you are saying but by this time it’s early 80s and there are 2100 floggers fighter, plus fulcrum flanker production is about to start in full swing and all these upgrades will still be costly
Maybe just throwing these 1000 + interceptors (as they are ) into battle day 1 of a big war with NATO will overwhelm western air defenses and at the bare minimum would allow the 1000 + mig27/su24/su17 to fly offensive counter air operations unmolested probably catching a good number of western aircraft on the ground

 

[Pioneer]

Thank you for the kind thoughts

What are your thoughts on soviet GCI esp the one deployed to assist PVO rather than VVS aircraft?

As for Soviet CGI doctrine, it took me a while to get my head around the Western 'publicised' rigidity of it. Again, it was a case of me understanding the split between PVO and VVS organisations and structure, as well as filtering out Western propaganda 'of Soviet technological backwardness'.

Also on top of this is the often neglected fact that although the Soviets appeared to be spending endless amounts of money, manpower and resources on it's military machine, the Soviets Post-WWII economy, unlike that of the U.S., was really hurting. So I came to the conclusion that GCI was undoubtedly seen as the most cost effective doctrine of defence....

I guess the reality was that the Soviet Unions geographical land/aerospace mass, combined with some of the harshest conditions and encompassing the fact that the U.S. had succeeded in it's strategy of surrounding and hence threatening the Soviet Union on 3/4 of the compass, I think the PVO not just had it's work cut out for it. I'm sure it must have strategised and evaluated what worked best.

That why I'm thinking that more resources put into specialised AEW/AWACS would not just be greatly effective against the U.S. and British change from high-altitude to low-altitude penatration, one would think that time and money would be saved in actual PVO flight time for the sake of patrolling, when a AEW/AWACS could be on station for hours, looking much further and scrambling and vectoring interceptors when a threat/target is detected. By also not relying on ground based radars and communications, the greater employment of AEW/AWACS aircraft would potentially take away the predictability of set ground-based radars, by which the U.S./British/French bombers/strike aircraft could plot around during their attack.
[After all, taking the follow claim with a dose of salt, "according to Chinese government claims, a single KJ-1 [KJ-1 AEWC] [modified Tupolev Tu-4 Bull, equipped with turboprop engines and pylon-mounted radar dish, to act as AEW] would have functions equivalent to more than 40 ground radar stations.]

Another thought might be the Soviets considering their own take on a long-range, stand-off interceptor - a 'Missileer' aircraft, something akin to the US's Project 'LAMP LIGHT' (1954) - a modified Boeing B-47E with eight long-range AAM's and over-fuselage radome and Project ‘AERIE’ (1957) - a modified Boeing C-135A acting as a self contained weapons platform, equipped with a powerful air-search radar, its own airborne command centre and armed with no less than twenty four AAM-N-10 Eagle long-range AAM`s. The AERIE's would have been ground based, would have had a 5-min. reaction time, and would have been able to operate with the Sage air defense control system or independently, remaining on station for as long as 11 hrs. Then there was the Lockheed's CL-520, equipped with it's own powerful nose-mounted fire control radar, a powerful and far reaching pylon-mounted search and IFF rotodome, and a powerful doppler radar, matted to a load out of 6-8 long-range AAM's. Or British equivalent of a Avro Vulcan B2 airframe equipped with a powerful search radar and armed with ten air-launched Seadart missiles.
Appreciating that Tupolev Design Bureau
had studied interceptor derivatives of their Tu-22M (DP-1), Tu-144 (DP-2) and Tu-160. bomber designs.
I'm envisaging modified derivatives of the likes of Tupolev Tu-126, Tu-16 (or Tu-104) equipped initially with the RP-SM Smerch-M or RP-11 Oriol-D radar in their noses and armed with semi-active radar homing and infrared R-4 or K-8 air to air missiles.....
And just like the U.S./British studies had concluded, these strategic interceptors would for all intent and purposes be self contained weapons platform, equipped with a powerful air-search radar, its own airborne command centre and armed with an arsenal of long-range AAM`s, loitering on endlessly patrolling the aerospace of the Soviet Union (limited only by its crews endurance and stamina) intercepting any threatening U.S/British/French/Chinese strategic bombers.....

Finally, as per Soviet doctrine, nothing goes to waste, so how about converting the likes of obsolete PVO Sukhoi Su-9, Su-11's and Tu-128's into offensive drones in time of hostility?
The Su-9 and Su-11's simulating offensive fighter actions, while the size and RCS of the Tu-128 simulating offensive bomber actions into NATO and Japanese aerospace, to soke up U.S./NATO/Japanese fighters/interceptors and SAM's? I'm thinking these could use zero-length launch system or zero-length take-off system technique, so as to maximise flight fuel, free up runways and maximise the element of strategic suprise.....


Regards
Pioneer

 

[MadRat]

PVO and VVS had quite different philosophies in their chains of command. PVO was closer to the English model of WW2 than any American model. The location of the decision maker and deferment of decisions was quite different than anything in the West. Quite political and pass the buck types ruled PVO, with ebbs and flows through its history of aggressive and passive types. It made the close study of PVO personalities a high priority for American counterparts, because not only were you countering an organization you were playing high stakes chess with real people you were tasked to study. Much of what American forces did on the localized 'theater' level was directly tied to personal challenges to their counterparts. The CIA and DIA/DAOs were absolute masters at humanistic study of PVO leaders. And lets not forget PVO competed for rubles with forces in command of radars and missiles that overlapped their functions, and your average Soviet leaders took stepping on toes very personal. The Soviets were quick to tout their leadership after incidents only to disappear them while publicly relishing their psuedo victories. Throwing an opposing leader under the bus to save face was modus operandi, and an incompetent leader typically survived better than practical ones. The Soviet PVO leaders absolutely feared the big one knowing how fickle and insane their top leadership could be.