Talk:Sukhoi Su-15/Archive 1

Archive 1

KAL 007 Shootdown was a Mistake

The shootdown of Korean Air Lines Flight 7 over Sakhalin Island was actually a mistake, because the pilot of the Red Air Force Su-15 mis-identified the KAL 747 as a USAF EC-135. This is one of a few cases in which aircraft identified as military airplanes are mis-identifications of commercial airliners or private airplanes.

The pilot of the Soviet interceptor knew that he was shooting down a Boeing 747 passenger plane. He admitted to that in 1996:

"I saw two rows of windows and knew that this was a Boeing. I knew this was a civilian plane. But for me this meant nothing. It is easy to turn a civilian type of plane into one for military use." (New York Times interview, September 9, 1996). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.222.66 (talk • contribs)

Please stop adding links to your own conspiracy theory website (link removed). Akradecki 22:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The theory it was a mistake is only a theory. The motivations of the pilots and more importantly his commanders is something that can really only ever be conjectured. mercator79 0929 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Though it is clear from the above that the Soviet pilot knew he was shooting down a civilian passenger plane, the real motivations for the shootdown are still in the realm of conjecture. What has come to the fore now with the Russian Federation supplied military communications is this: far from the shootdown being some junior officer's (or gereral's) knee jerk reaction in a tense situation, the command for the shootdown (on the military side) went very high up - General Ivan Moseivich Tretyak, Commander of the Soviet Far East Military District and his superior, General Vladimir Govrov, Commander of the Far East Theatre of Operations. It is not clear how high it went up on the civilian governmental side, But the Soviet system of intertwined military and governmental commands would indicate that the Defence Minister Dmitri Ustinov and even Soviet head Yuri Andropov would have been involved in the decision for shootdown.

[Among the ground-to-ground communications appended to the 1993 ICAO Report, the following conversation (unidentified speakers) is recorded at 18:45:

“Weapons were used, weapons authorized at the highest level. Ivan Moiseevich authorized it. Hello, hello.”

“Say again.”

“I cannot hear you clearly now.”

“He gave the order. Hello, hello, hello.”

“Yes, yes.”

“Ivan Moseivich gave the order, Tretyak.”

“Roger, roger.”]

217.132.141.58Bert Schlossberg217.132.141.58 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.141.58 (talk) 06:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Tu-28

Why did the USSR build the Su-15 in much larger numbers than the similar, but more powerful Tu-28?

Well in the Tu-28 article itself, it was noted, "As a pure interceptor the Tu-28P had almost no ECM or defensive avionics, not even a radar-warning receiver (RWR) like the smaller Sukhoi interceptors." This might have been reason enough. Defensive avionics and size. Tu-28s make Thuds look small...

Quite simply, think about Tu-128 (a proper name of Tu-28) simply as a "mobile launching platform for missiles, for use in Siberia where it is not easy to build SAM sites or airfields". It was very slow, with poor climb, poor ceiling, armed with only 4 missiles. It has been designed with only two characteristics in mind: very long range + supersonic-dash capability. The only aircraft it could fight were B-52s, and was kept in service only because B-52s were in service too. Meeting any fighter would end very badly for Tu-128.

Thanks to its long range, for a time the small force of Tu-128s covered a half of Soviet Union's interior using only 6 or 7 airbases (economically sound, isn't it?). On the other hand, the borders and populated areas were guarded by short-range Su-15 and medium-range Yak-28P using hundreds of airbases. --Kubanczyk (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

These two planes were quite similar to each other: neither of them was intended for engaging fighters, but as a pure interceptor role, so the Su-15 would perform poorly against them too. While a maximum speed of Mach 1.5 and a climbing rate of 50 m/s for the Tu-128 isn´t that spectacular, I wouldn´t refer to a ceiling of 20,000 m as "poor". For an aircraft with such a long pre-warning time as the Tu-128, 50 m/s were enough as well, while forcing incoming bombers to outrun with more than Mach 1.5 would prevent them from performing their missions due to lack of fuel. The Su-15 did not carry more than 4 missiles either, by the way. They were both adapted to their different purposes: while the Su-15 was optimised for defending major cities, with short pre-warning times and thus high speed and climbing rates, the Tu-128 should patrol over wide, sparsely populated areas and was optimised for range. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.184.203.126 (talk) 09:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Military usage info

I dont think Soviets were using this plane to intercept civilians only ; ). If it is possible add some more combat situations.

No conflicts occurred during the time of service. As interceptors they wouldn't have any use in Afghanistan. They were interceptors and border integrity. They were the main line defence fighter and as such they happened to be the aircraft sent up against threats that turned out to be mistakes.

ARG CL-44 incident

According who wrote Transporte Aéreo Rioplatense the interceptor was a Mig-25 (??) --Jor70 (talk) 11:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

This Russian language source (SU-15 FLAGON interceptor, translation) says it was a Su-15. The Transporte article does not provide any sources for Mig-25. Anyway, we should start an article on the incident somewhere. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The Su-15 pilot was named Valentin Adeksandrovich Kulyapin, see: Куляпин Валентин Адександрович (translation) -- Petri Krohn (talk) 07:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Su-21 designation

"Some Western reports indicate that the Su-15TM was also designated Su-21 and the Su-15UM Su-21U. These reports are apparently incorrect. Designation Su-21 was reserved for Su-17M4 but never used.".
Although I do not contest this remark, you need to keep in mind there are known differences between designations used internally with the Design Bureaux and those used operationally with the Soviet Air Force - and even different designations for the same (sub-) type when used by the VVS, PVO or AV-MF. And to make things worse, designations can and have been re-used. So to state the Su-21/Su-21U designations apparently are incorrect, just because the Su-17 apparently also has been assigned the same designation seems a bit blunt to me. --Antheii (talk) 09:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Diagram of wing is wrong

Except for early Flagon-A the plane did not have a purely delta wing. --MarsRover (talk) 21:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)