Looking for photos and supplemental info on Mig-23MFs in service with the Warsaw Pact nations (not Soviet). Much searching has produec only basic info and photos typically of post-WP breakup with camo schemes and new insignia in place of the old (typically) stars and air superiority grey schemes.
Here are some russian MiG-23s excellent pictures
http://forums.airforce.ru/showthread.php?t=936&page=2
http://perso.orange.fr/jets.for.ever/Pages%20du%20Site/mig%2023.htm
Soviet MiG-23s are the best later i get you some Warsaw pact ones
As I exspected.
Some details for better understanding.
Both engines have an airflow of 144 kg/s and 150 kg/s.
Frontal area versus thrust or drag versus thrust ratio is an issue. Weight is of minor importance except for climb-rate really.
When a MiG-25 became a “sitting duck” below 30000 feet, the MiG-31 is much different, when it comes to speed below 30000 feet.
To reach the given range data both have to cruise high up.
When a MiG-25 spring into live it could reach 60000 feet in ~8 min.
The heavier MiG-31 took ~8 min to reach 33000 feet.Different “animals” with different materials and flight envelope in mind.
The refuelling probe added to the MiG-31 is an indication, that even with much better sfc of engine, range is an issue at lower flight levels.
The MiG-25 and MiG-31 with operational warload will have almost the same climb rate, both aircraft will reach 20km at around the same time 8 minutes, of course if you mix up recods the Ye-155 (MiG-25 prototypes) climbed 20km in 50 seconds, but operational MiG-25 and MiG-31 aircraft will take the same time to climb to 20km.
In fact Russian books say the MiG-31 climbs to 19km in 7.9 minutes and from that altitude can cruise at Mach 2.35; see that the MiG-25 climbs to 20km in 8 minutes 54 sec, so by no means the MiG-31 can reach operational climb of rates different to the MiG-25`s
Do not exspect an real answere about. Most of our “experts” are net aware, that most of thrust came from the inlet and outlet system then.
Expert or not experts, the MiG-25 and MiG-31 achieve the same operational max speed, the same cruise speed and the almost same range at Mach 2.3, basicly these two aircraft achieve the same with different engines, the only big difference is the MiG-25 is lighter and has less powerful engines.
The MiG-25 has R-15 turbojets and the MiG-31 has a pair of D-30F6 Turbofans, both aircraft have similar inlets
Mig-23MLD, the F-4 was designed for the USN FIRST and then adopted by the USAF. A navalized F-15 would not have been able to perform as well as the F-14. The F-15N would no be anywhere near Flanker capability. The F-14 was flying and in deveopment 2 full years before the Eagle so if anything it made more sense for the USAF to adopt the F-14 rather than the other way round. Also the fact that the Su-27 can launch without a catapult is a not an advantage – the actual load that can be carried by the Flanker is nowhere near what it is capable of. F-14 or any other aircraft would not be able to take-off with a useful load of fuel and weapons without a catapault. This is why USN and French carriers are fitted with them and why the USN is developing the electro-magnetic catapault. Work was done with the F-14 and ski-jumps but the USN never showed much interest in them. The Russian aircraft carrier program was intended to have a catapault but time and cost constraints prevented this. Lastly your continued contention that the F-14 is completely obsolete and that it’s only reson for existence was the Phoenix is not accurate. If by your rules, the F-14 is obsolete then so is the F-15 and Su-27 as their job can also be done by newer smaller fighters – but you are entitled to your opinion. Also that model F-15 you posted is not based on act at all – I’ve read the article by the guy who built it and it’s a pure thumb suck.
TOMCAT TERRTORY
Let us see several aspects you are not seeing
The F-15 has a TWR as high as the Su-27`s TWR
This would had allowed to the F-15 a good carring capacity, it is true it would had added weight as it would had been navalized, but it would had also take off with the aid of a catapult, the F-14A has a very low TWR and a very slow rate of climb, the F-15N would had been more like a Su-33 in that sense since the land F-15 has a TWR of 1.2 at normal take off, contrary to the F-14A that has really a very low TWR even worst than the MiG-23MF in fact it only has a 1:0.9 TWR empty, fully loaded, it gets as bad as 1:0.5, so the F-14 is a really overweight and obese aircraft even compare to the F-15.
The F-15 has a better wing loading than the F-14A while the F-14A has a pancake fuselage generated lift, it also has a smaller wing, and it is heavier, also the Wing Pivots limit the G overload permitted and the F-14 was even limited to 6.5Gs due to the complexity and fragility associated with swing wings
F-14 Phoenix realities The F-14 can not land on the deck of an aircraft carrier with a load of six AIM-54 and it is restricted to a Max G load factor of 6Gs while carrying the AIM-54, so the F-14 armed with AIM-54 is not agile in fact is so limited that in agility it would be comparable to the MiG-31.
So i do not think the Naval F-15 would had been worst than the F-14, in fact i think it would had been better why? The F-14 empty weight is 18 tonns, the weight of the F-15N would had been less than 14tonns, the reality the VG wing imposes a weight penalty that is even noticeable just looking at the empty weight of the F-15A and the F-14A, the F-15A is 5 tonns lighter than the F-14A;)
So then why the F-15 never was purchased by the US navy? simply politics and enough money to burn, simply like that, Grumman needed the program, the US Navy could not back down since the future of Grumman was at stake and the US Government would had been resposible for Grumman`s bankarupcy.
The F-14A is inferior to the F-15A simply because as a whole the F-14 has two aspects that makes it more primitive than the F-15, one is older and less advanced engines and the other is weight penalty due to the VG wing
The F-15N was just a paper proposal. Defense contracts mean lots of money, so normally all companies apply for any RFP. The F-15N would have some problems especially with landing speed. Considerable reqork of landing gear and addition of leading edge flaps are necessary. Note that the F-15N was considered as replacement of the F-14 after it was in service. This alternative was not cheaper and not better performing (the edge of the F-15 in some performance aspects are equalized by lower range). After all, the F-15N was for me just a cheap hit of McDD to atract some funds.
Schorsch
The F-15 and F-14 competed in the very early 1970s, there were proposals to navalized the F-15 or sell F-14s to the USAF, since both services were asking for two different aircraft trying to avoid the disaster the F-111 had when it was proposed to both the USAF and the US navy both services kept their custom built fighters.
Navalize an aircraft is not as difficult as it seems, the F-4, Su-27, MiG-29, F-35, Su-25, Rafale, Harrier show that turning a land based aircraft into a naval one is not impossible, in fact it might be even cheaper.
The Su-27 is an excellent example, the aircraft has better TWR than the F-14A, so it dispensed of catapults, the MiG-29 basicly remain the same aircraft when it was navalized, of course they were modified but still are the same airplane, the Rafale is the same.
Why did Russia navalize the Su-27 and MiG-29, and France the Rafale? well simply economic factors played an important role, the F-15 could had also been navalized if the US navy would had been really limited economically as was Russia and France is up to a degree.
France won`t built a second 4.5 generation naval fighter due to economic limitations, the Rafale M is a more practical solution rather than build a second specialized naval fighter.
The US could financed 4 fourth generation aircraft that basicly duplicated the F-15 and F-16 in naval variants
Inflation has limited the number of aircraft a nation can finance, the US could finance 4 fourth generation fighters, the former Soviet Union only 3, France only 2 and England 3 but all are international programs in partnership with the US, Germany, Italy or Spain.
The F-15 is the USAF equivalent of the F-14, however they decided economic woes were up to a level unimportant since the US had enough money to finace both.
artistic impression of the F-15N
despite it is thought the F-15N could not fire the AIM-54, the reality is there was a variant of the F-15N named F-15N-PHX that could had fired the AIM-54
source http://www.afwing.com/intro/f15/5.htm
The Sea Flanker was indeed the solution the US navy rejected in the form of the F-15N
But today the F-18 and the MiG-29 have taken revenge with the Super Hornet F-18E and the MiG-35
MiG
Just for you to know that you have totally missed the point of the F-14 and its multi role capability.
As designed, envisaged and flight tested the 14 was both an A2A platform and an A2G platform with a long reach.. in terms of taking the missile far from the carrier group with minimal tanker support, being able to carry a heavy missile and being able to carry a heavy bomb load to the beach…
The requirement for ‘dgofighting’ with other fighters was limited as its two prime areas of operation were either blue water against bombers…or in operations such a Vietnam where interdiction against defended targets meant avoiding A2A or having cover from other assets.. like fighter configured BVR toting 14s on a CAP….the A2A capability at the time of conception was in excess of any realistic opponent…the ones which had a clear parity or were better only appear in the form of the MiG 29 and the Flanker. The USN didn’t give monkeys about the F-15’s A2A ‘superiority’, it couldn’t, as designed, carry 6 Phoenixes, it was not carrier compatible and their actions with regard to the F-15 were justifed when the McAir proposal came back with very similar figures to the then flying F-14. An F-15N would not have been an F-15A or C….
(PS the Iranians purchased the F-14 because in their words… ‘its agility and performance in the low speed manoeuvering demonstrations exceed the performance demonstrated by the F-15’. McAir protested that Grumman cheated in that demo…no, they stretched the rules as McAir had done for themselves earlier with the Streak Eagle, making implications that this was the ‘Eagle’ rather than a suitably modified version destined for records alone…..;) )
Remember also that at the time twin engines were viewed as essential for a blue water air group..so lightweight single engined comparisons are irrelevant.
The only fragment of reasonable arguement you put forward is that there are alternatives to the F-14 currently on the international market place which can take on some of the roles the F-14 was able to perform some 30 years ago….but that does not equate to the arguement that the F-14 was in some way lacking or deficient….
Bager,
Thanks for the heads up.. I meant Tomcat; Intruder and Hawkeye..not Sentry.
As for your listing of the actual CAG it is correct…but the intended Air Wing for the planned big deck carriers proposed additional F-14s tasked with A2G rather than additional A-7s (scrapped when the F-14 unit price increased after the bankrupcy issues and the B model was scrapped) a Hawkeye/ Greyhound derivative in the ASW role rather than the Lockheed Viking (it would still ahve been called Viking…This common airframe was the evolution of the S-2 Tracer/ C-1 Trader/ WF-2 line which had inhabited carrier decks previously.
This left the Sea Kings as the only non Grumman product….As you pointed out it didn’t come true but it was the intention.
Remember at the time the US operated two distinct carrier types.. the Essex (no F-4s) and Midway classes which were unable to have the F-14..and the ‘super carriers’ Forrestal/ Nimitz classes (Enterprise being a single ship class) which were intended to have all the whistles and bells. The retirement of the Essexes was delayed by the Ops required in support of the Vietnam War and in the end the speed of procurement of the nuclear ‘Forrestal class’ was slowed down such that the Midways had to remain in service much longer than expected.
The mix of 4s and 14s was never intented, it was a result of the financial issues in the 14 programme.
With an all supercarrier fleet all CAGs would have been equiped with an all Grumman Air Wing….
But in the late 60s/ early 70s when the F-14 was the centre of so much attention that was the overall paradigm that prevailed….and it gives the perspective in which to try to understand the importance of the F-14 programme to the overall US military picture, and why when the ‘Admirals Revolted’ they were listened to and when Grumman went back to the DoD asking for more money to remain solvent they actually got what they needed…but they ended up paying a very heavy price for that action…one which had nothing to do with the performance of their products.
michelf
Before everybody thinks i am an F-14 hater i have to say i do love VG wing fighters, the F-14 is more much beatiful than the F-15, i do really like the F-14, it is my favorite american aircraft, i am an F-14 fan, and i miss the F-14
After i said that i want to analize this factor, the former Soviet Union only built 3 fourth generation fighters, the MiG-29, the Su-27 and the MiG-31, this contrasts with the americans who built four fourth generation types.
The MiG-29 basicly was the Soviet counter part for the F-16 and F-18 and the Su-27 was the counter part of the F-14 and F-15; the MiG-31 filled niches similar to the F-14, it was designed to kill bombers and cruise missiles, but never it was intented to design it as a naval fighter.
The Su-27 was navalized as the F-15 could have been, the MiG-29 was also navalized to be the Soviet counter part of the F-18.
The R-37 can be deployed by the Su-27 derivatives and basicly it is an AIM-54 counterpart.
The Soviet Union was never as wealthy as the USA, the US could built the F-14 only because their naval officcers wanted it, but in reality if the F-15 would had been navalized it would had had a better price than the F-14, the F-15 already has surpassed the 1500 aircraft built, would had it been navalized today we would say there would be close to 2500 F-15s deployed and operational.
I mean its unit priced would had been cheapened, however it never happened because contrary to Russia where the F-15 counter part was navalized, the F-15 was not, there was enough money in the US to justify the F-14 existence.
However see that the F-18 replaced the F-14 only because it also was cheaper than the F-15, so it was more logic to design an F-14 replacement from the F-18 than from the F-15.
Missiles like the Meteor are making cheap fighters like the SAAB JAS-39 great multirole aircraft as good as an F-14 at BVR combat or as good as the Panavia Tornado or F-15E in terms of the arsenal carried
The AIM-54 as the R-33 are heavy weapons that impose great drag and weight penalty to the carrier aircraft.
The 1960s and early 1970s technology forced aircraft designers to build large aircraft to carry them with relatively large radars and a second man crew, these missiles were intended to be used against mainly bombers such as the Tu-22M, B-1B and B-52 and their cruise missiles.
However in todays world that does not happen, the Meteor can be fire by smaller jets, modern technology has given great processing power enough to dispense of a second man crew in the JAS-39, the F-14 in fact has become obsolete, because now cheaper and smaller fighters can do its job.
Please don’t make it the notorious F-18E vs. F-14 debate. We have had all this s__t.
Schorsch
man please first do not tell me what i can or can not say, second what i said its true, why you need the F-14 in an age even the Gripen can be armed with Meteors and IRIS-Ts?
The american as the Europeans will arm their new fighters with air breathing missiles like the Meteor that have long range like the AIM-54 but that are lighter into newer and stealthier platforms like the F-35 and F-18E, also range is no problem with inflight refuelling so if you have air refuelling, Meteors or AIM-120D and AIM-9X who needs the F-14? the answer only fans, the US needs to develop and deploy better weapons and the F-14 can not be put it into production now, the F-14 in the 1970s and 1980s was good because it was needed it had capabilities no other fighters had but in 2007 it is obsolete
the question you have asked it is easy to understand, and always you will end up mentioning the F-18E, why because the US strategists know and knew the F-14 shortcomings and knew a cheaper weapon or newer weapons could replace the ageing F-14, in fact look once the F-18 was deployed the versatility the F-18 had proved enough to replace the F-14.
Here all the F-14 fans want to workship the F-14 in an altar, but see the reality, in 2007 there are better weapons, the F-14 never was a perfect machine, niether special, it was a good aircraft and in the 1970s was good but in 2007 it is old, could it had been upgraded? yes it could had but the US Navy saw more future to the F-18 because it is cheaper and more versatile.
Sign In
