A cop-out answer?? You’re kidding me right?
Basically you’re theorizing that an Su-7 optimized for air superiority (i.e. meaning some probably pretty serious changes to the airframe that we all identify as the Fitter-A) is better than a MiG-21. THEORIZING is the key word here. You have no proof other than the fact that the airframe is stronger….of course who’s to say that if an interceptor variant was built that it would have the exact same airframe strength?
You have to base conclusions on what was available at the time. You can always theorize and make up what-ifs for any situation? What if the Germans had had the Me-262 during the Battle of Britain. What if the P-26 Peashooter had entered service during World War I? The list goes on and on.
The Su-7 has a rugged airframe that is not in doubt, but that durability comes at a price. An aircraft with that type of structural strength is not going to be as agile as the MiG-21. Likewise, an airplane with the agility of the MiG-21 isn’t going to be as strong as something like an Su-7. There are trade-offs for both designs.
Regarding the Su-11, I don’t really see why you think it would all of a sudden make an effective dogfighter. It had a bit more range than the Fishbed and certainly a better radar, but how much better. I’d be willing to bet that it still wouldn’t have been better than the radar in any F-4, and the AA-3 Anab didn’t have the range to be a BVR weapon in the class of the AIM-7. With that being said, as you pointed out, air-to-air missile design was in its infancy and I can promise you that if an American weapon such as the AIM-7 wasn’t very good, then neither was its Russian counterpart. The Atoll & AIM-9B are prime examples. Neither were very good although both did have some success.
The Anab, like the original AIM-7, wasn’t designed to deal with mauevering targets like fighters and likely would have had a very low success rate just as the Sparrow did. Furthermore, a radar-guided weapon (yes I know it came in IR-versions as well) like the Anab requires a lock-on throughout the missile’s flight time. A ambush against, say, a flight of bomb-laden F-105’s would possibly have netted a kill or two (provided the targets in question didn’t manuever too much when the AA-3 was fired), but it would have left the firing Fishpot in a very vulnerable situation, and with all of the prowling Phantoms (or Crusaders in some case) escorting the strikers, the Su-11 needs to make a quick kill and bug out of he’s history. A weapon like the AA-3 at the time didn’t allow that. An Atoll equipped MiG-21 has roughly similar chances of scoring a kill, and once his missile is fired, he is free to manuever to avoid any counter attacks, if he has been seen.
Additionally, the Su-11’s only weapon besides the two Anab missiles was a pair of UPK-23 cannon pods under the fuselage. Not one, but two….which means double the drag, and likely jsut as difficult to get success with as the SUU-16 & -23 pods carried by the F-4C & F-4D. If these cannon pods are fitted, there is no room for external tanks, which means range is even less.
All in all aside from its better radar, I see little reason why the Su-11 would have been that much more successful than the MiG-21. It should also be noted that the Su-11 was a much larger airplane than any of the MiG types operated by the VPAF, so the advantage of small size and being hard to see goes out the window. This particular quality often led to MiG’s having success when otherwise they might have been seen early enough in their ambushes for the target aircraft to take evasive action.
So you see….I’m not copping out on anything. I’m simply explaining the reasons that I feel you are incorrect in your assessment of how the Su-11 or a fictitous version of the Su-7 would have performed instead of the aformentioned MiG-21 (or MiG-17 & J-6 for that matter).
If you can make up an airplane for a conflict and say that it might have been better then can I do the same? Afterall, fair is fair…….right?
I think the Su-9 and MiG-21 are little bit the same type of aircraft, however i think the MiG-21 has two main advantages over the Su-11: one it was probably cheaper and second its latest variant could sustain higher overloads than the 7Gs limit the Su-9 had.
Probably the Su-11 was not different from the Su-9 in that respect so i would say the MiG-21 from my humble point of view was a better aircraft
With respect the MiG-23 different capabilities and characteristics i have to mention that the MiG-23MLD had AOA limit of 26-28 degrees:
The MiG-23 could fly at the angles of attack to 24-26 deg., which ensured it the definite advantages over the western fighter aircraft of the 2nd and 3erd generations. But with the advent of the aircraft of the 4th generation this superiority was lost (F-16 of different modifications they had a limitation on the angle of attack of 26-28 deg; a F-15c could leave to the angles of attack to 30 deg.)
МиГ-23 могли летать на углах атаки до 24-26 град., что обеспечивало им определенные преимущества над западными истребителями 2-го и 3-го поколений. Но с появлением самолетов 4-го поколения это превосходство было утрачено (F-16 различных модификаций имели ограничение по углу атаки 26-28 град., a F-15C мог выходить на углы атаки до 30 град.)
At the high angles of attack the MiG-23MLD creators attained the stability parameters and controllability, comparable with the flight AoA characteristics of the F-16
На больших углах атаки создатели МиГ-23МЛД добились характеристик устойчивости и управляемости, сопоставимых с характеристиками F-16
source:http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fighter/mig23mld.html
MiG-23MLD – most perfect modification in the MiG-23 family. This aircraft had an optimum aerodynamic configuration, ensuring an essential improvement in maneuverability with a minimum modification of glider aerodynamic configuraton. The fighter control radar Saphir MLA (008) is capable of a search and track of up to six aerial targets.
МиГ-23МЛД — наиболее совершенная модификация в семействе МиГ-23. Самолет имел оптимальную компоновку, обеспечивающую существенное улучшение маневренности
при минимальной модификации планера. РЛС истребителя способна обнаруживать и сопровождать до шести воздушных целей
http://www.kummolovo.ru/aircraft/mig_23.htm
MiG-23MLD has improved maneuverability in comparison with previous MiG-23 variants and a new fire control weapons system radar, capable of simultaneously search and track several aerial targets (The radar weapons system of American fighter F -15 does not possess this capability).
МиГ-23МЛД имеет улучшенную маневренность по сравнению с предыдущей модификацией и новую БРЛС, способную одновременно сопровождать несколько воздушных целей (БРЛС американского истребителя F-15 такой способностью не обладает).
http://mega.km.ru/weaponry/encyclop.asp?TopicNumber=3355
Wishfull thinking aside. The Russian standard MiG-23M fielded type 2 wings and were later refitted with type 3 wings, but not all! Hereby I speak about the Russian variant. Even not all Russian standard MiG-23M received the Saphir-radar, because the introduction was delayed through technical problems, when the full production-run of thr MiG-23M had started already.
Even when introduced the Saphir was limited at first and upgraded step by step to the capabilities published. The MiG-23s were not built to a common standard, but in Blocks similiar Western fighters. Some received upgrades later during service time. That was done, when the fighter was send back to MiG to rework it for a new lease of life. The MiG-23s were flown in a single role only and did not accumulate more than 100 hours per year in general. The producer set a flying-hour limit and a time limit, what ever was reached first. So it took several years of service-time, before a MiG-23 returned for upgrade. Sometimes it became a mantainance nightmare, when units did operate its MiG-23s with different standards.
The MiG-23MLs from Kubinka were the first ones, which showed the advertised capabilities. The same year 1978 they visited Finland.
The Syrian Ms were a failure and Russia was in a hurry to correct that in 1982/83, when it did send standard MLs. Even that was not enough and the MLDs were in need to keep the Flogger a first line fighter, before the Fulcrum and Flanker will take-over in the late 80s.
It is that MLD, what justified the Russian claims about the F-4, Kfir and some others mentioned. The Israeli reaction did show it too. From the mid 80s the Kfir was used in the ground attack mainly. The look-down/shot down capability of the Flogger had matured to a level, which gave it an edge about the F-4 and Kfir. The GAF reaction was the ICE upgrade of itse F-4F to keep the Phantom in service, when other AFs limited its to the strike-role or withdrew it from service, like the USAF.
MLs and Ms upgraded in the 80s became comparable as weapon-systems.
But that did last a few years only, when most MiG-23s faced early retirement
from 1990!
I have no problem to agree, that most Floggers were operated by the wrong countries and stayed behind its capabilities by that. To “doctor” history to give the Flogger a better view afterwards will not work. It is more intresting to learn, what were the problems, which caused that limited results. One part are the operaters, who may have ignored the shortcomings of that design and seemed unable to exploit the strong points of that design. An Israeli general claimed, when asked about the performances of the MiG-21F13 compared to the Mirage IIIC. They are close in air/air, when the Mirage offers more overall performances. Change the pilot in both and you will get different results, so it is the pilot and the way it is operated, what makes the difference in general. India is a good example how MiGs can be operated in an usefull manner, despite the problems, India had to face throgh the same shortcomings from that design. To compare datas from the edge of the performance enelope of a fighter is very misleading. A fighter is not a flying maschineat first, but a weaponssytem and has to be operated clever to get the most from. The CPU alone says nothing about the capabilities of a PC, but still the most important selling argument. People are eager into easy answers to avoid harder thinking themselves.
Well Sens the MiG-23 Etalon 1971 is a MiG-23M
This is a MiG-23 etalon 1971 or MiG-23M the Etalon 1971 has a wing type 2 and is limited to 5.5Gs so up to my knowledge this variant is still consider a MiG-23M, yes it is an early block but still a MiG-23M, the other two blocks are the 23-11M and the 23-11M2, these last two versions are fitted with a wing type 3 and also are called MiG-23Ms
What i feel it is little bit ilogic about the israeli source about the MiG-23M is this block has an IRST system, all the acounts i heard from the western side forget that the IRST system can be used to detect and fire missiles and ECMs or electronic jamming won`t affect it since is a passive system, beside that according to the Russian account the F-16 had no BVR missiles and were vectored first even before the F-15s could attack flanking the MiG-23Ms and attacking before the F-15s that carried AIM-7s
this makes me feel the Russian account has some degree of likeliness, also the Russian accounts also claim the Israeli jamming only reduced the Saphir range but still the managed to fire the AA-7/R-23s and kill some F-16s.
the average range they fired the R-23s was 9 km nonetheless the F-16 could also counter attack and fire their AIM-9s and kills some MiG-23Ms
In few words what the Russian account says is the electronic jamming the Israelies used made the R-23 a short range missile with the same range of an AIM-9 instead of its original longer range of BVR combat.
The question is once fired the R-23 is not capable of destroying an F-16? and why the Python III and AIM-9 are more likely to hit the MiG-23 than the R-23 the F-16?
Mixing carelessly different variants with different capabilities and keep related timescale out of view do contradict your claims in general.
Just a simple example, not all MiG-23ML, where refitted with more capable wing-3 and stayed with its less advanced wing-2. But that did not prevent you to post wing-3 flight datas and claim it for all MiG-23MLs in the 80s in general.
Similar thing with the F-16, without block-number or for the F-4 without.
The “rather old” GAF F-4F are no longer that ones built after several upgrades over the years.
I am shure that most posters and producers are aware about that, but do not so to get “better” results to impress less informed readers.
Sens
First i think you are confused, the wing-3 or wing 1972 was fitted from the MiG-23M onwards not from the MiG-23ML onwards.
It is true that the MiG-23ML had a modified wing, this wing had two of its inboard trailing edge flaps combined and the leading edge flaps lightened but beyond that it was a wing type 1972.
The MiG-23 etalon 1971 had a wing type 2 or already the typical MiG-23 wing with dogtooth
The MiG-23ML modifications were basicly the engine and the lightening of the airframe besides newer avionics.
The MIG-23MLD had the wing modified too but more drastically on the wing glove
This a MiG-23 prototype with wing type 1
wing type 3
Now Sens the data i have given for the MiG-23ML is at least the stadard data for that variant and most likely it is for the Russian MiG-23MLs.
The MiG-23 in general was rated by the Russians as follow:
MiG-23M as good as the F-4E just inferior in vertical agility or doing loops in that regard the F-4 has been considered better than the MiG-21 and MiG-23M however the Russians claimed the Saphir was better than the AQP-120 despite the Sparrow has better range than the Apex.
The MiG-23ML was a version considered in some areas as good as the F-16s such as in terms of acceleration but still yielding to the F-15 but not as much specially in terms of radar detection range.
The MiG-23MLD was regarded in some terms capable to dealing with the F-15 to some degree at BVR combat and it was much better armed at WVR combat.
Now the F-106 never had the weapons niether the performance to be a real threat to early MiG-23s except only the MiG-23A.
Now if you remember well the Russians claim even the MiG-23M shot down at least five F-16s over the Bekka Valley, the MiG-23ML shot down three F-15s and a F-4 in 1983 over the Bekka Valley, the MiG-23MLD an F-16 in 1987 over the skies of Afghanistan, and unspecified variant an F-16 in 1991 over the GWI skies
The F-16 had no BVR weapons until 1992 according to Western sources, it was only armed with AIM-9s until 1992 and lacked an IRST system., in that sense even early MiG-23Ms had the advantage of longer range weapons than the F-16.
In 1982 the Israeli threw the F-15 and F-16s in the following way, the F-15 were facing the MiG-23 head on at long range and the F-16 flanked the MiG-23s, the F-16 attacked first but some were shot down because contrary to what has been written in the West the Israeli jamming only reduced the range of the MiG-23M radar but still the MiG-23 managed to launch R-23s at the F-16 and shot down some.
Remember the F-16 had no BVR weapon and the MiG-23 had an IRST.
It was quit obvious, the MiG-23 was a third generation fighter that was in a generation ahead of the F-106, the F-105 was also less capable than the more modern MiG-27.
The MiG-23 as a fighter was a good one in 1972 and it only was surpassed by aircraft of the fourth generation like the F-16, F-18, F-15 and F-14.
The Russians usually claim the MiG-23 had only real threats in the F-14, F-18 and F-15 in the early 1980s, the F-16 was only superior to the MiG-23 in agility but not in BVR combat.
The F-106 to the contrary was not in the class of the F-15 and the F-105 was not in the class of the F-18.
The F-4 and Kfir were much more capable than the F-105 and F-106 and these aircraft are barely a match for the MiG-23
Would you PLEASE stop saying the same thing over and over and over again???
All of your posts are just about the same thing. How many times can you beat a dead horse with a stick before it becomes pointless?? The answer is once!
I’m begging you to stop Flogger….your posts are SO REPETITIVE. WE GET THE POINT!
Phantom II
I have the right to write what ever i want and i am respectful, you can not say to people what to write specially when i am respectful to you and i donot engage in personal attacks.
Any way Phantom II undoutedly the topic has been milked enough, we can more less agree the MiG-23 is in a higher class than the F-106:cool:, the F-105 is not a fighter-attack aircraft as good as the MiG-27 specially when the MiG-27 VG wing will give it better low altitude rides at relatively high speeds.
But there is someting i can say
The MiG-23BN and MiG-27 have been the most shot down variants of the MiG-23 family so i am not sure it would had made a better job in Vietnam, however in Afghanistan did a good job, but in the Bekka Valley, the MiG-23BN suffered so many losses
Many MiG-23BN have been shot down in fact the vast majority of MiG-23 Flogger losses are MiG-23BNs
http://www.rustrana.ru/articles/3595/mig-27m_1.jpg
Sign In
