If not in a head-on encounter the chances of any MiG-23 version to use its BVR weapons is limited. If the MiGs were not directly controlled by ground station and vectored into an intercept position, the cumbersome process of firing a missile combined with the out-of-standard situation, and maybe unclear rules of engagement, would have prevented a “BVR”-kill by the MiGs.

The Floggers engaged out of range of their ground radar (3000ft should be below radar horizon) and onto a target that was only barely trackable by their radars due to ground clutter (look down shot down is not exactly a specialty of the MiG-23M).
Actually, engaging under such conditions was a questionable decision. If the MiG pilots actually grasped the situation they were in is also doubtful.

this is the version of the combat by Russian sources

4 января 1989 г. произошло боевое столкновение двух ливийских МиГ-23МС, выполняющих, по утверждению ливийского командования, обычный тренировочный полет над нейтральными водами Средиземного моря, с американским воздушным патрулем – двумя F-14A ‘Томкэт’ с авианосца ‘Джон Кеннеди’. По сообщению американцев, ‘Томкэты’ обнаружили ливийскую пару при помощи бортовых РЛС на удалении более 130 км. МиГи летели на высоте 10000 м со скоростью 800 км/ч. Американцы сочли действия ливийской стороны угрожающими и сбили их.

In this source they say the Libyans were flying MiG-23MS on 4 Janauary 1989 against the F-14s while patrolling in neutral waters and with the Help of an AEW aircraft they detected the MiGs at an altitude of 10000 mters (original western statement is in feet) flying at 800km/h (original western sources say knots/h)

source
http://www.army.lv/?s=502&id=96&v=9

Are you serious? If you were in any way correct then why did the Libyans ignore Russia’s teaching and send FITTERs out into the Gulf to deal with USN F-14s a few years earlier?

Your argument is not based in any sort of fact. No R-24 was fired so it couldn’t have been an ML…that’s hilarious. Maybe the better equipped MLs were used for base or capital defense and the inferior MSs were used to intercept unknown contacts during periods when Libya was not overtly at war, putting more hours on the lesser airframes. There’s no evidence for that either, of course, but at least I can take the time to come up with a logical reason for the USN’s casual FLOGGER elimination exercise not featuring an ML.

Many theories can be elavorated however have you given the libyan account? have you given a russian credible source for the day of delivery? answer no.

The source i have given can be wrong but at least is one source from Russia the nation that made the MiG-23 and clearly states no MiG-23ML in Libyan service up to 1991

A typical careless behavior, when quoting sources. The Israeli did claim, that the test flights flights showed that the MiG-23 MLD showed excellent excess thrust and accelleration. Overall the MiG was comparable to the F-4 Phantom …
The F-16B with a centreline tank in the chase aircraft role had to go into burner more frequently to keep station. That observation did rise the claim noted above, but was not the official result. 😉

To be utterly honest the MiG-23ML and F-16A manuals stablish the F-16A has better acceleration than the MiG-23, i do not know why the Israelies did say it has better aceleration than the F-16 and f-18, since the MiG-23MLD it is a bit heavier than the MiG-23ML however the MiG-23MLD has a different variant of the R-35-300, it has the R-35F-300 if i am not wrong according to Yefim Gordon.

However they said the F-18 was also found with worst acceleration than the MiG-23MLD.

Since i do not have the manual of the MiG-23MLD it is purely an conjecture and speculation, why the Israeli said that and in what conditions.

However if you want an answer according to the russian webpage by the end of 1991 Libya had only MiG-23MS

К концу 1991 г. МиГ-23 состояли на вооружении ВВС Алжира (МиГ-23МС и У Б), Анголы (МиГ-23МФ и УБ), Болгарии (МиГ-23МФ и УБ), Кубы (МиГ-23МС), Чехословакии (МиГ-23МФ, МиГ-23МЛ и УБ), Египта (МиГ-23МС, получены в 1974 г., частично переданы США и Китаю), Венгрии (25 МиГ-23МФ и УБ), Индии (125 МиГ-23МФ, поставленные в 1982 г. в качестве противодействия пакистанским F-l 6A и МиГ-23УБ), Ирака (МиГ-23МС, МиГ-23МФ, МиГ-23МЛ и МиГ-23УБ), Ливии (МиГ-23МС и УБ), , КНДР (МиГ-23МЛ и УБ), Польши (МиГ-23МФ и УБ), Южного Йемена, Сирии (МиГ-23МС, МФ, МЛ, МЛД и УБ) и Вьетнама. Кроме того, 110 самолетов МиГ-23 различных модификаций достались ФРГ после объединения двух Германий.

however this source mentions that the MiG-23MS was operational since 1974 in the Libyan air force
В 1974 г. МиГ-23МС появились в Ливии, несколько позже они были поставлены ВВС Алжира, Египта, Ирака и Сирии

Source http://www.army.lv/?s=502&id=96&v=2

As you did not prove the other way around. Get redfaced at least. 😀
The Libyians got their ones close to the Syrians and Iraqis.
The MF was freed for exports from 1978 and the ML from 1984.
The US-Libyan confrontations were 1981-1989. The Libyan raids in March 1986.
Your intention is clear for all to see. To keep your “personal” record about MiG-23ML losses as clean as possible you do prefer to blame the former variants of that.

There is a small detail, i have presented you with Libyan MiG-25s and MiG-23s images taken by US navy aircraft and the images of the supposedly destruction of the MiG-23 from the HUD of the F-14s none show any conclusive MiG-23ML.

TEEJ Knows it, and also if you are going to fight an F-14 you won`t use a MiG-23 armed with AA-2s niether you will get to the closest position to fire your missiles, why? simple at Marii the Russians trained their MiG-29 pilots against MiG-23s, the MiG-23s got a better kill ratio than the MiG-29s but they never got involved in close combat dogfights, they always used dash attacks and BVR combats.

the Russians would had advised the Libyans to use their MiG-25s to kill the Tomcats or fire BVR R-24s form their MiG-23s, see this detail, the MiG-23s never fired upon the Tomcats, niether at BVR or close range, no R-24 was fired, so no MiG-23ML only an aircraft with AA-2s would had done what the Libyan MiG-23s did, so only MiG-23MS can be the variant that fought the F-14s

Time to let this thread die I think;)

There is no point arguing with a Fanboy however sincere and helpful we think we all are.

In effect we have had forum members from all sides of the argument tell firebar that in effect he is wrong in so many respects. I think we should all have a whip around and send him a die cast model of a Mig25 that should keep him happy…

The fan boy is using manuals of MiGs, are you using them too?

For an efficient Mach 3 aircraft that is the less desirable solution.
Especially as the MiG-25 is not allowed to fly Mach 3, and wasn’t flown in service (different than the SR-71, which achieved best ranges when flying at Mach 3). The most efficient Mach 3 aircraft is the SR-71, which could cruise at those speeds. I don’t know about the XB-70, I guess it had the potential to fly even more efficiently at Mach3+.
The MiG-25 didn’t cruise above M2, it dashed.
The chosen design is hence a compromise between a conventional and a pure supersonic optimization, hence it loses on both sides.

When flying above Mach 1, the maneuverability of the aircraft is severely compromised by control authority. What you write is basically BS. The maneuver capability is somewhere around 2g for supersonic flight and at maximum 3.8g for subsonic flight. All clearly shown in the manual.

The Manual you are talking is only for the MiG-25RB, you can not prove the MiG-23PD or MiG-25P manuals are giving the same values.

While you can debate Firebar`s statements, you can not affirm all the MiG-25 variants have the same manual

In this thread from airforce.ru http://forums.airforce.ru/showthread.php?t=1325&page=3

Several members used several manuals some are for the MiG-23 some are for the F-4 and some for the F-16.

However you have to know this detail, they use the manuals for specific versions so not all the statements or conclusions are accurate for all the aircraft.

It has data for the MiG-23ML but not for the MiG-23MLD or MiG-23P.
It has data for the F-4E but not for the F-4C
It has data for the F-16A but not for the F-16C

Why that is important? well, some members draw conclusions that are against some known facts about the MiG-23MLD, for example the Israelies claimed the MiG-23MLD has better acceleration than the F-16, however using the manuals of the MiG-23ML and F-16 that conclusion is not proven.

Also the MiG-23ML says very clearly that the MiG-23 in the stratosphere can reach speeds of Mach 2.6.

You do not have the MiG-25PD manual to say if his values are true or not.

The video you posted is inconclusive in my opinion. The quality on You Tube is poor. I can see a fin fillet, but it is difficult to make out. It requires a higher resolution or original footage to determine. The footage is not from the 1989 shootdown encounter, but from one of the other normal/routine intercepts.

What do you want a receipt of contract from MiG or just a post from some random guy on a Russian forum? I can ask you – prove to me from a Russian source that Libya obtained the MLs after January 1989?

TJ

man i can ask in some russian forums about it, that is not problem but the question is you can not prove the F-14As shot down MiG-23MLs and now you acknowledge it.

The F-14 is not better than the F-18, this has been acknowledge by western aviators, and the F-18 not as agile as the F-16 and much less than the MiG-29 or Su-27.

So the main question is you can not prove either Libya got the MiG-23MLS prior to 1989 niether the model shot down by the F-14s were MiG-23ML.

Like the supposedly AIM-54 kills by Iran, which also leave the more modern US Navy F-14D as crap compared to the super iranian F-14As.

That was not the question.
The development of the RD-9 was stopped in the 50s, when the more powerfull Chinese developments of that were built from the 70s. Of cause outdated at that time-scale, but still good enough for a limited role.
When the R-11+ variants did stop development in the 70s, they got a second lease of development in China. Similar claim as before. From the 80s it was learned, that extra thrust is nice to have, but no real need to be successfull in air-combat. From the 90s all modifications and upgrades were limited to avionics. A prominent Western example is the F-5E+, but still with old engines.
When it comes to frontline-service, the Chinese did built with the last J-6 the ultimate “MiG-19”. Their engines built after the 70s are “outstanding” compared to the examples built in the 50s.
So far I never heard that China was a leading nation in aviation-engine technology, but those built are kept in good order and with the best available materials. 😉

Sens

That is not true, seeing the Russian development of fighter aircraft and their related jet engines, you can understand their fighter evolution.

Taking the MiG-9 as the first MiG jet fighter and the MiG-31 as the last, we can see a very clear evolution of each new design from the previous MiG before it.

However there are the lost links, which never reached production series.

The MiG-19 evolved into the SM-12 and this later into the Ye-2, only to be redesigned into the Ye-5 and later into the Ye-6 or MiG-21.

The Russians saw that the MiG-19 needed two jet engines due to the lack of thrust of jet engines when it was built, however in the Ye-5, jet power was increased to new levels to power a single engined fighter to faster speeds thanks to variable geometry center body cone inlets, however by 1958 the Russians had engines for the MiG-19 with 3800kgf of thrust, 20 years before any Chinese MiG-19 built did it.

This was first demostrated in the SM-12 with its new inlet and engines of 3800kgf of thrust, this MiG-19 derivative variant is far more revolutionary than the Q-5 or any J-6/MiG-19 China built because it taught more in the 1950s than the Q-5 did to the Russian designers.
when the Russians built the MiG-21SM already engine power was enough to double the power of early RD-9 used in the MiG-19s, the R-13-300 was a better engine so China did not make any real progress in the 1970s when the copied the R-13-300.

By 1972 the R-25 was going to even increase the max power available to 3 times a single RD-9.
By 1974 already the R-29 had 4 times the power of a single RD-9.

Russia did not need a twin engine Ye-2 which is basicly a single engined SM-12.

Why because the goal of the Russians was to make a single engined fighter with twice the power of the power of the twin engined MiG-19.

China was stuck with Soviets fighters and never designed a doghfighter from the 1950s to the 1990s.

The Q-5 is not faster than the original MiG-19 niether is a real improvement in performance.

The SM-19 was faster and this lead to the Ye-2 and the later to the MiG-21.

China did not design the MiG-19 niether the MiG-21 both are copies named with local names.

Now for what i have read the best 1960`s dogfighter probably was the F-5 in terms of turning ability and maneouvrability but in combat and producibility i would say the MiG 21 was still better because itw was faster and it took part in so many wars