MiG-23MLDThe thread entitled “Best Cold War Dog Fighter” had me wondering if anyone has compiled the turn and roll rates of all the fighters of that time period. This would be useful in future debates about aircraft agility. I realize that these figures will vary depending on altitude, air temperature, etc. But it would be nice to try to gather as many details as possible.
Does anyone have such a list? It would be useful to find other tidbits of information along the same lines, like maximum angle of attack. Stuff like that. If nobody has a compiled list, then perhaps someone has a book with the information.
The information you are requesting is difficult to compile but definitively you can do a bit of effort here are some pages from the F-4 and MiG-23 respective manuals
F-4 manual pages
http://forums.airforce.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=7581&d=1183834275
http://forums.airforce.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=7566&d=1183804817
http://forums.airforce.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=7567&d=1183806698
http://forums.airforce.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=7569&d=1183809027
http://forums.airforce.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=7582&d=1183834493
http://forums.airforce.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=7579&d=1183832154
http://forums.airforce.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=7589&d=1183925424
MiG-23 pages
http://forums.airforce.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=7580&d=1183834221
http://forums.airforce.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=7568&d=1183808982
http://forums.airforce.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=7704&d=1184631130
http://forums.airforce.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=7590&d=1183929878
http://forums.airforce.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=7705&d=1184631217
F-16 manual
http://forums.airforce.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=7591&d=1183937649
http://forums.airforce.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=7592&d=1183937684
http://forums.airforce.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=7667&d=1184402615
Original source http://forums.airforce.ru/showthread.php?t=1325&page=4
MiG-23MLDFirebar, if you don’t have the facts about the F-14 combat record with both the USN and the Iranians as well as the use of Phoenix then please don’t post. Your starting to look foolish.
If in your eyes the MiG-25 was the greatest thing since the aerofoil, thats great, but don’t try and make the whole world believe it.
Quite a few folks on the Tomcat Forum have had a good laugh at some of the stuff you’ve wrote.
That is no true, the US navy never claimed any victory has happend when their F-14Ds fire more advanced AIM-54 against Iraqi MiG-25s.
The Myth of the F-14 has only being spread by Tom cooper, who by few pictures he might publish of iraqi aircraft shot down makes a total fantasy world.
The US navy operated more modern F-14s and betetr versions of AIM-54s, also the US and Grumman denied any real use of the AIM-54 by Iran.
On the other hand some Russian sources acknowledge the loss of a few MiG-25 s to F-14s, but all this lacks any real evidence such a wreckage picture.
MiG-23MLDIsrael has hit the Foxbat with Hawks.
That will depend to who you ask that question, certainly the Russians deny that happened, Israel never has showed any evidence of such kill.
No wreckage, no gun camera, no Syrian POW pilot, nothing.
If you see this is an Azeri MiG-25 shot down by Armenian forces that is evidence to conclude it really happened
http://www.otvaga2004.narod.ru/otvaga2004/wars0/wars_21_1.htm
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_k0r4i1d4b0I/SJ93DxGYECI/AAAAAAAAAJs/GyICEqxe9zE/s1600-h/aviamaster_09.jpg
This alleged 1982 victory by a Hawk and an F-15, since the HAWK did not shot down the MiG-25 but only damaged later to be shot down by an F-15, has been always denied by Russian sources and up to now only 2 MiG-25 are claimed shot down by Israel and are confirmed by the vast majority of Russian sources but it happened in 1981, not in 1982
MiG-23MLDBut thats exactly what I said.
At the end, it matters as to what tool you select for the job.
Was the MiG-21 used for deep attacks like the Canberra’s were? No.
Did they pull the bulk of the Ground attack sorties soaking up ground fire? No. The Su-7s were justifiably used for that.
I wouldnt say no “serious ground defences” either – no radar guided SAM’s? Sure – but enough radar guided artillery in the air to make Counter air highly risky, as the Su-7s discovered.
In short the types were used exactly to the limits to which the design was applicable, so that got a decent performance out of them.
In Arab hands, the lack of doctrine and improper deployment (sending waves of MiGs against a prepared opponent with AWACS cover in Bekaa valley f.e.) is disastrous, and not really the fault of the aircraft design, whose limitations and strengths should be known to the user and factored in before deployment!!
Even the IAF sent Vampires (though it had no choice but to respond with what it had to support the IA) vs Sabres – and they were shot down in 1965. The MiG-21 has outlived its life in the IAF – again, because it has had to (no replacements), so no user is perfect either, but the Arabs made far too many mistakes, recurring.
The Bekka Valley has overrated the F-15 and F-16s as MiG killers, the vast majority of aircraft Israel destroyed were MiG-23BN which lacks any BVR weapon and is not a fighter but a bomber and some Su-22 wich also are bombers not fighters; besides some MiG-21s and a few MiG-23MF and MiG-23MS
Western and Israeli soruces do not show too much their losses increasing the Myth but if you look carefully you will see Israel did have losses see. they forget that Israel lost tanks and armour vehicles to MiG-23BNs and Su-22
see
Israeli tanks destroyed in Lebanon in 1982
source http://www.otvaga2004.narod.ru/publ_w2/syrianairforce.htm
Israeli pilots shot down in 1982 and held as POWs
http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/Aircraft_by_Type/ISRAEL/gil_fogel_x.jpg
http://jafi.jewish-life.de/zionismus/people/images/Ron_Arad.jpg
source :
http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/Aircraft_by_Type/ISRAEL/F-4%20Phantom%20II.htm
Other sources state that the MiG-21 achieved some victories against some Israeli aircraft in Lebanon.
See that some sources state even the MiG-23ML shot down F-14s in the Iraq-Iran war. see
http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/Country-By-Country/Iran_F-14_.htm
MiG-23MLDA dogfighter (before all-aspect missiles came into effect) is characterized by:
– emphasis on short range armament, especially a rapid firing gun
– good pilot vision to all directions
– agility (high roll acceleration f. e.)
– acceptable sustained turn characteristics (means: it doesn’t bleed energy excessively fast)
– good instantaneous turn characteristics (low wing loading, gentle stall characteristics)
– good handling (includes good buffet limits)
– robust engine
– small spot factor
– good sortie rate
– gentle degrading flight characteristics when flying at limit (meaning: no sudden departure at max AOA or excessive flat-spin tendency)The MiG-21 has some but definitely not all of those. Some shortcomings are directly related to the design requirements and show the emphasis on high altitude interception.
Above requirements are to a comparable degree fulfilled by the F-104 or the F-5A.The MiG-21s capabilities as dogfighter were rather a spin-off than a design goal.
I can agree up to some degree but the MiG-21, has some limitations because as you already know, as fighters got faster, got more lumbering, speed kills agility and not only that further more, weight increase also kills agility so fighters needed better avionics and weaponry (missiles).
A WWII fighter is far more agile at low speeds than many modern fighters, even when a WWII fighter is already in the air a modern fighter is still taking off.
In 1963 to put an example, the MiG-21 was an excellent dogfighter, because it had all the factors you are saying, the fighter was not perfect, true, but was fast, a requirement in any 1960s aircraft, was armed with missiles, a requierement for 1963, a decade earlier the MiG-17 was a good dogfighter, but in 1964 it was not, same is the MiG-19.
why?
First any 1960 fighter like the MiG-21 needed to catch up with performance increases in speed and altitude, a MiG-19 was not enough to catch the U-2 for example niether to chase the F-4 at Mach 2 and force it to fight.
True the U-2 were shot down by SAMs but at least the MiG-21 represented an increase in performance that kept the U-2 flying higher.
The Su-9 was not nimble enough to dogfight so a smaller aircraft was needed.
The MiG-21 was small, was available in large numbers therefore it had a good sortie rate, was agile for a Mach 2 aircraft, in few words for a 1960s enviroment and for the Vietnam war the MiG-21 was well suited as a dogfighter.
An Israeli Mirage III being destroyed by a MiG-21 and on the gun sight of the MiG
http://worldweapon.ru/images/sam/stat1/stat1_03.gif
The main rivals of the MiG-21 in 1965 were not very agile, the F-5, was more or less in the same class but slower, it did not rule the engagement, its inferior speed was a handicap, the Mirage III was less agile and not as plentiful (Israeli pilots always acknowledged the MiG-21 was a better dogfighter if flown at the end edges of its performance), the F-4 was lumbering not better than the MiG-23M or AJ-37 and definitively less agile than the MiG-21 at low speed and altitudes were the dogfighters have their best agility, the F-8 was better than the F-4 but not as it has been protraited, it never stand a chance in producibility and size against the MiG-21, besides the MiG-21 also achieved F-8 kills.
MiG-23MLDThanks for your elaborate remarks, but I think the MiG-21 is highly overrated.
Let’s look at the facts:
– The MiG-21 was optimized for interception, not dogfighting. That it still was useful as such was due to its universal design.
– Weaponry was lousy and only useful for limited dogfight. The early Atoll missiles are infamous, but many MiG-21 versions actually had no internal cannon.
– The performance was on par with the Phantom in most areas, with the Phantom having advantages at higher speeds and the MiG at lower speeds.
– The MiG-21 was never the initiator of the F-16 concept, rather the simple fact that WP did have more aircraft (at least on paper) and American aircraft did become too expensive&heavy due to heavy avionics optimized for BVR. Actually, the MiG-23 was plagued by the same issue.The MiG-21 was special as it mated a good airframe with the correct airframe and did gain from advances in engine and airframe design in each version. For many nations it was an affordable yet powerful aircraft.
It was, however, not competitive in flight performance versus a slatted F-4E. The MiG-21 never proved itself as dogfighter really. It shows that even a limited platform with limited weapon system can have noticeable effect when used with care and wisedom, as done in Vietnam (most of the times).
How severe it can fail if conditions are quickly changed is shown by limited operations like Operation Bolo (1967). The Arabians never used their MiG-21 to any really impressive effect.
If it is true the MiG-21 was a limited fighter and was designed as a simple fighter, it is an old design in fact it flew for the first time almost 52 years ago or more than half a century.
The MiG-21 became obsolete by the 1980s, and definitively was obsolecent by 1975.
In 1961, was quit agile for the speeds it used to fly.
The MiG-21`s main rivals in 1964 were not better we are talking about Mirage IIIs, F-5s, F-106, Hunters, F-104s, F-105s and older designs such as the F-100 or A-4.
The MiG-21 was simple and modern for a 1963 theater, was fast and agile, 9Gs fighters were a 1970s reality but in 1964, most fighteres were 6Gs to 7Gs capable fighters.
The MiG-21 therefore was agile and a dogfighter.
The Su-9 and Su-11 were to the contrary interceptors and same the Tu-28 or the Ye-152A, but the MiG-21 was afighter a day light fighter with simple weaponry but definitively BVR weaponry compared to a MiG-17 or even a MiG-19
eye`s view of an UAV camera before being destroyed by a MiG-29
http://www.expert.ru/images/expert/2008/17/expert_606_075.jpg
israeli helicopter destroyed by the Egyptians in 1967
http://www.waronline.org/blindage/images6/foto586.jpg
source http://www.waronline.org/blindage/index8j.htm
These pictures show no aircraft is unvulnerable and in any war there are losses
here we have plenty of Egyptian and Syrian Mi-8 helicopters destroyed by Israeli forces
http://www.waronline.org/IDF/Articles/history/yom-kippur-war/arab-helicopters/
Some Mi-8 destroyed by Israel
MiG-23MLDCertainly not.
The Mig-15 was past its sell-by date by the end of the Korean War in the early 1950s. The Mig-17 was the best Mig for much of the 1950s, with the Mig-19 eventually replacing it in the late-1950s.
The Mig-21 was slightly inferior in a dogfight to the F-8 Crusader, which was also a more versatile aircraft (more fuel, air-to-ground capability etc).. By the late 1960s, the best dogfighter might actually have been the F-4 versions with gun and slatted flaps…
The F-16 is really a 1980s fighter, since it entered service in 1979. The Mig-29 entered service in 1985, so its impact was only at the end of the Cold War.
No aircraft is the best in everything, that is a fact, but the MiG-21 was the best dogfighter since it was cheap, easy to build, fast and agile no previous MiG product was better equipped to handle the F-4 as the MiG-21 was.
It has been said many things about how good was the Sabre but few in the west post pictures like this a F-86 at the moment it is shot down by a MiG-15
Picture of a F-86 being shot down by a MiG-15
http://www.airforce.ru/staff/ivanov/ivanov4.jpg
More MiG-15 victims
http://www.airforce.ru/history/cold_war/zabelin/zabelin_14.jpg
http://www.dorogavnebo.ru/st/image/avia006_1.jpg
source http://www.airforce.ru/staff/ivanov/part2.htm
The MiG-21 in that was the best, highly produced highly capable and cheap no other dogfighter of the 1960s was comparable to it.
The F-16 is a 1970s fighter since initiated series production in the 1970s and was put into service in the 1970s, it first flew in 1974 and no other fighter was as advanced in terms of agility as the F-16 for almost 10 years until the Mig-29 was put into service.
By 1973 the first MiG-23s, AJ-37 and Mirage F1 were put into operational service but none of these fighters was a real threat to the F-4 beyong an slight advantage.
MiG-23MLDNo, the agility anf maneuverability of MiG-21 even worse than MIG-19, which also admitted by Russian themselves.
That can not be aerodynamically true, at higher speeds the MiG-19 has less trailing edge wing area, so center of lift shift at supersonic speeds or high AoA in the MiG-19 keep it less capable either handling supersonic speeds or high AoA .
Also the MiG-21 had a VG radome/cone inlet
It might be possible the MiG-19 at some speeds has some advantages but Russia replaced the MiG-19 with the MiG-21 and the MiG-21 was more or less based upon the Su-9.
here is a nice example of how any aircraft can be shot down a Su-24 shot down over georgia and south ossetia
Russian Su-24 destroyed over South Ossetia
http://www.waronline.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=18167&postorder=asc&start=150
Israeli F-4 shot down
http://www.otvaga2004.narod.ru/publ_w1/s125.htm
MiG-23MLDThe best dogfighters were the MiG-15 in the 1950s, the MiG-21 in the 1960s the F-16 in the 1970s, the MiG-29 in the 1980s.
however all the aircraft can be shot down here are some images of a Serbian MiG-29 shot down, and images of Israeli F-4s shot down proving any aircraft can be destroyed
MiG-29
http://www.strizhi.ru/attachments/mig29bosnia7.jpg
Israeli F-4
http://www.rusihubara.ru/foto/part75.jpg
http://www.rusihubara.ru/foto/p003475.jpg
http://www.rusihubara.ru/foto/p003275.jpg
http://www.rusihubara.ru/foto/zavesnickyf4.jpg
This link shows a MiG-21 victim, an Israeli F-4 shot down by a Syrian MiG-21 on April 19 1974
http://www.skywar.ru/hermon1974.html
source http://www.rusihubara.ru/kavkaz.html
More Israeli F-4s shot down
http://www.skywar.ru/content/images/141.jpg
http://www.skywar.ru/content/images/147.jpg
This is the source of the pictures and you can see the pictures of a Syrian MiG-23BN shot down over Lebanon in 1982 by F-16s and AAA and an israeli AH-1 Cobra Helicopter destroyed by the Syrians
http://www.skywar.ru/Lebanon.html
Israeli Kfir shot down by Syrian SAMs
http://www.waronline.org/IDF/Articles/Lebanon-losses/image008.jpg
MiG-23MLDHow can one have a discussion about the best fighter of the Cold War without discussing the F-15? No other aircraft has a kill ratio anywhere near the F-15’s.
People discuss the Su-27’s maneuverability which is impressive at slow speeds. The F-15 can match the Su-27’s maneuverability near transonic to past supersonic air speeds, that is not seen at airshows. The F-15 had avionics the far exceeded the big Sukhoi.
Part of designing a first rate fighter is to design a first rate training program, to this the Su-27 has failed. The Soviet AF started cutting pilot’s flying time back in 1984/85, in an effort to cut cost which led to the collapse of the USSR. So the talk that Russian pilots being so much better than any other nation that uses Soviet aircraft, is just that -talk! The F-15 pilot training program for the entire life of the F-15 has been first rate. As for the fight in the phone booth, the Israeli F-15’s are equipped with HMDS and HOBS combination.
The F-15’s have faced the MiG-29 and their great features for WVR combat and the F-15 has consistently prevailed!Adrian
the F-15`s record is mostly with MiG-21s and MiG-23BNs old aircraft, even when it faced MiG-29s all of these did not operate with AEW support aircraft and had a total disadvantage in numbers.
Impressive is if you get a 2 versus 2 F-15C and MiG-29M combat both supported by AWACs and both armed with active radar AAMs and the F-15 prevails;)
MiG-23MLDHas turn rates that only an F-16 can exceed.
Like the MiG-19 above, the F-8 and all other swept wings have roll rates inferior to low aspect winged or delta fighters like the ones mentioned above.
If you are to take the first three mentioned there, the F-4, MiG-21 and Mirage III against a dogfight with an F-8 or MiG-19, you are going to use your superior roll rates vs. the superior turn rates of the latter.
The MiG-19 won`t be better than a Hornet or Su-27, even the F-15.
Roll rates also can induce inertia coupling in thin aircraft with short span limiting the roll rate of some aircraft.
Delta wing aircraft not necesarily have better roll rates, its like saying the Kfir will surpass the MiG-29.
MiG-23MLDMy favorites are the MiG-23, F-14, Su-27, MiG-29, Viggen, Su-24, F-16 and F-111
MiG-23MLDUS can certinaly leave Western Europe but it cannot leave Eastern Europe.
I think it is the other way around,the US can leave eastern europe and cannot leave western europe. Without Western Europe US has no influence in the world. Russia is proving to the world that it doesn’t need to have 26 alliances to strenghen her. The US always does, our partners this and our partners that. The US is a big coward when push comes shove and always need support for her existence.
A single nation with 148 million people and only a little over $trillion GDP squaring off with 27 nations with over $30 trillion combined GDP and almost 700 million people and basically holding them at bay. It is just like one heavyweight champion against another heavyweight champion plus other 26boxers in other weights in a square ring.
well the comparation is not like that.
It is a heavy weight fighter with a cannon, againts another heavy weight with a cannon and 26 boxers with machine guns and pistols
MiG-23MLDCan I please iterate that ground breaking means incorporating new and innovative technologies into a product which is successful and is used as a benchmark for further aircraft designs. Furthermore, operational status is not a pre-requisite for an aircraft to be ground breaking, the simple act of an aircraft having new technology does not make it successful, if these new technologies do not work or are not feasible to fit onto an aircraft, it does disqualify an aircraft from being ground breaking. A prime example of which of course is the Convair X-6 Nuclear powered bomber.
Mass production means the product is economically viable and has been debugged to the level of being reliable and safe for mass operational use, only these aircraft will show a given technology is ready and has been perfected; when technology reaches that state, it becomes mature.
Only real trend setters have mature technology, reliable and safe and ready for mass production
MiG-23MLDThat is the reason why the term “ground breaking” was not invented by engineers but by the Discovery Channel.
However, it is always an achievement to mature technology in a way that it can be used in an operational (average line pilot + drafted maintenance guy) aircraft. Therefore, the F-16 is a ground breaking fighter showing the way for the future years before other designs adopted it.
For an aircraft to be the epitomy of high tech and show the way to follow and become a trend setter, needs to become operational, why? an operational technology means the technology has reached maturity, has been debugged, it`s reliable and its mass production is feasible without major glitches and in an economically efficient way
The AJ-37 and F-16 have those features, they became trend setters by becoming highly produced, the rest were not ready and were too expensive with a lot of design malfunctions to be solve.
A fighter has a good technology when it passes the state of mass production since it has a level of maturity to assure easy of production.
Sign In
