The first MiG-29s did appear in 1986 (Wittstock/GDR).
The first MiG-25Ps did enter service with the VVS in 1973. (High altitude interceptor only and no look-down capability!)
The first Su-27s did enter service in 1987.
The first MiG-31 equipped regiments were operational by 1982. (Interceptor role only with PVO!)
The F1 did carry R-530 like the Mirage III before! From 1979 it was the R-530D.
The AJ-37 did carry SARH AAMs from the start.
The first MiG-23M with R-23 did deploy from mid 1975, but still with limited look-down capabilities. (The Saphir had still to catch-up!)

All wellkown details, but still ignored for a personal “reality”!

The MiG-29 apeared in 1983 as operational aircraft not 1986 however you seem to think it was an east german fighter.

The R-530 has less range than the R-23R that is a known fact.

The AJ-37 did not carry any Skyflash in 1971, it was much later that it was used on the JA-37 in fact it entered UK RAF service in 1978 and in Sweden in 1979

The AA-9 can kill fighters or in your famous AGCI they do not claim the AIM-54 killed fighter aircraft?

I have the JA 37 operational with F13 in 1980.

F-15A was delivered to 36th TFW (Bitburg, Germany) in April 1977.
F-15C went to 32nd TFS (Soesterberg, Netherlands) from late 1979(?)

F-15 would be more agile – Viggen has that draggy delta wing. F-15 would have more thrust?

In 1980 F-15 had 4 AIM-9L as standard, Viggen had 4 Rb 24J (AIM-9J)

F-15 had 4 AIM-7F; Viggen had 2 Sky Flash (similar performance). These had poor Pk so an additional 2 medium range missiles would be useful.

F-15s have internal ALQ-135 jammer and decoys; JA 37 initially had nothing with BOP/A flare decoys in 1987, BOL 300 chaff in 1995.

JA-37 PS-46 radar range was 27 nm look down against a small fighter – say 36-40 nm look up?; the APG-63 was rated at 40 nm+ vs a Mirage III, with 48 nm also mentioned (radars were similar)

The JA 37 had a GCI datalink (fighter link operational in 1985); the E-3 Sentry entered service in 1978 although comms are non-secure voice radio.

The JA 37D (1997) could carry 3 RB99 (AIM-120B), U-95 jammer pod and 2 Rb 74 (AIM-9L); whereas the MSIP F-15 (same period) would typically carry 6 AMRAAM, 2 AIM-9M.

Viggen would have the edge in situation awareness in home defence, and had a survivable air basing system. Radar performance would be similar, although F-15 would be more survivable due to EW fit and improved agility.

I do agree with your assesment however by 1987 the Su-27 was far superior to the Viggen and slightly better than the F-15.

Since 1983 when the first MiG-29 started entering service the F-15 kind of lost its superiority even by its own stable mate the F-18 since basicly it was only marginally better in BVR and inferior in WVR combat to the MiG-29, by 1985 the MiG-31 and Su-27 assured the F-15 was not the king of fighters in an one on one engagement.

However the AJ-37 is more or less an equivalent of the MiG-23MS and IAI Kfir because it has no BVR weapons unlike the JA-37 so in a timeframe of 1972-1976 it was not the best air to air fighter and like the Mirage F1 it only gained BVR missiles in 1979, so the only tactical fighters that carried BVR Air to Air missiles in 1975 were the MiG-23M and F-4E, nevertheless the MiG-25 did carry BVR missiles since 1972 and was more than what an F-4E could swallow.

Viggent has a lot more in common with late sixties to seventies type of fighter (gen 3.5) like in the use of turbofans. Using a civil engine with high bypass ratio means the engine is economical, however, it is not efficient at high speed, and therefore the plane suffers at higher speed. Because of the engine’s wide diameter, the plane also suffers from a bulky and thick airframe cross section. That means drag and less speed compounded with being a high bypass turbofan. That airframe also meant a high empty weight—as much as an F-15 which has TWO engines.

The aircraft is not perfect, but no other country in the world had a such advanced aircraft in terms of aerodynamics potential, in 1967 the F-4 was basicly a 1950s design upgraded with 1960s tech, the MiG-23 even revolutionary in terms of VG wing it was not a superfighter, it was more or less a conventional design, few aircraft imprint their basic layout as the Viggen did, now it is easy to see canarded jet aircraft however by 1967s standards the Viggen was ultra revolutionary even futuristic, the Chinese J-8I was still years behind in aerodynamics and concept, the French Mirage F1 was not very unorthodox.

The future F-15 and F-14 even despite unothodox were not as revolutionary in design only the Kfir by the 1970s showed what the Viggen did in the late 1960s, the more unorthodox shape since the late 1940s.

The F-15, MiG-25 and F-14 basicly spawned form the F-111 and A-5 Vigilante,so their shape was not really very revolutionary in 1973


however crobato the Viggen is not as heavy as you claim its empty weight is far more lighter than a F-15

Saab Viggen, what are the forums views on this as a fighter, was it any good back in the 70s and 80s when compared with other (ground attack) fighters of the time?

The Viggen was one of the best aircraft of the 1970s, i do not know if the best because contrary to the MiG-25 it was from a neutral country and no aircraft was designed directly as a response to it as the MiG-25 was.

Nevertheless this aircraft despite of being very stable, represented new technologies and design philosophies, as a theat it was more or less as good as any other major tactical fighter like the MiG-23 or Mirage F1 against a F-4E threat yardstick.

As a fighter bomber was also to some degree close to the F-4E.

Unable to read properly, what is given by yourself. Zhirokhov gives 6 combat losses at least. Two of that by F-5s. I did try nothing. You are the one to distract from unpleasent facts. When that russian source did not “held the water”, you do switch to another one. I will not go into the special view of Gordon, despite having his books from Airlife.

man please, relax i feel i can understand why you say unable to read properly i think that is you, he comments two reports, where he mentions that the initial reported kills and later the final list of kills, first he mention kills by F-14s no F-4s, and later he coments a Me-262 style kill by P-51s when at low altitude and speed and F-5 shoots down a MiG-25s.

In the final list he mentions that there were no MiG-25PD and MiG-25PDS shot down but only MiG-25RBs so your problem is he reports two versions of kills and he does acknowledge several MiG-25s were shot down but at the end he says the last list only mentions recce/bomber versions no fighter versions

You also can say he is talking about two moments in the conflict the initial phase and the last phase and it is only one list however there are more reports coming out from Russia which say few aircraft were shot down and only MiG-25RBs, any way it does not prove your point the F-4 was good enough to shot down the MiG-25 with the exception when it was goind to land as the P-51 was when it fought the Me-262

По оценкам иракских летчиков, МиГ проявил себя в войне как надежная, высокоавтоматизированная машина, практически неуязвимая для истребителей и наземных средств ПВО, имеющихся у Ирана (F-14A, F-4E, F-5E и ЗРК «Hawk»).
The MiG-25 was highly regarded bythe Iraqi pilots in the war for their reliability, this highly automated machine, virtually immune to fighter aircraft and ground-based air defense available to Iran (F-14A, F-4E, F-5E and ZRK “Hawk”).

sourcehttp://airbase.ru/hangar/russia/mikoyan/mig/25/

Во время ирано-иракской войны 1980-1988 гг перехватчики потерь не имели
During the Iran-Iraq War, 1980-1988 period there were not any (MiG-25PD and MiG-25PDS) interceptors losses

http://www.testpilot.ru/russia/mikoyan/mig/25/pd/mig25pd.htm
Gordon does acknowledge losses too but he is not like your loved ACGI reports in that respects where they claim even a three simultaneous kills of MiG-23BNs or that the F-14 killed around 150 iraqi aircraft.

Во время ирано-иракской войны 1980-1988 гг. восемь МиГ-25РБ ВВС Ирака выполняли не только разведывательные полеты, но и наносили бомбовые удары по объектам в тылу противника. В частности, они выполнили успешные бомбометания по нефтяным терминалам в Персидском заливе, а также подвергали бомбардировке аэродром в Тегеране. В ходе боевых действий было потеряно два самолета этого типа (один потерян в 1985 году из-за разрушения двигателя, другой в 1987 году разбился при заходе на посадку). Боевых потерь иракские МиГ-25РБ не имели. Советские МиГ-25РБ использовались для ведения воздушной разведки на территории Афганистана (также без боевых потерь).

During the Iran-Iraq War, 1980-1988 period. eight MiG-25RB Air Force served not only Iraq intelligence flights, but also did bomb enemy facilities in enemy territory. In particular, they did perform successful bombings on oil terminals in the Persian Gulf, as well as the bombing an airfield in Tehran. During combat operations two planes of this type were lost (one lost in 1985 because of the destruction of the engine, the other in 1987, crashed while landing at the base). Battle losses Iraqi MiG-25RB not have. The Soviet MiG-25RB used to conduct aerial surveillance of the territory of Afghanistan (without loss of combat).

http://avia.ak22.net/RU/MIG25RBS.html

Gordon says the Iraqi did have MiG-25 losses from 1980-1988 but not like other western sources claim, he acknowledges 3 MiG-25 losses only and one is an accident and not a single MiG-25PD loss

That way you will prove nothing. The World’s best fighters does mean claim does mean, what weapon-system does offer the most for air superiority in a given time frame. Such fighter and related systems are a compromise of technologies available. Our topic does not even reveal if the judgement is limited to the A2A or the best mix of all roles. The interceptor-role is just a part of the A2A role. Since the 70s no dedicated interceptors are in need. That role is taken by the advanced AAM of the weapon-system and since the 90s the AAMs do out-performe the agility of fighters too.
When in the 50s the planners were ahead of the technology at hand, it is the other way around since the 80s. Upgraded with new technology former outdated fighters did become deadly opponents again. Most AFs did go for system-upgrades at first and the number of new built fighters did drop.

I will not waste my time to show you the lack of knowledge related to your listing. Such general claims are wrong and misleading. You do feel and do guess without the related details.
No important detail will change you mind about that really. So stick to your opinions.

Sens

It is quit funny how you try to mislead your self about the real facts that Russia has produced very good aircraft that can fight in air to air combat and win battles the topic is not multirole fighters, but fighters able to kill enemy airplanes not drop bombs, to fight an enemy either you use missiles or guns or in the worst cases ramming the other aircraft or out maneuvre them, generally speaking the MiG-25s and MiG-31 can kill aircraft, now you want to change the category to multirole and say the best multirole fighter sadly you like it or not the MiG-31 is also designed to attack other aircraft it is not designed to dogfight but certainly the AA-9s can kill aircraft and if the AIM-54 can kill fighters the AA-6s and AA-9 can do it too