It wasn’t debugged and by that a big political scandal, because full scale production had started already. What did work in the 50s did no longer so in the 70s. But you have to be informed by that since Glasnost-times.
All bad things have something good, when people do learn from that. When the Flagon was nursed into service over several years before and never did fullfill all specifications, the T-10 was stopped and forced into a radical redesign, despite that some military and political pride was hurt by that. For the luck in that system, non did question the related costs to do so. At least that did not last the SU longer economical. By the way, in the 70s were a lot of cheap “downgraded” Floggers for clients of the SU to have. The better informed WP-countries did buy a limited number of Ms only and with it the related BVR capability in the late 70s. The promising MiG-29 was around thet corner and it was more economical to soldier-on with the outdated MiG-21 for some years and wait for that.
Similar thing with BN/27, which were outperformed by the Fitter (VGs).
For the SU the MiG-23 was in need for the PVO at first (more range and allweather/BVR) and to a lesser degree as a tactical fighter. So the related impact was not felt till the Syrian did suffer the MiG-debacle over Lebanon.
In the WP none was surprised about that, except about the scope. The MiG-29 became available for all WP-countries from the start and the differences in avionics was very limited.

Sens

Everything you say is not accurate and it is incorrect, what you are trying simply to say, is the aircraft were not ready for production, something that is not accurate, the early MiG-23A was definitively not ready for production as the original specifications requested, the MiG-23M was not a simple design compared to the MiG-21 this has been acknowledged, it created some troubles in maintainance and training of BVR tactics, that its true, however by 1974 it was debugged.

Now there is not such thing as MiG-23 debacle, because number one in 1982 there were only 10 MiG-23 fighters shot down and only 6 were MiG-23Ms and 4 MiG-23MS of course for the champions of Western aircraft it meant the MiG-23M was not good, second the main MiG-23 destroyed was the MiG-23BN around 17 of them.

See that the F-16 and F-15 are fourth generation fighters.

If you check the Iran Iraq war statistics even the main version was the MiG-23BN the MiG-23BN was an attack aircraft not a fighter, it lacked any real BVR weapon.

In 1975 the MiG-23M was ready for production and it was mass produced

Now you are also saying the MiG-29 numbers surpassed the MiG-23 numbers in Warsaw pact something also incorrect.

Now if you want to say that the MiG-23M was not perfect and it generated troubles , well any aircraft is like that, the F-22 has suffered problems of corrosion and avionics malfuntions, however it is in production, the F-14 suffered problems with its wing pivots and many times they had to reduce the G limits, the F-18 suffered problems with its vertical fins due to high buffeting.

Your explanation showed, that you have not even a limited idea, how an interception attempt does work and I will change nothing about that.

At least you may have realised that there are some teething problems with new fighters and the related new technology. When you saw that solved for unknown reasons for the M in the early 70s, you can not resist to point to the F-15A and give even some correct details. Non is surprised by that really.
At least you have to be the one informed about all the teething problems of the “Flogger” from the 70s. Sorry my mistake, I forgot you do not like such details about your favourite aircraft. The 23MLD from the 80s had overcome the related problems, except the lessons from Lebanon, which had added more flare/chaff dispenser for survival. In some way helpfull over Afghanistan too.
Till today you do not have realised, that it may be more intresting to learn about the shortcomings of an aircraft and the related tactical limitations. With that knowledge it becomes possible to find out, if that fighter was operated in a proper way.
At least in your head there is still the outdated East:West-thinking, when today none has to win an idiological war. But I am shure you will not understand I wrote about really.

Sens

man no one denies that any aircraft has problems at the begining of its carreer however you are trying to say that the MiG-23M in terms of operational problems was uncapable of fighting BVR combat, all aircraft have problems however its operational status is the more important by 1975 the MiG-23M was operational and if you realize that in 7 years the USSR built 1300 MiG-23Ms it equals almost 200 aircraft a year or 16 aircraft a month you will understand that by 1974 around 500 MiG-23M were already operational.

So now you come and say those aircraft were uncapable of being operational, come on such a large number means that by 1974 most of the porblems the design had on a frozen configuration were solved.

Even if the MiG-23M entered mass production in 1974 by 1978 when its production ended around 1300 were built it measn that in less than 4 years they had a production of around 300 aircraft a year or 30 a month do you think the MiG-23 was not debugged by that time?

By the same illogic, the MiG-25 was not capable of shooting down the B-52, because it has never shot one down. :rolleyes:

The MiG-25 shot down ONE F-18 in the first Gulf War. An intercepter that spends all its time running away isn’t very effective.

Sens: To my knowledge, the F-4 never carried the AIM-7F. At least I have never heard of it doing so. I don’t think the F-4 had the right radar to use it.

Do you know how many MiG-25PDs Iraq had in 1991? In fact Iraq had less than 25 Foxbats of the 24 they recieved in 1979 some sources say they only had 6 operational in at any one time 1991, see that their numbers was very limited and despite of that they were facing 20 times more F-15s, F-18s and F-14s, despite that they did an excelent job

Wrong as always without the related details. The MiG-25RB above 20 km did not pose a threat. Nearly all missions were restricted to the Sinai. After the first mission over Israel, the second did end in disaster nearly. The Israelis had learned to trap that pair of recce birds. They had to follow a given time flight profile, what did allow to position the F-4E with AIM-7s for a single intercept and firing attempt. All worked as planned except the timing of the fuze. So just badly frightened MiG-25 drivers and no further Russian attempt for a same recce flight. I have to go to my cellar to find the recorded missions. A second chance did open-up, when a flight of F-4E from 107. sqdn did run into a returning MiG-25 near Cairo-West. Not informed about that from own radar control, that golden opportunity did slip. No time left to turn for the landing MiG-25, when all available Russian and Egyptian fighter were scrambled to save the ass of the MiG-25. After that incident the MiG-25s had an escort during take-off and landing back.
Despite that the MiG-25 mission did yield recce data and did rise the Arab opinion about the SU after the desaster from June 1970 combat. –

That fear factor about MiG-25 was used to free the money for the F-14/F-15 to come.
With the defection to Japan that bubble did burst for the displeasure of military from both sides. As I quoted before, the MiG-25 was never used as fighter in Central Europe for obvious reasons. A good intercepter it was to limited as fighter to be usefull in that role as it was usefull as tactical recce-birds in areas not protected like the “Nike Belt” in FRG.

In 1948/49 and 1956 western pilots did support Israel as eastern did in 1956 too, but after that no longer in true combat!

The MiG-23M* did become a usefull tool from the late 70s only, when the Safir-system did become combat ready and was refitted to the Floggers already built. The first tactical Russian fighter with a usefull look-down/shoot-down and head-on engagement capability against fighter targets.

But it seems that are details unknown and better ignored by someone to keep some propaganda claims from the 70s/80s alive. Acceptable in some way for most people unaware about the related details, but not longer so today.

Sens

Probably you do not remember what aircraft shot down MiG-25s, and how MiG-25s eluded F-15s and F-14s in the early 1990s during GWI.

The F-4 was not capable of intercepting the MiG-25 because it never has shot one in air to air combat.

Iraq used their MiG-25s as fighters and achieve good results even they had very few available and fought advanced fourth generation aircraft.

They attacked formations of A-7s and A-6s and shot down an F-18 and attacked F-111s and suffered no loss and avoided even more than 5 F-15s chasing them.

in the early 1970s there were no AIM-120s, the F-4 was not capable of interceptig a fighter that could fly aound 25 minutes at Mach 2.3, niether the F-4 had the weaponry to destroy it or the performance to chase it.

If your statements were true and the F-4 had the performance to intercept it, well a simple upgrade would had been enough and no F-14 or F-15s would had been needed, Israel would had fought the 1982 war with only F-4s and Kfirs without need for F-15s ad Iran would had bought more F-4s and no F-14s, besides there were MiG-25s stationed in east Germany

Also consider the F-4 previous to 1977 was armed with the short range AIM-7Es so in 1974 before the introduction of the AIM-7F the MiG-25 was a very difficult adversary, the AIM-7E was not a weapon design to take on MiG-25s as the AIM-7F was
The AIM-7E was more less in the class of early R-23/AA-7 Apex and early AA-6s

What you say about the MiG-23 is not so accurate, from 1974 to 1976 the main mass production of MiG-23M took place, so by 1975 there were already MiG-23M operational with the Saphir radar, it is true that by 1979 the F-15 was operational in large numbers, the reality it was not operational in the large numbers the MiG-23 was because the last MiG-23s were built in 1983, however from 1976 to 1983 the MiG-23ML production took place, and the MiG-23M production lasted since the early prototypes to the last production aircraft from 1971 to 1978. So by 1978 there were more than 1000 MiG-23Ms, in fact 1300 MiG-23Ms

In service, MiG-25s flew in natural metal or overall gray markings, though a small number of them operating in East Germany were painted in rough green-tan camouflage colors. This was known in the West as an “Afghanistan scheme”, since it was much like that applied to Soviet aircraft operating in the 1980s Afghanistan War, though the MiG-25 itself saw little or no action in that conflict.

http://www.vectorsite.net/avmig25_1.html

you also forget that in 1983 western forces attacked Syrian positions in Lebanon.

I’m not so sure I agree that the Mirage F-1 is outright superior to the F-4. It probably has an edge in certain areas, such as close-in manueverability, but when comparing the two I think it’s important to note that the F-4 was the backbone of the IRIAF, so while the F-14 was strictly used as an air-to-air platform, the F-4 was used to an equal degree for air-to-ground missions as it was for air-to-air missions. The same could be said of the F-5, which wasn’t a bad fighter (certainly capable of taking on the MiG-21), but it was very heavily tasked with ground-attack sorties, and thus not always on the prowl for enemy aircraft or even equipped for air-to-air missions in certain situations.

I think that is an issue that a lot of people tend to ignore when comparing F-4 kills and losses over the years. The F-4 has the distinction of generally being the backbone of whatever nation it saw combat with at the time, and as such was tasked with many different kinds of missions (i.e. F-4’s on a given combat mission weren’t necessarily going out looking for enemy aircraft……they could’ve been on strike or close air support or recon or SEAD or any of a number of other missions). That, combined with the large numbers used is going to mean there will be losses, even in air-to-air combat. It doesn’t mean the F-4 was a bad fighter or distinctly inferior to airplanes like the MiG-23 or Mirage F-1, but it was certainly the victim of being so versatile that it was tasked with just about every conceivable thing you could ask a fighter to do. This applies to the F-4 in combat over Vietnam, in the Middle East with Israel as well as in the Middle East with Iran.

My two cents worth anyways…

By the way I thought I had a well thought out post regarding the F-80 and Meteor and you all have ignored it. 🙂 Shame on you.

I think regarding the F-4, it was a good aircraft, why? well it was one of the first third generation fighters, few years before the MiG-23 and Mirage F1.

As a fighter was potent, powerful, fast, well armed, with good avionics in fact i have to say it was an aircraft i like more than any MiG before the MiG-23 and after the MiG-7, i do not like too much the MiG-21 and MiG-19, in fact i hardly like them.

Also the Russian reports never say the MiG-23 was utterly superior in agility they only say it was better at low and medium altitude and at speeds of 800km/h and 1100km/h at least the MiG-23M.

I think the MiG-23/F-4 match up is more less like in the case of the F-16/MiG-29, however usually more people think in these terms, MiG-21/F-4 and MiG-23/F-16 and F-22/Su-27.

I think the problem with the third generation fighters and the second generation fighters when these did face each other was that in many cases were mostly avionics and weaponry what made the difference but agility it remained more or less the same, for example the MiG-23 and F-4 were not a big departure from the MiG-21 in terms of agility, something similar happens now with the MiG-29OVT/Su-35BM with the F-22

Also it is true the F-4 had many losses and not all in air to air but many were for several different reasons and this happened too to the MiG-23 and up to a level to the Mirage F1.

however here no one questions if they were better as aircraft but if in a time frame they indeed had a complete dominance over the competition.

For example in the time period of 1962 to 1972 the F-4 was the most advanced fighter in the world, for example the MiGs only did introduce BVR weapons in 1972, before that the MiG-21, Su-9 and Su-11 only had Atolls and even the early AA-5 Ash were not available to lighter fighters and their range was not really something out of this world in the time they operated.

Even if in the west they claim the look down shot down radar capability was introduced earlier it was not until the first MiG-23s the Russians had something comparable.

In general ok. To pull more Gs does mean a higher drop of speed too and a fighter who is running out of speed is running out of energy also. The basic for a fighter pilot is to keep your energy level high to have all possibilities related to that at hand. Just the two sides of a coin. Not the best idea to pull max Gs always, when that does mean the reduced SA by that. The hype about Gs is over, when there are no more limited AAMs around to defeat that. When you start a manouvre in sight of your opponent, he will carry out the related counter manouvre to outsmart you. Flying jet-fighters is so fast, that a split second you gain from that and the related position is enough to create the firing (AAM!) opportunity you may need. The wrong manouvre in the wrong moment may kill you or spoil your firing opportunity. For that kind of warfare you are in need of a “carefree” fighter. Neither the F-4 nor the Flogger are such ones, both are old fashioned “stick and rudder” mounts.

“Although radius can be minimised by dynamic manoeuvre (combat egg) its …” here you can learn, what I did quote “power egg” when the right term seems to be combat egg.

http://www.vulch.clara.co.uk/acm.html

I do agree that is possible the F-4 might have some advantages in the vertical maneuvre because the Russians say that at least about the MiG-23M and F-4E.

In my opinion probably the Russian reports about the MiG-23M and F-4 match up in air to air combat are acurate but i think the real advantages the MiG-23M might have over the F-4 might be insignificant to the degree of a few dozen meters, probably the MiG-23ML is better than both but again the advantage also must be insignificant in turn radius, the F-16 to the contrary leave all of these three aircraft as slumbering and clumsy flying metal junk.

It is probably the Russians do exagerate about the real advantages the MiG-23M had over the F-4E in turn rate and horizontal agility.

let us suppose that at Mach 0.9 and 1000 meters of altitude the MiG-23M has a turn radius of 1605 meters, the F-4E one of 1645 meters and the MiG-23ML one of 1567 meters i guess that might be the difference between the MiG-23M, F-4E and MiG-23ML however at Mach 0.9 and 1000 of altitude an F-16 will have a turn radius of much less than 900 meters for example

If it is true the MiG-23 is not an F-16, it is more less comparable to the F-4 and the latest MiG-23 variants probably had a very small advantage over the F-4 in agility.

So in my opinion from 1972 to 1975 before the F-15 and F-14 started to get operational in large numbers, the MiG-23 was the best tactical fighter in the world and the MiG-25 the best interceptor and the F-4 was already in the declining years of its carrer as the best fighter in the world

Why do you not stick to the data at hand and still try to find more pleasing ones.
The speed of sound is:
661 kts at s.l. or 1224 km/h
614 kts at 20 kf (~6100 metre) or 1137 km/h
573 kts at 36 kf (~11000 metre) or 1061 km/h and will stay by that above.

If twin-engine or single engine does not matter, when it comes to a sfc of an engine or the installed thrust. When you do demand the full 8,5 tons of your R-35 close to sea level for 10 minutes you will burn 1360 kg of fuel.
You do the same with two J-79 and do demand the full 10,8 tons under the same conditions and you will burn 1512 kg of fuel.
I stick to basic numbers to keep it simple! (sfc for the J-79 is 0,84 and for the R-35 is 0,96. That seems to be minor at the first glance, but it is considerable. For every pound of thrust the R-35 does need ~15% extra fuel compared to the J-79!)
A good example how important are details.
So in a “power-egg” the F-4 has advantages. The slower ML may outperform the F-4 in an contest of flying circles (horizontal-level) through lower corner-speed at minimum sweep, when the faster F-4 do so in the vertical level. (faster does mean here higher corner speed and related performances!) A F-4 crew will try to stay close to Mach 0,9, when a Flogger pilot does hope for a horizontal turning contest below Mach 0,8.
A ML going into a turning fight becomes a “sitting Duck” by that. With 45° sweep and lower turning capability the ML offers a good compromise of speed and turning ability similar to the F-4, what is a good value, because till the 70s the F-4 was the yardstick. I am shure that the designers of the Flogger had that in mind in the 60s. In reality they did close in to that with the M* in the 70s. But that did you wrote above at all.
In general we can agree, that both fighters are similar in flying performance with some sweet corners for both, when it comes to the A:A role. It is up to the pilots/crews to make the best of that. The Israelis did find out in the 60s, that a MiG-21F could beat a Mirage IIIC in a A:A contest flown by their top pilots and the other way around. In both cases the pilot had to stick to the strong points of his fighter. But all did agree, that the Mirage IIIC did offer a higher versatility to deal with and the related tactical freedom.
But the last point has to do with the former Russian doctrine, to limit their pilots for a single mission and strict procedures. For that purpose the MiGs were tailored.

I do agree that both designs are very similar, trying to be fair is also easy but do not say i chose that speed of sound to enhance my view that page is more less reliable, but i do not think the F-4 has a definitive advantage because at Mach 0.9 and at sea level it has a turn radius of 1.4km (0.75 of a nautical mile) and at 20000 feet/6096 meters of 2.6km (1.4 of a nautical mile) is it easy to see that at 1000 meters of altitude its turn radius has to be between 1.4km and 2.6 km, this is more likely in the range of 1.6km, if you calculate the MiG-23 at 1000m and Mach 0.9 (around 1070km/h if you calculate a speed of sound in the region of 1200km/h at 1000 meters) the MiG-23ML will have a turn radius something in the range of 1500 meters, it might be more it might be less, so i do not think the MiG-23 is less agile, of course this is just a guess things are not so linear but in my humble opinion the MiG-23ML has the advantage because it can pull more Gs than the F-4E at any given altitude and this is according to both manuals.

It is possible both designs can have a very small margin difference of few dozen meters in turn radius, but since both pull 14 deg/s the difference might be insignificant but i think due to its higher G load handling the MiG-23ML has the advantage.

The F-4E might have the advantge in terms of weapons load though

Wrong. Dassault began to fiddle with Mirage foreplanes in the late 1960s during the Milan project. That proved to not be totally effective, so they turned to canards instead. The original Kfirs didn’t even have canards, either. People sometimes think they did because the Kfirs leased to the US for aggressor duty were fitted with them before delivery, but the Kfir-C1 as originally built had no canard foreplanes.

Well now you’re just going to have to make up your mind…do you consider Western sources credible, or don’t you? :diablo:

And wouldn’t you know it, they’re even being fired by test fleet aircraft :rolleyes:

We could make this really interesting and start applying your logic behind that argument to another Chinese product…

Notice how they say “based on Lavi technology”. That could mean the radar, the wheels, the IFF antenna design…it doesn’t imply that the entire jet is a carbon copy or even a direct derivative.

Tell that to a Raptor pilot 😎

The Mirage NG was flown in the 1980s, the kfir in the early 1970s.
All the Mirage V or III with canards are post Kfirs, the main production Kfirs C2 had canards