MiG-23MLDELP,
please don’t take the stuff MiG23 writes too serious. He is basically repeating his claims once a month on various, often completely unrelated topics. He is through the Syrian Air Force claims on Israel aircraft by now, and now we are getting into performance of MiG-23ML versus F-16A, another favorite of him.The claims are in their majority simplified, unconditioned and sometimes just plain wrong –> Linear Thinking.
Let’s take the F-18 versus F-16 as example. Some people might know that the F-18 is the better slow speed fighter and has better high AOA characteristics. The trade is more drag at transonic and supersonic speeds, where the F-16 rules even over seemingly faster aircraft like the F-15 or Su-27. Telling one aircraft the “better” aircraft is flawed linear thinking.MiG-29 versus F-16 is similar, as you outlined. The MiG-29 is quoted with slightly higher turn rates in speeds lower than M0.8-0.9 (and hence the better maximum turn rate), while the F-16 is considered to be superior above those speeds. With at least a dozen versions MiG-29 and F-16 comparisons become a tiring non-sense activity, one non-linear thinkers would refrain to do.
Best is always the MiG-23. Right is, the MiG-23 has BVR-capability, the F-16 not. But, what is always missing is that ML and MLD variants did not really posses the ability to find and engage an target when without ground support. They were mostly restricted to use in GCI mode. An F-16A has equivalent radar range and the single pilot will find his radar much easier to use. The MiG-23ML, though a very fast machine with quite remarkable performance figures, does not possess any dogfight characteristics. Low maximum lift, high energy bleed and bad ergonomics are just examples. Again, linear thinking.
What is missing is not linear thinking but the real fact the Russians relied on IRST systems a lot, these systems were capable of fire the AA-8 and AA-11 the later with a range of 35km.
You won`t get too much advantage is you are armed with the same weapons, it is true new radars can be useful when you have same weapons, however all the american fighters with the exception of the F-14 lacked optical and infrared detection systems.
MiG-23MLDAs I say, linear thinking. In battles over Middle Europe BVR weapons would hardly be used. Even MiG-29 need to identify their targets. You very much overrate the BVR-capability and its usability for such situations. The time a MiG-29A needs to track and lock a target, and fire a missile, when working independently, would actually allow a head-on closing F-16 to fire a Sidewinder. The MiG-29 would have to decide if he goes down as well or tries to avoid missile hit (and losing its target, as BVR weapon is semi-active). In the end, most MiG-pilots would prefer to use IR-AAM only under those conditions.
The early F-16s were the most price effective combat aircraft since long, like the MiG-21 and Mirage III.
В кабинах «двадцать третьих» сидели лучшие летчики ВВС, умелые и опытные. Они хорошо знали местность и свою матчасть, до автоматизма «накатали» программу и имели за плечами приличный налет. Большинство из них побывали в разных загранкомандировках, получив богатейший практический опыт. Да и новый МиГ-29 на первых порах не во всем был лучше МиГ-23МЛД. Одним из крупных недостатков 9-12 первых серий было то, что дальность обнаружения его РЛС была существенно меньше, чем у «Сапфира», установленного на «23-м».
Упор в обучении летчиков на базе № 1521 делался на ближний воздушный бой на малых и средних высотах. Отрабатывались приемы, включавшие в себя действия силами пара — звено — группа, с применением сложного и высшего пилотажа. Маневренные качества как МиГ-29, так и его «противника» МиГ-23МЛД были таковы, что вновь был возрожден давно забытый у нас бой на виражах, когда огонь открывается с дистанции 100 — 200 м. Особ
The MiG-23 were piloted by best air force pilots, capable and experienced. T. Most of them went abroad in all, having a wealth of practical experience. Yes, and the new MiG-29 at first was not making the best of the situation agianst the MiG-23MLD. One of the major shortcomings of the first series of 9-12 was that the range of detection of its radar was significantly less than that of “Sapphire” installed in the “MiG-23”.
The focus of training pilots at the base No. 1521 was close combat at lowl and medium altitudes. improved techniques included flying in pair teams. Manoeuvrability of a MiG-29, and its “enemy the MiG-23MLD were such that it was again revived the long-forgotten us, fight thrill when the gunfire was called out 100-200 m
Первый опыт эксплуатации самолетов МиГ-29 и Су-27 показал, что при правильном подходе легкие истребители с успехом можно было использовать в бою против более мощных самолетов, например F-15. Самолеты Су-27 (и тем более F-15C) имели более совершенную РЛС, что теоретически позволяло им применять ракеты средней дальности с большей дистанции. Однако в случае с Су-27 это компенсировалось тем, что МиГ-29 имел заметно меньшую эффективную площадь рассеивания и дальности обнаружения этих целей были примерно равны.
К тому времени было известно, что РЛС самолета F-15C имеет значительно лучшие качества, следовательно, американец получит преимущество в первой атаке. Правда, еще не был известен один примечательный факт, который установили американские специалисты, испытывавшие самолеты МиГ-29 ВВС Германии.
Несущие частоты сигнала локаторов «Игла» и МиГа были близки. У американской станции основным был режим большой частоты повторения импульсов (импульсно-доплеровский), который позволял реализовать многоканаль-ность по наведению и сопровождение целей на проходе. Для НО 19, РЛС МиГ-29, основным был режим средней частоты повторения импульсов (моноимпульсный), который не давал таких больших возможностей, но определял конструктивную простоту системы. Считалось, что в бою против МиГ-29 F-15C будет иметь преимущество только на средних дистанциях и именно за счет локатора. На меньших дистанциях превосходство перейдет к советскому истребителю, который отличается не только лучшей маневренностью, но и современным вооружением — постоянные модернизации ГСН ракет малой дальности AIM-9, не давали уже результата, так как сдерживались «застывшей» аэродинамической компоновкой этой ракеты сорокалетней давности.
The first experience with the MiG-29 and Su-27 has shown that with the right approach the light fighter aircraft can be successfully used in the battle against the more powerful aircraft, such F-15. The aircraft Su-27 (and even more F-15C) have improved radars, which theoretically allows them to use missiles with a range greater distances. But in the case of the Su-27 is offset by the fact that the MiG-29 was markedly less effective dissipating area and range of detection of the targets were approximately equal.
By that time it was learned that the radar on the aircraft F-15C is of much better quality, therefore, the advantage is on the American side which has first look first kill capability. True, it would not had been known to American specialists if they would not have MiG-29 aircraft in Germany.
Bearing frequency signal locators “Eagle” and MiG were close. American radar stations have been the main mode long pulse repetition frequency (pulse Doppler), which allows to realize mnogokanal- of guidance and support for the goals of passage. For NO 19, MiG-29 radars, the main treatment was high frequency pulses (monoimpulsny), which did not give such great potential, but give a constructive simple system. It was felt that in the battle against the MiG-29, the F-15C will benefit only the middle distance and it is by its radar. For shorter distances it returns to the Soviet superiority fighter, which has not only better manoeuvrability, but modern weaponry-standing modernization of the short-range missiles AIM-9, has been denied by a “frozen” aerodynamic layout of the missiles of almost forty years
Исходя из этого, американцы полагали, что победу в бою принесет атака из передней полусферы, в которой группа F-15 уничтожит первым залпом большинство МиГов, а затем реализует полученное численное преимущество и не позволит выйти советским истребителям на дальность открытия огня и тем более навязать ближний бой. Но в учебном бою F-15 против МиГ-29 неожиданно оказалось, что сигнал РАС НО 19, повторяющийся со средней частотой, создает такую помеху для РЛС «Игла», что тот не может провести захват цели и выполнить пуск. А локатор МиГа уверенно работает и обеспечивает применение ракет Р-27Р.
Это было шоком для Пентагона. Срочно были выделены дополнительные средства на модернизацию РЛС американских истребителей. Ценой больших затрат удалось ослабить влияние встречного сигнала за счет «чистки» схемы станции от различных внутренних помех. Но этот метод не работает в случае увеличения мощности встречного сигнала, т.е. проблема фактически осталась. Другим направлением было создание для истребителей средств РЭП. Здесь американцы преуспели — их станции отличаются эффективностью и высокой степенью автоматизации.
Специалисты ВВС США не придавали большого значения сравнению МиГ-29 со своим основным легким истребителем F-16A/C. Этот самолет в середине 80-х годов, нес только ракеты малой дальности и применялся в качестве ударного, хотя опыт их израильских коллег показывал великолепные качества F-16 в ближнем бою. Во второй половине 80-х этот недостаток был исправлен с принятием на вооружение ракеты средней дальности AIM-120 AMRAAM. Наша же аналогичная разработка Р-77 пока не стала массовым оружием, хотя и поставляется на экспорт.
Accordingly, the Americans thought that victory in the air battle, they would attack from the front hemisphere, in which a group of F-15 would had destroyed most of the first wave of enemy fighters, and then taking the advantage and it would not engage with the Soviet fighter in the MiG-29`s range of fire and the more imposing Short battle. But in the academic battle against the F-15, the MiG-29 has suddenly turned out that the signal RAS NO 19, repeated at an average frequency creates a barrier for the radar “APG-63” basicly jamming the american radar, in the other hand the MiG-29`s radar MiG confidently would work and ensure that missile R-27 R would lock on its target.
It was a shock to the Pentagon that urgent allocated additional funds to upgrade the radar of American fighters. Price costly impact could weaken a counter-signal by “cleansing” of various schemes station domestic disturbance. But this method does not work in the event of an increase in counter-power signal, i.e. in fact, the problem remained. Another was a fighter for funds REP. Here, the Americans have succeeded their station is a high degree of efficiency and automation.
Specialists Air Force is not attached great importance compared with MiG-29 fighter aircraft of its major light F-16A / C. The aircraft in mid-1980 decade, may be held only short-range missiles and used as a shock, while their Israeli colleagues experience showed excellent quality F-16 in close combat. In the second half of 1980 – x this deficiency was corrected with the adoption of arming missiles range AIM-120 AMRAAM. Our development of a similar R-77 is not a large weapon, but is exported.
MiG-23MLDMiG-23
Your statement…
First some facts. F-16 v F-18…. “and even in dogfight”.
Even a Navy pilot that has flown both would not agree with you on that. They would prefer the F-18 because of many things including familiarity of having flown it so much however the F-16 will out accelerate it in almost every situation and out climb the F-18. Everything being equal there, a Navy pilot would state he probably would not want to fight either aircraft but would prefer to be in a Hornet including its better man-machine cockpit interface.
A good read of the F-16 vs F-18 here-
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_200306/ai_n9262073/pg_1MiG-29 in 1983…. you are joking right? What BVR? You mean the then crap R-27? The same one which not too far in the future from that point sucked when Eritrea and Ethiopia went at it? The R-27 in that war sucked bad and that was with Ukraine and Russian advisers on the different sides. So much for the early R-27 being worth anything. The man machine interface of the early MiG-29 for BVR was a joke. Nice big clock to watch count down on BVR shots. Almost as silly as Flava flav with the clock around the neck. Please don’t take early MiG-29 BVR too seriously.
Of course in WVR the R-73 is in fact deadly. However facing the merge the opposite is true that the MiG-29 would have to survive a face shot by an AIM-9L which in fact worked fairly good with real kills to show for it. Much has been written about MiG-29 v F-16 in WVR practice. They both have their performance advantages. Something to consider: Sit in an F-16, now turn your head to the back. You can see the burner can. Sit in an early MiG-29 and turn your head to the back, rear visibility isn’t so hot. Certainly in 1983, the F-16A goes into the fight with some disadvantages. However an excellent man-machine interface and outstanding visibility and being small nose-on aren’t bad.
Finally…. “MiG-23 enjoyed better BVR combat capability than the F-16”
Again here questionable BVR quality. One thing that wasn’t amusing about the MiG-23 was it’s speed and acceleration, that had some respect. However when U.S. pilots got to look at the man machine interface of captured MiG-23s and the poor cockpit visibility looking outside, it became the butt of many jokes. Poor situational awareness in this aircraft could be THE END real quick. A good PVO interceptor when in later years they started putting IRST on the nose. This wouldn’t be something to take to war for fighter v fighter.
F-16A versus MiG-23 early 1980s
advantages are for both sides, in agility terms the F-16 wins, in BVR armament the F-16A did not have any, the MiG-23 wins armed with R-24, perhaps you might not know it but some russian reports have said that the early MiG-23MLD agressors could even defeat MiG-29s and Su-27s at BVR
В кабинах «двадцать третьих» сидели лучшие летчики ВВС, умелые и опытные. Они хорошо знали местность и свою матчасть, до автоматизма «накатали» программу и имели за плечами приличный налет. Большинство из них побывали в разных загранкомандировках, получив богатейший практический опыт. Да и новый МиГ-29 на первых порах не во всем был лучше МиГ-23МЛД. Одним из крупных недостатков 9-12 первых серий было то, что дальность обнаружения его РЛС была существенно меньше, чем у «Сапфира», установленного на «23-м».
Упор в обучении летчиков на базе № 1521 делался на ближний воздушный бой на малых и средних высотах. Отрабатывались приемы, включавшие в себя действия силами пара — звено — группа, с применением сложного и высшего пилотажа. Маневренные качества как МиГ-29, так и его «противника» МиГ-23МЛД были таковы, что вновь был возрожден давно забытый у нас бой на виражах, когда огонь открывается с дистанции 100 — 200 м. Особ
The MiG-23 were piloted by best air force pilots, capable and experienced. T. Most of them went abroad in all, having a wealth of practical experience. Yes, and the new MiG-29 at first was not making the best of the situation agianst the MiG-23MLD. One of the major shortcomings of the first series of 9-12 was that the range of detection of its radar was significantly less than that of “Sapphire” installed in the “MiG-23”.
The focus of training pilots at the base No. 1521 was close combat at lowl and medium altitudes. improved techniques included flying in pair teams. Manoeuvrability of a MiG-29, and its “enemy the MiG-23MLD were such that it was again revived the long-forgotten us, fight thrill when the gunfire was called out 100-200 m.
The MiG-29 did enjoy a total advantage in the early 1980s, the F-16 A did not have any BVR weapon.
The F-18 is more or less in the class of the F-16, however early F-16 were in the niche of the MiG-21 and Mirage III
MiG-23MLDMcDonnel Douglas opted for a wing without slats and rather used a wing with low loading.
Advantage: lower weight, less cost
Disadvantage: higher landing speeds and lower performance for slow turns. For speeds in excess of M0.8 the slats don’t really come into effect.The wing isn’t simple.
As a piece of engineering we can not call its wing simple and in that you are right, any aircraft and specially a modern fighter takes too much time in wind tunnels and drawing boards (computers now), however by simple i meant compared to a Su-27 or a F-14, its wing has not many lifting devices, and compared with the fuselage belnding and LEX vortices shedding wings of the Su-27 and F-16, its wing is not as advanced as these.
The end result is the F-15 is not as agile and is barely faster than the Su-27.
In combat the Su-27 will eat the F-15 in WVR combat and this has been proven in even the US by Russian pilots
MiG-23MLDThere is something like an “aerodynamic manual” available of the F-14 in Russian. This can be done with scale models, too.
For the Russians, the F-14 was no real aircraft to examine in the 1980s. The radar and weapon system yes, but the aircraft or related technology were nothing breath-taking, even in the 1970s. I am sure they had given a few bucks to get their hands on an F-16 in the early 80s. The relatively open science and press in the US and Western Europe made it much easier for the Russians to get an impression about general flight performance of Western aircraft, of course, specific solutions especially in electronics were highly confidential.
From the armed forces of the soviet Union a book about the F-14, by the Ministry of defence and air forces of the Soviet Union
source http://www.strizhi.ru/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?num=1188479278/0#0
MiG-23MLDХарактеристики F-16C МиГ-29 F-15C Су-27
Максимальная скорость полета, км/ч 2100 2450 2650 2460
Практический потолок, м 18 100 17500 18000 17800
Дальность полета, км 1800 1500 2500 3800
Скороподъемность, м/с 194 252 280 280
Максимальная угловая скорость, град/с 21,5 23,5 20 21,5
Максимальная эксплуатационная перегрузка, единиц 9 9 9 9
Characteristics F -16C / MiG-29/ F-15C /Su-27
the maximum speed of flight, km/h 2100/ 2450/ 2650/ 2460
the service ceiling, m 18 100/ 17500/ 18000/ 17800
flying range, km 1800/ 1500/ 2500/ 3800
rates of climb, m/s 194/ 252/ 280/ 280/
maximum angular velocity, deg/s 21,5/ 23,5/ 20/ 21,5
maximum operational overloading, ones 9/ 9/ 9/ 9
If you have read according to this russian source the max sustained turn rate for the F-15C is 20 deg/sec since the MiG-29 has a sustained turn rate of 23.5 and the Su-27 of 21.5 deg/sec, see that the previous one talked about the F-15A
MiG-23MLDAir combat has nothing to do with logic. Related to circumstances a F-16 can beat a F-15 and none do question that. An experienced instructor in an A-4 can beat a F-14 with an inexperienced crew or did manage to surprise an experienced crew. When flown by similar pilots and same conditions the result becomes predictable and logical. No chance for the A-4!
~90% of all arial kills in June 82 were by AIM-9Ls and shared evenly by F-15s and F-16s related to the battle field.
You did not red the link about the F-16 properly, did you? Here you can read, which Block of the F-16 achived BVR capability when.In 1991 the USAF equipped its fighters related to missions tasked. The F-16s were used in the A2G role mainly. Most of the Iraqi fighters did not show up or defected to Iran. To the displeasure of US-pilots, there was a severe shortage in arial targets, when the Iraqi pilots were not eager to exploit the A2A opportunities given by nummerous alliance fighters over-head.
Every mayor conflict will have losses. 3 % from 100 aircraft are three losses only, when 30 from 1000 are still the same small 3 %.
The eastern side has to decide what to claim. SAM or fighters. There is not much to share to claim a limited success for either side. You remember the F-117 example?! Till today the former communist countries have avoided to do a critical look into the own past. Similar thing is with the “Arabs”. As long as not doing so, we have not much to fear really was a claim by Israeli military.
When they change that attitude we will face a different adversary.
In the West there is a general intrest to find the real causes of losses. What was wrong and how can it be prevented in the future. There is a constant need to learn and even relearn lessons from combat to be successfull in the future. Even victories are not flawless and were researched in a similar way.
You did not read the webpage too the AIM-120 was used operationally by F-16s in 1992, in fact the first air to air kill by an AIM-120 was in 1992 against a MiG-25
What i have said is in each generation in this case the fourth, almost all the aircraft have similar capabilities.
The F-16 versus F-18 in the 1980s was obviously in favour of the F-18 in BVR and even in dogfight.
During the same time period the MiG-23 enjoyed better BVR combat capability than the F-16 but had worse close combat capability.
The F-16A was basicly a limited fighter when the MiG-29 appeared in 1983, it had worse close combat capability than the MiG-29 and no defence in BVR.
The Russians followed a F-18 concept not a F-16
The F-18 versus the F-15 is more less even since both aircraft have used the same weapons AIM-9s, AIM-7s and AIM-120s.
The MiG-29 was even with the F-15, the MiG-23 was slightly worse in BVR combat from the MiG-23MF to the MiG-23ML and even with the MiG-23-98 however it was totally outclassed in the close combat capability by the F-15
from 1974 to 1992 the F-16 was handicapped versus any aircraft using Medium range air to air missiles this was made intentionally so the F-15 could had a niche and the F-16 niche would not overlap with that of the F-15, this never happened with the F-18A/C and the F-14 since the F-14 has AIM-54s .
According to russian sources around 7 F-16s were shot down by MiG-23s.
now The F-18 never was handicapped by lack of medium range missiles, in fact the F-18 offered and has offered something that many nations considered important flexibility with a descent air to air capability.
Do you need a fast aircraft to kill a MiG-25 the answer is not, the F-16 has already gotten that capability.
That myth that the Iraqi air force never fought is another urban legend, the Iraqies flew MiG-29s and MiG-25s versus allied aircraft, however the allied forces only accept one Iraqi air to air victory, however there is evidence the Iraqies initially did fight and plenty of evidence they indeed shot down several allied aircraft in 1991.
Since basicly all the teen fighters have no supercruise, the F-18 is not as handicapped as many would think, the reality versus any other teen fighter or from Migs ranging from the MiG-21 to the MiG-29, both the F-16 and F-18 have since the late 1990s the same air to air capability the F-15 has.
Israel has bought both the the F-16s and F-15 but it has more F-16s than F-15s and this proves you even Israel knows having F-16s is not a liability.
F-14 pilots knew in close combat the F-14 was not as good as the F-18 and the F-15 is not better.
In fact i have read the F-15 sustained turn rate is just mere 16 deg/sec
in fact if you have read in the west they never compare the F-15 agility to the MiG-29 or Su-27 but always do claim the F-15 was better than who do you think? well the answer is the old F-4 and in close combat the MiG-23
http://users.bart.nl/users/wbergmns/info/f15.htm
in fact according to russian sources the F-15A was mostly better than the MiG-21 and MiG-23 but in the opinion of some Russian pilots the F-15 was barely better than the MiG-21bis and MiG-23MLD
Одним из основных отличий F-15A от истребителей третьего поколения явилась высокая тяговооруженность (при нормальной взлетной массе – 1,13, при боевой – 1,41) и малая удельная нагрузка на крыло (при нормальной взлетной массе 333 кг/кв.м.), что делало его одним из самых маневренных сверхзвуковых истребителей 1970-х годов. Максимальная скорость установившегося разворота F-15A (на высоте 5 000 м при М=0,9) составила 11,8 град/с, неустановившегося – 14,1 град/с. По маневренным характеристикам F-15 значительно превосходил советские самолеты МиГ-21 и МиГ-23 (по мнению российских летчиков, которым довелось летать на этом истребителе в 1992г., по маневренности к F-15 приближались лишь самолеты МиГ-21бис и МиГ-23МЛД, выпущенные в 1970-х годах)
here they say that basicly at an altitude of 5000 meters and at Mach 0.9 the F-15A has sustained turn rate of merely 11.8 deg/sec and a max instantaneous turn rate of 14.1deg/sec
MiG-23MLDhttp://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article6.html
what does not support your Eastern claims.
In 1982 the F-15s did use their AIM-7s in WVR conditions. In mountanious terrain the MiG-23s radar did not work in look down mode. Clutter and jammers of F-16s did not allow lock-on in such conditions. There is a reason, why MiG-23s fired two AAMs at single target, one radar and the other IR. The jammer, chaff and flares did not prevent near misses all the time and inflicted some damage. The Russians did learn the lessons from that and their fighters were upgraded with that suspensers too.
The US combat losses from 1991 are well documented.
It is not eastern or western claims it is mostly logic.
Can you trust official sources of one warring side? the answer is not, if the USAf addmits 5 F-16s as shot down, it does not mean these were shot down always as they say becasue even their own reports do not have way of knowing everything with 100% reliability and they know it, if you get 40 pictures of the aircraft being shot down by SAMs well it will prove your case.
If you remember the F-18 was shot down by a MiG-25, this aircraft has AIM-7s, Russian sources will say to you that MiGs killed some of the alliance aircraft, the F-16 did not achieve a single kill in 1991, five were shot down according to even Western historians.
If you remember the 1991 gulf war the F-18 did achieve some kills these were MiG-21s, the F-14 only a single Mi-8, the F-15s more than 30 kills, the F-16s none.
This is what the west affirms, however other non western sources affirm some of those Tornados, F-111, F-16s and other aircraft addmitedly shot down by the then Iraqi armed forces were shot down in air to air combat by MiGs.
The F-16s were ill armed for BVR in 1991 only armed with AIM-9 no AIM-120 was operated in 1991 during GWI, the F-16s got them operational post GWI.
http://www.ewarbirds.org/amraam.html
This shows you that no aircraft is the best, everything will have some many variables, to claim a fighter is better than other is in part relative, the F-18 can beat the F-15, and in 2007 the F-16 can beat even MiG-25s why not even F-15s? in mock combat they have done it, and in 2007 buying F-16s is cheaper, in few words despite the F-15 probably is the best balanced US fighter in 2007 with AIM-9X and AIM-120 both the F-18 and F-16 can beat the F-15, the only reason air forces accept the F-15 is simply weapons load and up to a degree speed, but in weapons, todays F-18s and F-16 can fight F-15s and the fairy tales that 80:2 combat ratio or no air to air kill is only good for domestic comsuption, in reality even the best air forces will have losses, war always have losses in both sides and it is just politics what makes appear a weapon superior to others but in general most aircraft of one generation have relatively the same capabilities.
MiG-23MLDYou are writing big BS based on fishy sources.
The numbers given by USN are the results of complicated, multi-year contracts, and if development is included is unknown. You would show some very very basic insight if you would include inflation to some extent. But as I am a nice guy, I’ll show you.See, start 1980 with 29 Million USD, have a 2% or 3% inflation and end up 2006 with 48 or 63 Million USD.
[ATTACH]157691[/ATTACH]
at no moment they said the F-18 costed 29 million in 1980 as you claim, to give you an example in 1980 an F-16 costed something like 14 million and an F-15 something like 25 million ( that is what Israel pay for them), a MiG-23 was priced in 6 million in 1980 so an F-18 was cheaper than 25 millions in 1980.
MiG-23MLDThe MISIP done by Israel did transform all F-15A-D examples to 9 Gs. To conserve lifetime all fighters were kept to 7 Gs or below in daily operations.
For the Kfir it was lowered to 6,7 Gs, but non stick to that in air-combat exercises during battle days.
The lifetime is related to the G-loads within. No fighter has the max G-load and max lifetime together.
G load by it self is not the only way to know an aircraft agility, the MiG-23 can achieve 12Gs when flown as a unmanned drone however it does not mean it is more agile than the F-16.
To determine agility you have to see several factors one is TWR and the other wingload, you have to add to that longitudinal stability and AoA wing stall.
however this can be translated into corner speed or turn radius at certain speeds and hights and it is known that the IAI kfir has a really low sustained turn rate of only 9 deg/sec, nothing to do with G load restrictions but with the delta wing it has that bleeds energy fast at high AoA and turning
The F-15 is less complex aerodynamically speaking than the F-16s, its wing design is too simple and what has kept it as a good fighter has been superiority in numbers, better avionics and inferior adversaries.
In western military exercises such as Red Flag the F-16 has shown that as a dogfighter few western aircraft can figh it, in BVR even the Panavia Tornado has beaten the F-15 and in WVR the F-16s have proven to be difficult targets.
The 9Gs an F-15 can experience are the max G load the fighter can achieve without structural damage, the F-14 was limited to 6.5Gs simply becasue they discovered undersome 9G maneuvers the F-14 suffered structural damage, limiting the F-14 to 6.5Gs was not to save lifetime but simply because the fighter can not hold safely 9Gs.
it is logic the F-14 weights 19 tonnes empty, loaded is a fat aircraft of 33.7 tonnes multiply that for 9Gs and you will see that turning at 9gs the F-14 experience close to 270000kgs of gravity add up to that its limited wing lift and mediocre TWR and you will see it is not as agile as the light F-16s weighing half ot it and with more thrust available
in peacetime when you do train you have to train with 9Gs in mind if not you will simple become a missile carrier with no dogfighting capability.
MiG-23MLDStill the old stories. 1982 was a nasty surprise and did ruin the reputation of the MiG-23 within WP forces. The intended procurement of further MiG-23s came to a hold. The propaganda exercise from 1983 did not restore it. The GDR pilots did never buy it. Till 1991 the official exchange ratio was 86:6 (June 82) and after that 6:2 to all causes. It will be intresting to learn, if you find related publications from that years in the meanwhile.
We do not need to get in detail because this is a different topic however i do not agree with you it is the typical Western opinion.
The F-16 can avoid AA-7s but can not AIM-7 sparrows.
In the 1980s and early 1990s, the F-16 was just a simple dogfighter.
In 2007 the F-16 has evolved into a fighter than can fight in BVR combat with AIM-120, example
Of the MiG-25 kills attributed to western aircraft, the only MiG-25 kill by an F-16 was with an AIM-120, the other MiG-25 kills were achieved with AIM-7s but by F-15s, in the mid 1990s the F-16 were basicly able to shot down enemies with basicly the same weapons
27 декабря 1992г. Над Ираком в зоне, запретной для полетов (южнее 32-й параллели), ракетой AIM-120 (AMRAAM), выпущенной с американского F-16, был сбит иракский МиГ-25. Это было первое боевое применение ракеты AIM-120.
The US claimed that in 1991 they lost 5 F-16s and 2 F-15s however while the west claims AAA or SAM destroyed 5 F-16s, other sources claim MiGs did it.
По официальным данным в войне в Персидском заливе США потеряли лишь пять самолетов F-16C, причем один из F-16, по некоторым данным, был сбит с МиГ-23 ракетой Р-23
http://www.usa-aviation.ru/istrebitel-f-16/boevoe-primenenie/
The US navy could not achieve the same success the US air force got.
MiG-23MLDMach 1.8 with eight missiles.
Not likely. A lot of F-16s are going to get shot down by SARH missiles before they have a chance to engage. The F-16 has an advantage close in, but not a really big advantage. F-15 turning performance is a close second to the F-16. In the early days, if the weather is really bad, an F-15 in the muck could hurl Sparrows at the F-16 and the F-16 won’t even have a target to shoot back at. And if you don’t find me persuasive, I have been told by an F-16C pilot that the F-15 is the better fighter.
If that statement is true then the AA-7s thrown by MiG-23s would had done the same to the F-16s back in the 1980s and early 1990s when MiG-23 operators claimed they killed F-16s
MiG-23MLDYour F-16 just killed his energy state dodging the Sparrow. He is now at a disadvantage for a dogfight, assuming another Sparrow doesn’t kill him, or force him to deplete more energy.
One problem F-15 pilots encountered on excercises was that after they launched a simulated Sparrow at an F-16, the F-16 pilot would close and launch an AIM-9L just before he died. Both planes were shot down.
The MiG-23MF/MS/BNs were employed by Syria in 1982 during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon it is said that around 26 MiG-23 were shot down by the Israeli armed forces, the Syrians claimed their MiG-23MS/MFs shot down at least two F-4s and five F-16s. In June 1982 the Syrian air force lost six MiG-23MF, four MiG-23MS and sixteen MiG-23BN. However later that year in December 1982 the Syrians recieved more capable and advanced MiG-23MLs. The Syrians claimed that their MiG-23MLs on 4 October 1983 shot down three F-15s and one F-4 without sustaining a single MiG-23ML loss.
On June 9 two MiG-23MS manned by the Syrian pilots Ali and Tomi engaged a group of Israeli F-4 Phantoms, they brought down an F-4E using the well known AA-2 Atoll air to air missile, they fired R-3S and R-13Ms at the Israeli aircraft, however both pilots were brought down very likely by Israeli F-15s guided by E-2 Hawkeyes
This feat was repeated on 11 June 1982 when two MiG-23MS flown by the Syrian pilots Heyrat and Zabi shot down an Israeli F-4E using a pair of AA-2 Atolls basicly an R-13 and an R-3, however both MiG-23MS pilots were then shot down.
On 7 June 1982, three MiG-23MFs flown by the pilots Hallyak, Said, Merza engaged a formation of Israeli F-16s. Captain Merza detected the F-16s at a distance of 25 km and shot down two F-16s with R-23 missiles, one from a distance of 9 km, and another within the distance of 7 km or 8 km, before himself was shot down. On June 8, 1982, two MiG-23MFs again met with F-16s. Major Hau’s MiG-23 detected an F-16 at a distance of 21km and shot it down with an R-23 from a distance of 7km. Again, the Syrian pilot was himself shot down by an AIM-9 Sidewinder, fired from another F-16. On June 9 1982, two MiG-23MFs, piloted by Dib and Said, engaged a group of F-16s. Dib shot down an F-16 from a distance of 6km with an R-23, but was then shot down, most likely by a Sidewinder.
Later that day a pair of MiG-23MFs manned by the Syrian pilots Nahaz and Zeno, shot down an additional F-16, Nahaz detected the F-16 at the distance of 9 km and fired an AAM at the distance of 5 km however this time, Nahaz got involved in a dogfight with another F-16 and was shot down.
After detecting the MiG-23 formation, the Israeli E-2 Hawkeye operators did not vector the F -15s to intercept the MiG-23s but the lighter F -16s armed with short range AIM-9 Sidewinders.
The F-16 flew in groups of two aircraft flying at low altitude, these pairs were vectored out into the MiG-23s formations, then the first pair dispersed and attacked the MiG-23s from both flanks, threatening the MiG-23 formation with a stern attack (the method is known as “sandwich”). Only two unfavorable options were left out to the Syrians; one was to leave the battle and return to friendly airspace or engage the F-16s at close combat range where the F-16s surpass the MiG-23s in maneuverability. In the case of continuing with the interception of the Israeli fighter bombers echelons, it was basicly to continue under the threat of frontal attack by the F -15s armed with long range air to air missiles.
This tactic proved to be successful for the Israelies specially if proper jamming was applied, even despite the MiG-23s carried out successful attacks, the Saphir-23 radar had its practical range of detection reduced and the MiG-23s usually detected the F-16s from within the ranges of 25 to 9 km, it tracked the F-16s within the ranges of 21 to 7 km and fired air to air missiles at the F-16s from within the distances of 9 to 5 km, this was the main reason why four Syrian MiG-23 were shot down even after the Syrian pilots had already carried out successful attacks at the Israeli F-16s.
it seems Rocky the Russians never lied as many claim that is exactly what they claimed about the MiG-23 versus F-16 encounters in 1982, basicly both Mig-23s and F-16s killed each other as in the F-16 versus F-15s mock combat
MiG-23MLDPrices are to compare hardly. They differ considerably from production lots, customer and related package. Israel did evaluate the F-18C in Israel as replacement for the F-4 in the 90s. We have to know, that the F-15E was not allowed for Israel at first. Just similar built F-15D. The buy of F-15I did free the related technology and did allow Israel an upgrade program. Nearly all Israeli F-15A-D were reworked as close as possible to “F-15E standard” in the meanwhile. Sharing similar systems the IDF-AF was reduced to two basic fighters, the F-16 and F-15. After that, there was no need for further F-15I, when the F-16I is much cheaper to operate. The F-35 will replace both in the long run.
Sens
Going away from fan feelings, and being realistics, we have to consider that the purchase of a fighter aircraft will depend in two main factors, one is threat and the other is budget.
Israel bought F-15s because Syria and Egypt operated MiG-25s.
Canada, Australia, Finland, and other F-18 Hornets bought F-18s for different reasons among them economic and military.
Japan did buy F-15s because Japan is wealthy and needed something to beat anything the Soviet and Chinese could use against the JASDF.
Iran chose the F-14, this country had enough money to buy F-14s and the need to intercept MiG-25s too.
Now some minor European air forces could always count with USAF F-15s to suport them so buying light weight F-16s was deemed better
Now in 2007 since all american aircraft can use basicly the same weapons their capabilities are pretty much the same, however their prices and weapons load are not, buying an F-15 or an F-18E will depend in budget and military needs such as numbers needed, possible threats and previous experience with american fighters.
Alliances also do count, for example poland does not need f-15s when she can buy F-16s armed with pretty much the same air to air weapons.
MiG-23MLDAn ordinary inflation-rate of 3% per years will double a price in 24 years f.e.
A F-15A from 1976 is 26 Mio. $
A F-15A from 2000 is 52 Mio. $, when still built as that basic F-15A.
What price was fetched for a F/A-18E in 2000?!The F-15I is a different strike-fighter, when it comes to performance.
When someone compare something, he has to know the facts.
The higher numbers built, the F-16 fared even better. Maybe that the executive had that in mind.
For MiG-29s/Su-27s the prices are much lower, because most of the related development cost, where paid by the Russian tax-payer before 1990. So its builder are not forced to demand true market-prices.
General Characteristics, Super Hornet, E and F models
Primary Function: Multi-role attack and fighter aircraft.
Contractor: McDonnell Douglas.
Date Deployed: First flight in November 1995. Initial Operational Capability (IOC) in September 2001 with VFA-115, NAS Lemoore, Calif. First cruise for VFA-115 is onboard the USS Abraham Lincoln.
Unit Cost: $57 million
Propulsion: Two F414-GE-400 turbofan engines. 22,000 pounds (9,977 kg) static thrust per engine.
Length: 60.3 feet (18.5 meters).
Height: 16 feet (4.87 meters).
Wingspan: 44.9 feet (13.68 meters).
Weight: Maximum Take Off Gross Weight is 66,000 pounds (29,932 kg).
Airspeed: Mach 1.8+.
Ceiling: 50,000+ feet.
Range: Combat: 1,275 nautical miles (2,346 kilometers), clean plus two AIM-9s
Ferry: 1,660 nautical miles (3,054 kilometers), two AIM-9s, three 480 gallon tanks retained.
Crew: A, C and E models: One
B, D and F models: Two.
Armament: One M61A1/A2 Vulcan 20mm cannon; AIM 9 Sidewinder, AIM-9X (projected), AIM 7 Sparrow, AIM-120 AMRAAM, Harpoon, Harm, SLAM, SLAM-ER (projected), Maverick missiles; Joint Stand-Off Weapon (JSOW); Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM); Data Link Pod; Paveway Laser Guided Bomb; various general purpose bombs, mines and rockets. See the F/A-18 weapons load-out page.
General Characteristics, C and D models
Primary Function: Multi-role attack and fighter aircraft.
Contractor: Prime: McDonnell Douglas; Major Subcontractor: Northrop.
Date Deployed: November 1978. Operational – October 1983 (A/B models); September 1987 (C/D models).
Unit Cost: $29 million.
Propulsion: Two F404-GE-402 enhanced performance turbofan engines. 17,700 pounds static thrust per engine.
Length: 56 feet (16.8 meters).
Height: 15 feet 4 inches (4.6 meters).
Wingspan: 40 feet 5 inches (13.5 meters).
Weight: Maximum Take Off Gross Weight is 51,900 pounds (23,537 kg).
Airspeed: Mach 1.7+.
Ceiling: 50,000+ feet.
Range: Combat: 1,089 nautical miles (1252.4 miles/2,003 km), clean plus two AIM-9s
Ferry: 1,546 nautical miles (1777.9 miles/2,844 km), two AIM-9s plus three 330 gallon tanks.
Crew: A, C and E models: One
B, D and F models: Two
Armament: One M61A1/A2 Vulcan 20mm cannon; AIM 9 Sidewinder, AIM 7 Sparrow, AIM-120 AMRAAM, Harpoon, Harm, SLAM, SLAM-ER, Maverick missiles; Joint Stand-Off Weapon (JSOW); Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM); various general purpose bombs, mines and rockets. See the F/A-18 weapons load-out page.
Last Update: 13 October 2006
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=1100&tid=1200&ct=1
see
F-18C costed merely USD $ 29 millions and the F-18E USD $57 millions yeah see that Israel paid 80 million for the F-15I and now you can get cheaper F-18Es even for USD 49 million dollars😉
Boeing is offering the Navy what one Pentagon source calls a “tempting” deal for an all-time-low flyaway price of $49.9 million for new F/A-18E/F Super Hornets. The cost is guaranteed for a third multi-year buy of 170 aircraft, but this is nearly double the Navy’s stated commitment for 92 more. Still, the deal “is going to be pretty tough for the Navy to turn down,” says
Sign In
