SchorschDo you have any data on the Gripen? I read once somewhere that it wasn’t much different than the F-16. I also have to think that such a small aircraft would have a less powerful radar than the F-16.
What disadvantage would that bring?
How often do F-16 fight alone and in the dark?
In real war times nobody would switch on his radar anyways, as he gets detected before he can detect. They would switch on their radar when they are in range of their BVR missiles to calculate a firing solution. And I guess both aircraft’s radars exceed the range of their missiles (which are the same).
Schorsch[…] however all the data i have seen from you does not show the F-4 will take less time at the same altitude and speed, therefore i consider your data inconclusive to say the least, and i still regard your statemenst as unproven, however you should post the F-4 manual where it says it will take less time, from the data you have given it seems it has a lower turn rate and a bigger turn radius since at 6096 meters it has a turn rate of 6 deg/s and at 3047 meters 11.5 deg/s
For other people’s benefit: I have quoted sustained turn rate of F-4F, while the values of the MiG-23ML show instantaneous. I could show that the MiG-23ML has 1-2G less sustained load factor by using the aerodynamic and thrust data from the given document, maybe I do it later (I refrain from investing time to get in prolonged foolish arguments with ignorant users).
SchorschThe B52 has had a number of upgrades in it’s life including the SLEP program which was a very in-depth rebuild.
The F15 could have failed for a number of reasons and the remedy could very simple. Time will tell.
Totally agree.
Whoa, trotting out the worn out cliche of “well we’ve used the B-52 forever”. . .well so much for your credibility. The F-15 is not a bomber.
The question is if the life time limited parts can be replaced or strengthened, or at least somehow monitored. In the end it could be a singular occurrence.
The original lifetime tag of an aircraft is based on many many assumptions. With very high scatter in operational use, some airframes might see 2020, when other are worn out today. In the end definitely no layman issue, so hard to grasp for the usual Mach2 fighter fan-mania.
SchorschPlease forgive me some error, the text is translated by Google. My English is not so good. 😀
I guess Ilya Morozov will be delighted to see his photograph on this forum.
SchorschI think that the AIM-120 was given BVR capability with the expectation that it would be used.
With arrival of active radar homing missiles the word BVR really gained importance in that role. Before it was often too unflexible. 1960s BVR differs significantly from 1980s BVR.
Well, think of it this way: Each fighter takes off at the same time, and their bases are far enough apart that each has plenty of time to reach whatever speed and altitude they want before they meet each other.
Then I choose a MiG-21 over an F-4D.
Fly low so he can’t use his radar.
SchorschIt justifies the cost of the fighter, and the F-4 is a better fighter for other reasons. I tried to keep cost out of this thread… :rolleyes:
“In Vietnam, the AIM-7 had a success rate of about 9%.”
– Fighter Wing, by Tom Clancy, c 1995“Between May 1972 and January 1973 100 Sidewinder missiles were launched by US Air Force aircraft at North Vietnamese MiGs, ten of which were shot down. In the same period 216 Sparrow missiles were launched and 23 aircraft shot down.”
– The Linebacker Raids, by John T. Smith, c 1998That isn’t a huge difference. I also know that sometimes more than one Sparrow was fired at the target, and both Sparrows hit. That lowers the kill rate, while showing the reliability wasn’t so terrible. And note that more than twice as many MiGs got shot down, by the USAF, with the Sparrow as the Sidewinder. Obviously the pilots had a choice of which missile to fire, and they selected the AIM-7 more often. Range and aspect must have been a factor in the decision.
“inadequate air combat training, and preemptive firing of many missiles outside their envelopes contributed to the low missile launch-to-kill ratio.”
– Air warfare in the missile age, by Lon O. Nordeen, Jr., c 1985
See it from the engineering perspective: a weapon system that adds roughly 1.5-2 tons of direct weight (4x Sparrow, 1x Radar, Equipment, 2nd Guy) to your operating empty weight, by that seizing the whole aircraft, has scored not the majority of kills, no, it has scored a small fraction. The other systems that added less weight (4x Sidewinder plus dedicated electronics weight ~500kg) is more effective, less costly, requires less training.
The Israelis for example hardly used the Sparrow. The Germans skipped them from the beginning.
I have difficulties of calling a design great that showed flawed requirements for air superiority (from navy mainly, the air force wanted a gun initially), inadequate performance superiority over much simpler designs (MiG-21F) and had a heavy but very poor weapon system.
Differet thing with the slatted F-4E. But the F-4B/C/D were mediocre air superiority aircraft and lacked many key design features of such an aircraft, while other aircraft had these. And as I outlined: the slatted F-4E and F-4F were the best western aircraft for the job until arrival of the F-15, and were basically superior to all eastern designs in that era (MiG-21 and -23). They still were costly.
Interestingly most national air forces shared my opinion: most export customers chose the F-4E or derivatives.
My personal list before arrival of the slatted F-4E rather favors candidates like the F-5A/E, the MiG-21 (misses some features, especially endurance in weapons and range/time) or the Mirage III. Different battlefield requirements will favor different aircraft designs.
I also miss the F-16 in your list: it is the best fighter of the 1980s. Over a potential battlefield in Europe it would bring terror to most adversaries.
SchorschSo its a post-merge dogfight?
It is a fight according to the phantasies of USAF generals in the 1960s. Vietnam proved the pretty much had no idea, although Vietnam was in many ways favorable for the USAF (unlimited resources, relative superiority, initiative).
SchorschThe F-4 has more range and a bigger bombload and a far better radar. It can do things that the Mirage can’t. And if you are flying off of a carrier, you can only park so many jets on the deck. And a Mirage can’t fly off of a carrier.
So in case of a dogfight or WVR engagement, what does bombload, range or carrier suitability give you? In visual combat the radar, arrestor hook and wet wingpoints are dead weight on a Phantom. Sparrows made two BVR kills in Vietnam, the rest was WVR. If they hadn’t had the Sparrow, they had used other missiles. The Sparrow had a kill ratio below 5%. The fact they used doesn’t make it irreplacable. 5% means that if five Phantoms go into combat against 5 Mirage, and they all use their entire load of Sparrows (20 in total), one would score a hit (19 not). The expended missiles roughly make the price of one Mirage.
Without regard of the cost the comparison suits American designs. If you consider costs, American designs always lose, with exception of the F-5 and F-16.
In reality, cost does have an impact and overall numbers do count more than technology. Boyd is right. Your list is flawed.
SchorschF-4 vs Mirage, head to head, 1v1, pilots of equal ability, which jet will be the most likely to be shot down?
Version, rules of engagement, available weapons?
WVR battle with guns and rear-aspect IR-AAM (result of typical RoE at that time) with F-4C against Mirage III, I would guess equal if not advantage of Mirage III.
If we say equal amount of USD worth of aircraft costs, it will be 2.5 Mriage vs 1 Phantom, if we say equal operational&training costs we have probably more like a 3 Mirage vs 1 Phantom.
Your are taking the single aircraft as the base, but that is flawed. Most pilots of the 1960s would trade in their radar or BVR weapons for a wing man 95% of the time.
SchorschMan nice way saying it is mediocre to say that if at 3046 meters is 11.5deg/sec and at 6096 meters is 6 deg/sec you can not expect the F-4 will hold more than 10 degrees/second at 5000 meters as you affirm, it seems your F-4 at 5000 meters must bleed energy fast, by the way the Russian experts already have said thet F-4 was not match for the MiG-23 at some heights and altitudes and with this data you give me i am sure it is not
Hmm, Western experts said the exact opposite.
I checked the numbers and did the math.
Turned out, Western experts are right.
I invested some time in the hope you may be able to understand. I see that you are not able to understand. I will invest no further time. I hope others have gained somehow, cause otherwise the time is not only lost but also wasted.
SchorschYou know still if the MiG-23 turns at 45 deg swept the F-4F at 6000 meters and 900km/h the 6 deg/s is still lower than the 36 sec it takes it to turn a 360 deg turn with an average turn of 10deg/sec
No, because both aircraft will reach ~7 G and hence have equal instantaneous turn rates. But the F-4F will lose energy much slower. In case of a turning fight the F-4F pilot will have all trumps in his hand after a short time.
man relax that thinking of i am the expert you are the inept is called soberby, i did acknowledge i made a mistake i mixed two altitudes, you are right at 5000 feet and 900km/h it will take for the MiG-23ML close to 36 sec with an average turn of 10 deg/sec.
You didn’t mix the altitudes, but you are simply ignoring the very intuitive graph at hand, giving us speed and time over degrees of turn, for 2 altitudes (5km, 10km) and 2 wing positions (45°, 72°) with maximum afterburner. I always thought you were the one that can read Russian. :rolleyes:
The results are exactly as I stated above.
now no one says the F-4 is better if it has an average turn at 6096 meters a turn rate of 6 deg/sec not exactly a very good one considering it has 11.5 deg/s at 3046 meters so at half of the altitude the F-4 is not the best fighter turning either as you claimed
No, it is not the best. But it is much better than the MiG-23ML and even more than the MiG-23M (which has less thrust and more weight). Remember that F-4F and -23M came out of the factory at the same time, actually the -23ML wasn’t introduced after the last F-4F was delivered.
As I said initially, the F-4F enjoys a 1-2g advantage over the -23ML at most relevant speeds and altitudes.
P.S.: You don’t need to answer if you have nothing to say. 😉
SchorschHopefully those in charge will have the two brain cells required to realize that trying to band-aid an aircraft who’s airframe is worn out while at the same time starting the process of shutting down it’s replacement’s production line is a pretty damn dumb idea.
You mean like with the B-52?
Structural failure can happen due to overall fatigue (meaning several structural parts are fatigued) or potentially only one key element is fatigued, possibly due to wrong design or due to other problems. There is no rule of thumb like you indicate.
Schorschwho said in that configuration the MiG-23ML will turn like that, the wing is at 45 deg not 72 basicly you are cheating the turn i am talking about is when the wing is swept at 45 deg
You are obviously unable to interpret the graph given:
At 45° sweep and 900 km/h initial indicated airspeed at 5000m with maximum power the aircraft will turn 360° in 36 seconds, giving it an average instantaneous turn rate of 10deg/sec. At the end it has lost 410 km/h indicated airspeed.
If one looks closer he sees that at 45°/5000m the MiG turns 66° in 5 seconds, giving it an initial instantaneous turn rate of 13-14 deg/sec. While for the last 66° (270->360) it needs roughly 9 seconds, so a rate of 7-8 deg/sec.
Basically everyone can see that one quick turn burns all energy. In 5000m (=16400ft) and 900km/h (486KIAS, ~620KTAS, ~M0.88) the MiG-23ML makes one full turn and is slow like a duck. Once again shows that a MiG-23 driver should not get involved in a turning fight but rather look for hit&run and vertical maneuvers. Interestingly the only person that carries the name of that aircraft doesn’t know that.
Schorschwell the aerodynamic data from the MiG-23M manual?
I have the MiG-23ML manual and i can assure you at 900km/h and at 5000 meters of altitude the averge MiG-23ML will turn better than the F-4 because the F-4 has a 13.5 deg/s instantaneous turn rate and a MiG-23 will turn 360 deg in only 23 seconds calculate the rate of a turn will give an average of 15.6 deg/sWhat i have read says the F-4E can not out turn a MiG-23M at speeds of 800km/h and 1100km/h at low and medium altitudes
I said MiG-23ML. So we have the same document. You even helped me translate some passages back then.
Your statement however is unprecise as always. You first forgot to mention the speed/altitude/weight of the F-4, secondly the version and finally the configuration.
Let me show you like experts do it:
From page 251 of the -23ML manual you’ll see that with wing sweep 72° it turns 180° in ~19 seconds at 5000m, starting at 900km/h indicated airspeed and being at 500km/h when the half-turn is finished. Hence, it has bleeded about 70% of its kinetic energy. The instantaneous turn rate is 180°/18sec = 10 deg/sec. This is with maximum thrust.
The F-4F with full internal fuel and without external load at maximum thrust at 500KIAS (roughly 900km/h) will have 6.5 deg/sec@20000ft and 11.5deg/sec@10000ft sustained turn rate.
Please behave more expert-like in future posts.
SchorschAnd where you can prove that the sources i have mentioned are wrong, do you have real manuals to prove it?
Schorsch it is very easy to claim it has better sustained turn rate or even that the MiG-23M won`t pull its max corner velocity at 8Gs, however what i have read in other sources say thet F-4E was not better at 800-1000km and only beyond those speeds was better.
Yes, I have the manual of the F-4F and the aerodynamic data of the MiG-23ML, so I can make the numbers myself. Anyways, the MiG-23 loses energy at a very fast rate in both combat configurations when pulling higher load factors.
Additionally, to increase your credibility, you should not use terms like “800-1000km”, as these are distances. You surely mean speed, but if you mean indicated airspeed or true airspeed (=Mach number) remains unknown. Do you know yourself?
Sign In
