SchorschThe MiG-23 was created to match the F-4 Phantom, or so I have been told and the Russians were of the opinion that the MiG-23MLD in particular succeeded and even surpassed the F-4.
Quite an achievement considering that the F-4 was flying for 20 years when the MiG-23MLD went into service. The MiG-23 wasn’t aimed the F-4 in maneuvering performance but in the ability to fire medium range forward aspect missiles. At the same time no consideration was given to independent use of weapons, but for better deployability from forward airfields. I hardly see any direct pitch versus the F-4. In my opinion the MiG-23 was build to intercept F-104s, F-105s and other NATO fighter bombers.
Having both seen others compare the MiG-23/F-4 and having compared them myself it seems to me the biggest mistake of the MiG-23 designers was to make the MiG-23 a single seater. This generation of fighters with BVR, or should one say BVR-ish capability really benefited from having a pilot and a RIO/WSO or just plain somebody at all to share the workload. If, in the case of the MiG-23, the GCI officer to some extent plaid the part the WSO would have played in the Phantom this would have lessened the effect of dispensing with the WSO on the MiG-23. Without the GCI support the MiG-23 was at a disadvantage compared to the F-4 which at least had the second crew member actually onboard and not on the other end of a radio link.
Especially in a reasonably chaotic visual range combat the lack of a second guy would become painful in additional losses. Putting a guy with 80 hrs/year flying experience, mostly gained by repetitive interception drills, in a clumsy cockpit with miserable view and not-dogfight weapons, then pitching him against an opponent with double experience and actual view of the outside world, is guaranteed disaster.
According to a Russian report published in AFM 10/2003 (IMHO this article is recommended reading on the MiG-23) even the MiG-23MLD was considered “… definitely inferior to the McDonnell Douglas F-15A and the General Dynamics F-16A”. The MLD variant was also the only MiG-23 variant the Russians considered to have any reasonable chance of surviving an encounter with the F-15/16. I’m assuming this realisation was the single most powerful motivator that spurred the Russians on in the decision to develop the MiG-29 and the Su-27.
While many disadvantages not are caused by the airframe or the engine, but by specific design decision and weaponary. A MiG-29 with the MiG-23s disadvantages (clumsy cockpit, bad weaponary, bad view, low SA) would fall short of its airframe and engine potential. The whole point is, it doesn’t really matter how much degrees per second the nose can make at 10000m in sustained turn conditions.
SchorschIf you have used the MiG-23ML you do know there is not G turn rate graph and no graph where yo can know the exact turn. If you know the MiG-23ML graphs and manual you know the MiG-23 can do 7.5Gs in level flight and as overG has shown you the max overload at max afterburner so there is no need to make a secondary graph as you`ve done.
Max G-Load depends on gross weight, and the manual uses quite low flying weights. Additionally, it doesn’t use Mach number but indicated airspeed, which becomes quickly misleading.
Also the graph in the manual are not linear what holds in one speed does not necesarilly repeats it self in another wing sweep.
The results for other wing sweeps are worse. In case of foward swept strict Mach and airspeed limits apply (so that it would only be useful up to M0.55 at 1000m altitude), and the 72° position makes sense from M.95 (or high airspeeds) onwards in level flight and M1.3 for maneuvering flight.
You did a good job trying to make the graph but definitively your data does not come from the manual but from your own assertions which can be true or not but which can not be used as a complete autyhority in fact if you use the turn radius graph of the MiG-23 manual you will know the MiG-23 is not inferior to the F-4 and as the MiG-23MLD combat manual says it has some superiority at higher speeds and heights.
It does. The only thing I used a better computer! :diablo:
You talk about minimal differences and at the same time say “F-4” as if there were only one type. Which version is exactly where superior to which version of the other type?
F-4F versus MiG-23M: no chance for the MiG
F-4B versus MiG-23MLD: advantages for the MiG
Also if you get the MiG-23MLD combat manual you will know the MiG-23 uses against early F-15s the beaming maneuvre blinding the early F-15s radars
read it http://krilebg.net/main/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12&Itemid=34
It is not russian but bulgarian but it shows you things are not linear the F-16 had advantages in radar but not all the time and the same applies for weapons
My proficiency of Bulgarian is still in its infancy.
However, the graphs do not really look encouraging, looks more like a day spent at the local pub to be more promising.
My point the whole time is not the maximum range of the radar, a point much too overstressed, but the necessary effort to get good situational awareness via a radar (and the remaining time to do basic defensive duties).
Just have a look at this one:
http://www.habu2.net/vipers/viperpits/block05.front.jpg
The APG-66 was computer controlled multi mode radar, offering the pilot so much more information, even though the maximum range at altitude was limited (while the first indication of a Flogger normally would be the RWR screaming).
SchorschSo I guess since your piece of paper says different the flight didn’t happen eh? :rolleyes: The piece of paper that shipped with my processor says “2.4Ghz” but what do ya know, it’s happily running at 3.0Ghz. I guess that’s unpossible too huh? Discussion finished.
Crap.
Everything can be operated outside its limitations for a while.
In case you are doing that with aircraft the problem is you might find yourself writing letters to widows a few more often.
If operated at great weather by above average pilots many things are possible.
Limitations are imposed so that it works under military conditions.
I am surprised you don’t know that and use the sunshine values of record flight for your arguing.
Schorsch“1,220 n. mile mission at an
average speed of 610 knots at a sustained altitude
of 500′ or less”
I have the official flight manual.
It says 600 KEAS or M.92 at SL.
Discussion finished.
Schorsch[…]
Very refreshing and interesting to read.
Thanks for it.
SchorschSchorsch, please check the graphic im posting, im not in the mood to teach you how must be read the diagram, was enough with Sens…
Would be difficult if you don’t really get it yourself.
A good starter for you would be a feet-meter conversion factor and an idea how much … km/h indicated airspeed is as Mach number. Then you both posted graph easily show that you disproving yourself with the very graphs you posted (the MiG-23 makes 7g where the F-16 makes 9+).
“Transonic Close Combat” was never ever a real practical strategy, that term just popped up as an “alernative” -not even a real one btw- when the f-16’s were defeated by mig-29’s in germany, the drag rise in transonic regime is too high, and keeping overcoming it with full high bypass AB is simply stupid, late edited, i know…but still my last post 🙂
Funnily the F-16 has a advantage especially for transonic Mach numbers, with disadvantages in lower speed regions and the very high speed regions.
Transonic close combat was exactly the name of the game, and the F-16 can stay transonic while maneuvering.
Anyway, this is my last post
Good news at last!
SchorschMiG-23 can also employ IR versions of R-23/R-24 which provide some fire and forget capability against head-on targets at ranges under 12km. Also, radar guided R-23/24 have ranges significantly greater than AIM-9L/M, so it seems dubious that F-16A pilot under attack would continue to fly head-on, not initiating any defensive maneuvering, waiting for the Sidewinder to lock-on.
F-16 are equipped with RWR and as soon as the pilot had a lock on him he would break the radar contact. Flying high versus a low flying target the performance of the radar is decreased, even if it has look-down capability. Assisted by some maneuvering plus jammers or chaff, the chance is high the MiG-23 fires its missiles with no effect.
The whole target acquisition, lock and firing needs time, time in which the pilot hardly has any time reserves for his own defense. Flying straight and predictable even half a minute in a target rich environment, with many bogeys around and your radar blindly locked onto a single target, I wouldn’t consider that a good idea.
So, the medium range missiles of the MiG-23 are basically dead weight in a fighter versus fighter engagement, if it is not done in a strict ground-controlled intercept. When fighting F-4, F-5, Draaken, Starfighter or F-16 (or whatever it had to expect in the 1970ies and early 1980ies) the MiG-23 is down to point and shoot.
SchorschYes, apparently gust response depends not only on wing loading but also on the wing’s lift curve. Deltas have relatively flat lift curves (compared to say a “straight winged” F-4/F-16/F-18/F-15), meaning that turbulence induced changes in angles of attack don’t affect the wing’s lift much. That helps to explain why deltas aren’t always poor low level rides despite their low wing loading.
For example, the English Electric Lightning’s quasi-delta wing was chosen precisely because it offered the best combination of low altitude performance (flat lift curve) and high altitude performance (low wing-loading, high sweep). Quite an achievement…
Gust response is a function of
– lift curve slope
– wing loading
– flexibility of the structure
Another issue for those aircraft were static margin and dutch role damping. If those are low the control effort is high, especially in low level. No problem for an aircraft like the Tornado, of course, thanks to stability augmentation systems.
Spey Mirage IV vs. F-111A
– Better lower level performance: 50% larger bomb-load for supersonic low-level penetration
– Better high altitude performance: Mach 2.5 & 20,000m ceiling vs. Mach 2.2 & 17,500m
– Longer ferry range: 5,500km vs. 5,100km
– Much easier maintenance & more reliable engines
– 33% cheaper: 2.2-2.7MM GBP vs. 3.0-3.7MM GBP
I call that mostly crap!
First: supersonic low-level penetration never was an issue. Fuel burn is excessive, I think the delta Mirage would have quite a problem getting through the barrier.
Second: better high altitude performance … no one cares.
Third: longer ferry range, who do I have a hard time to believe that a delta wing can beat the swing wing F-111 which carries up to 6 external fuel tanks and has higher bypass turbo-fans?
Fourth: probably, while a large proportion of the F-111’s maintenance pain was due to analogue/digital electronic mix, and the French didn’t have an better in the earl 1960ies.
Fifth: that is possibly true, the F-111 was very expensive.
I’m surprised you don’t include the swing wing design in the weakness list.
1. Higher weight
2. Higher cost
3. More maintenance.
And the strong point: successfully operating in and out of a 6000ft runway with reasonable payload, something the Mirage IV would not achieve.
Of course, not an issue for training missions, but in real war it might make the difference between your bombers being assets or just targets.
And I would like to counter the claim the B-58 was a great low level performer. It wasn’t. It was limited to 600 KIAS and less than M.95 at low level. It might do the job, but it is not destined for it. Records are nice, but tell nothing about true capability. Convair would have liked to sell another 500 to the USAF as low level bombers, interceptors or supersonic search & rescue aircraft, and the USAF would have liked to get funds for it. But they didn’t get them.
The B-58 was replaced by the FB-111.
Schorschhttp://www.amazon.de/gp/product/images/3613028476/ref=dp_image_0?ie=UTF8&n=299956&s=books
In Germany that are kept in the same quality.
I used to get that one each year, until I noticed that the book was full of errors and not truly a source of information, neither for civil or military aircraft (some strong points were small less noticed designs).
I think the time of the “reference book” is over since we have the internet.
Length, weights and key date are accurate in Wikipedia, too.
SchorschThe only definition I was referring to was “above Mach 1 without afterburner”. Interesting thing is Grumman’s G-107 entry to the LRI competition back in the day was (in theory obviously) good for Mach 1.26 without afterburner but that fact was paid no particular attention in the final outcome and in fact it placed LAST out of the seven companies offering designs.
Although Mach .99 doesn’t sound as cool as M1.02, it aerodynamically isn’t the decisive mark. Interesting is if the aircraft can cruise behind its drag peak without reheat (the Gripen with M1.2ish doesn’t actually do that).
First aircraft able to do that was the Concorde to my knowledge, while this aircraft was tailored for it.
SchorschI actually agree with what you’re saying 100% but i was merely point out it was quite cheap and i should add very cheap considering the capabilities it offered (the 117 that is).
If you factor in the years and years of research, it wasn’t cheap. As it went black most of the time (Area 51), the real numbers are not easy to get.
The presented 50 Million per copy should be taken with a grain of salt.
SchorschAt the 0.7mach speed-before getting into transonic- the mig can do at 5000 m 4.5gs, the f-16 more less the same, the f-4f arround 3.5-4 gs, the f-4e was less capable
And if i recall well the 23 (WP) radar was better than the one fitted on the f-4e and mirage f1
Read the graphs correctly, I cannot spoon-fed it any more.
The MiG-23 has a full G less, and that is with the wings swept backward!
And: who cares about Mach 0.7?
SchorschIf I had to guess I’d say it was the F-104, B-58, or the Lightning.
None of all above, at least not really.
The Lightning, maybe, but not truly useful.
The drag peak is somewhere between M1 and M1.2, more to 1.2 for highly swept aircraft. So, technically some aircraft have been able to cruise at M1.08 or so. But that is entirely academic.
Why is everybody so hyped about supercruise?
The inventors of “supercruise” consider it not really necessary, or really essential.
SchorschDoesnt LMA say that their F-16IN is the best for the MRCA competition ? Why even bother with the other bids , obviously because they say so it must be!!
Does Lockheed-Martin also make weather forecasts and predict lottery numbers?
The company obviously is able of supertruthing.
SchorschThe F-117 was very cheap too from what I understand.
It was affordable program-wise. But that did not include large upfront costs for research and development, which took the better part of one decade.
Also, the F-117 profited from many off-the-shelf components, especially engine, equipment and avionics. All stuff unavailable for the Iranians.
Finally, the F-117 is not survivable versus reasonably modern and integrated air defense.
So, developing an F-117 like aircraft may be a nice achievement, but entirely wasted effort if Iran is not about to take one Pakistan.
To take on the USA or even Saudi Arabia (which is supplied with western tech), they must close such a huge technology gap, that the upfront investment is too high. So the government, notoriously short of cash, will stuff the idea and rather put resources into propaganda to fool some of the more simply minded people, who think that some Harvard-graduates can put together a stealthy aircraft.
flex297 and some others are successfully convinced.
Sign In
