SchorschIn the pic you can compare, when a F-16A and a Flogger iniated a turn at 33000 feet and Mach 1,2. We keep in mind that the Flogger is at 45° already.
As über-G correctly remarked, it is an F-16 versus the F-4E.
While, as you say, the F-4E is in many respects comparable to the MiG-23 in terms of flight performance. I would consider the F-4 to be a better sustained turner, though.
F-4F with 4 AIM-9, at 20t gross weight.
[ATTACH]169057[/ATTACH]
SchorschEscape and return, i think you dont understand very well that issue…
Teen fighters (including the F-15) had problems against fast fighters (like the f-104/f-106, and mig23)
To win the 23 must start at 15000 mts, dive over the F-16/15s , launch missiles, climb again, an old aerial combat tactic since the WW1, speed and height determine where you start the combat , which most of the time determine who wins
The first thing that comes in aerial combat is the interception, aerial combat can or not turn in close combat, but aerial combat cant start without the interception
That is the reason of the whole F-22/ATF program, the teen fighters lost that advntage in the 70’s 80’s
Other than the f-16 was not that spectacular, at 5000 m it just was able to reach 4-5 gs sustained with sidewinders, while the 23 was able to reach 4.5 gs with their big missiles, at 1000 m the f-16 was the killer, for sure
An F-16 and especially an F-15 have much better radars and without too much attention by the pilot would spot such a target. If briefed correctly, a pilot would identify such threat and either disengage or get himself into a better position.
The MiG-23 has a real problem identifying a target versus the ground.
An F-15 would make an AIM-7 snapshot, while the MiG-23 cannot engage as long as the F-15 is lower as itself.
What were the limitations imposed on MiG-23 with wing setting of 16 degrees? I’ve read that experienced pilots used 33 degree setting on MiG-23MLD for air combat, so it is interesting to find out if pilots of earlier versions used settings other than 45 degrees. Thanks.
Limit Mach number: 0.8.
Limit airspeed: 400ish kts.
Not useful for aerial combat.
G-restrictions applied, too.
By the way: I see a distinct advantage of the F-16.
Note that the graphs in the MiG-23ML manual use notoriously low fuel fraction. “My”* MiG-23 has slightly less G at 5000m, but within 10%ish.
[ATTACH]169055[/ATTACH]
[sudden jumps in the curve are caused by the aerodynamic submodule allowance to use “best config”]
And the F-16.
[ATTACH]169056[/ATTACH]
*My MiG-23ML is entirely based on the aero manual, including the engine (which by the way is probably the more important content of that document).
SchorschThe f-111 was the first aircraft to supercruise( though in clean Configuration). don’t forget the f-111 has a internal weapons bay able to carry two 2000lb bombs.
Wishful thinking.
having talked to pilots fly F-111c’s out of amberley say she has no problems flying at supersonic speeds, only limited by the sonic boom near populations
The F-111 can fly supersonic. No doubt.
But it cannot supercruise.
And a close look at the intended mission will show that such ability would have been a total hilarious stupidity parade by General Dynamics.
Please people, write less non sense and do not read Carlo Kopp!
SchorschI would stand by the broad brush generalisation that in a close in fight, 1 vs 1, RAF, 1970s, the F-4 effectively stood no chance against the Lightning.
This was borne out again and again and again on exercises.
Of course dumb luck could intervene (an RAF Jaguar downed a Rafale before the type retired), and Tornado F.Mk 3s have taken out F-16s on occasion. But such results are so unrepresentative as to be irrelevant. And Phantom FGR2 versus Lightning F6 was a similarly unbalanced match, in the close in arena.
The F-4’s many strengths were irrelevant in this area.
(Even TWU Hunters on point defence used to regularly trounce the F-4 in close in fighting, though the F-4 could always use its massive thrust to disengage).
After reading all these accounts it seems clear the F-4 (RAF) was indeed no real match for the Lightning under given conditions in given time frame. A key issue seems to be the relative difference in ACM training.
Another is the fact that the RAF F-4 misses two key improvements dogfight-wise the F-4E got: gun and enlarged slats.
I would say versus an F-4F the Lightning has a much harder task (always: visual range dogfight).
SchorschThe MiG-23M/MF/ML/MLD, when engaged in combat versus the F-16, needs to stick to hit and run tactics. A smart pilot will either seek this or get the hell out of there. The MiG-23 cannot claim much advantage, but one is surely that is has a good chance to escape a fight by firewalling the throttle, putting the wings back and trade some altitude for speed. So it easily do M1.5 on medium altitudes and escape an F-16.
The lack of MR-AAM armament here becomes apparent for the F-16, as it cannot follow and engage the MiG as soon as it got a few miles of distance (that is: a well flown tail escape maneuver, possibly done with a split-S).
Problematic for the MiG-23 is the high dependence on external sensors due to lack of situational awareness (an F-16A can track-while-scan), and of course the Type VIIC like view from a MiG-23.
Taking the whole scenario into low altitude high-threat and heavy jamming arena with many aircraft (=Middle Europe scenario), the MiG-23 rapidly loses ground. Such scenario was given in 1982, and I guess the Soviets really got a headache what would happen when their squadrons with MiG-23s suddenly are confronted with all-aspect IR-AAM equipped F-16A at low to medium altitudes.
Conclusion: MiG-23 has big problem being offensive versus the F-16 (or F-15, even F-4E), thus it is useless in winning air superiority.
The whole point of the MiG-23 was to supply front-line squadrons with an all-aspect engage capability (something in the early 1960ies only few Soviet aircraft possessed). The M introduced the ability to find an opponent at low altitudes and possibly engage him, limited of course by the single man crew.
SchorschSo you’re on the “The F-35 will be better than PAK-FA or J-XX will be” bandwagon eh? 😉
The F-35 will be at least, something the other “designs” can’t claim.
SchorschI generally agree with that which is why I wrote ‘BVR’ and not BVR. Additionally many of the Iraqi MiG-23 WVR victories were scored by the MiG-23MS basic export variant. which apparently didn’t carry the R-23/24. One gets the feeling the Iraqis used the R-23/24 similarly to the way the F-4 used the Sparrow in Vietnam which seems to have been mostly as a radar guided WVR weapon. Unfortunately the Iran-Iraq war engagements using the R-23/24 weren’t of a magnitude to allow us to judge the weapons effectiveness and I am to lazy to rifle through Tom’s book trying to analyse the few R-23/24 victories there were. You made a good point about the one-man BVR UI. If the early MiG-29 variants had a lousy one-man BVR UI I doubt the MiG-23 had one several years earlier.
In Vietnam the Sparrow failed so miserably because
And the same is probably true for the MiG-23. I guess – just from my stereotypic view of the Soviet Union 😉 – that the R-23 was even more a princess when it came to out-of-envelope engagements.
And, yes, many MiG-23 were of the version MS, the combination of the shortcomings of the MiG-21 and the MiG-23.
(The MiG-23MS reminds me of Windows ME).
And that should be one main reason: when the Iraqis had better 23s, the Iranians hardly pressed the attack into Iraqi air space. The first 23MF appears end of 1982 in the list.
SchorschYou think any design outside of the US is with out foreign help?
Sure. The USA does not have a monopoly on the technologies necessary to built a high performance fighter, it does have the lead in many areas (avionics, engines), and it clearly has a monopoly on applied stealth.
The question for many nations is rather “buy or make”.
And for some nations the BUY-option isn’t available, so they either have to MAKE or trash the idea in general.
Like Iran and the fighter.
In a comparison of necessary funds compared to added political benefit, a squadron of modern fighters does not compare that well to an improved Scud missile with a primitive but working nuclear warhead.
SchorschIn the meanwhile the USA had learned, that the military world had changed in general and that there is no longer something in need like the F-22. The Europeans have transformed their air-superiority fighters into strikers, when the F-22 failed to do so with the FA-22B. The F-35 is more than enough for the future needs. The most important message from that is, there is no longer some need in “supercruising”, when stealth is still important, despite the high costs and limitations from that.
Or to make it short: the time of high performance fighters is generally over, as the chance of being involved in a conflict with such adversaries is small, and even if the chance of killing the enemy air force by other means is high.
SchorschI think this goes to emphasizes the fact that with the like of Syria, you can have all the money in the world to purchase some of the latest Soviet/Russian military technology (as Syria was quite often used to test Soviet technology and doctrine in the 1960-1990’s), but it another thing being able to both operate them and utilize them to their true capability.
I always thought it some what odd, that if the Soviet’s wanted to promote their latest hardware, why would you really on Syria to do it for you?
No your purse strings may be open and your dictatorship strong, but it doesn’t always equate to good and capable troops, sailors or pilots in battle!Pioneer
You’re right.
The Syrian example shows that hardware is generally overrated in its importance when we look at entire conflicts.
In the early 80ies the Soviet Union was already in rapid decay, and looking for cash. Selling arms for hard currency was a big thing (not unlike today, actually).
SchorschThe F-111 was the base of the MiG-23 that is known by any one who has real knowledge about the MiG-23.
The MiG-23 differs in many respects from the aerodynamic configuration of the F-111. And the specs were very different, they got swing wings for entirely different purposes. That is clear for those who understand aircraft design.
What you do not see is the MiG-23 has almost the same acceleration from 600 km/h to 900km and it has a lesser thrust to weight ratio.
The F-16 does 14 sec from 600km/h to 1000km/h, the MiG-23 only 12 sec from 600km/h to 900km/h
You are mixing the menu card with the actual food. Objective of the aircraft is not to excel in some performance parameters, but to offer a superior platform to its pilot. The 2 seconds the MiG-23 (version, altitude???) gains is entirely academic, if it fails in 10 other benchmarks. Many predecessors of the F-16A could beat in this or another category, but no aircraft offered this perfect mix of characteristics.
By the way: the MiG gonna need this acceleration because it dumps so much energy in a turn.
As a fighter of course the 45° wing sweep does not make it a dogfighter but it can sustain 26 deg AoA like an F-16
Again, have fun eating the menu card.
High AOA capability is maybe an enabler of higher sustained turn rates, but it is no benefit in itself. The MiG-23 needs much higher AOA to produce similar load factors as the F-16, so the F-16 can happily fly at 10-15° AOA, make more G than a MiG-23 at similar AOA and lose less energy. If both get involved in a turning fight, the MiG-23 gonna run out of options pretty quick.
That is why the Israelies got so impressed with its acceleration
You better hail the aircraft you just shot down, according to many American pilots the MiG-21F was a super-maneuverable aircraft, when actual test confirmed it could well be handled even by F-4B.
By the way, the actual level (not maneuvering) flight performance of the MiG-23 was basically the only thing that was not entirely against the Syrian pilots in those engagements.
SchorschThe MiG-23 has diferent wing settings for different speeds, the F-16 has a wing compromise so a wing setting is only good for some speed ranges.
Just interesting to learn that the F-16 still scores much better in aerodynamic efficiency than the MiG-23, while other swing wings do beat the F-16, especially in subsonic cruise.
[MiG-23 has to use 45° wing sweep above Mach .8, so basically during all combat flight; in such config, the lift over drag (clean) is 30% worse than an F-16; in slow flight (wings fully forward, M0.7) it is only 10-15% better]
The MiG-23 flew at least 7 years before the F-16 and it was never designed to take on F-16s, the MiG-29 was designed to take on F-16s.
The MiG-23ML was supplied to frontline squadrons at the same time as the F-16A.
The MiG-23 was desigend to take on F-4s, F-5s, F-105s, Mirage IIIs. Basicly the MiG-23 was to be a smaller and cheaper F-111 equivalent for the Soviet air force and only when the F-111 became a bomber the Russians made the Su-24.
So the Russians blindly copied all US designs, irregardless of the actual usefulness. Interesting to learn.
However, calling the MiG-23 something like the Russian “F-111” is blatant offense. The MiG-23 was way less advanced, especially in avionics and engine technology.
The F-16 lacked any BVR weapon when it initially entered service, it was not designed to fight the BVR combat from the beginning.
Actually, the radar of the F-16 was theoretically able to guide AIM-7 missiles, and this was also tested during the YF-16 evaluation.
http://attach.high-g.net/attachments/72-01567.jpg
The radar of the F-16A was superior to that of the MiG-23, allowing much better situational awareness in absence of external guidance. In a sterile environment the MiG-23 had hardly been able to get fire solutions on an F-16.
In 1982 Israel vectored the F-16s only when they were flanked by F-15s with top cover of AIM-7s and AWACS.
It is always smart to act with top cover. That has nothing to do with your wrongly claimed BVR-capability. In the described situation any radar guided weapon was of no use, to high the risks to get cought while pointing the radar on a target. You should get some basics in air2air combat.
The only real advantage of the F-16 was agility and climb of rate but not top speed and BVR weaponry and radars.
And 5000 F-16 built, while the MiG-23 is for some time already decommissioned in all nations. The MiG-23 is useless outside its intended role. The fighter version is useless as striker, the striker useless as fighter. The strike on the Iraqi reactor was flown by F-16A, the very same that fought over Bekaa Valley a year later. At a time the Soviets needed to offer MiG-23MLD to their allies, in lack of any alternative (the MiG-29 they could offer a few years later still couldn’t live up to that flexibility).
Schorschor you instead, can get more educated on Asian development.
http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-Aero-Engines/LM-WS10A-Tai-Hang-China.html
The core of the WS-10 was reportedly based on CFM International CFM56. The design consist of a 7-stage high pressure compressor, short annular combustor with air blast atomizer and air film cooling blade. It is the first production turbofan from China to feature single crystal nickel-based turbine blades which allowed higher intake temperatures. Future versions of the WS-10 is also expected to be equipped with a indigenous FADEC.
China is making progress, but it would too early to call it independent.
At the moment, or better to say in the last 15 years, they shopped capability in Russia for bargain prices.
SchorschThen we agree on something although I wouldn’t exactly say I don’t trust Acig, I just take their material with a grain of salt. Some of it (by no means all of it) either contains errors or is based on slim evidence. According to Tom Cooper’s (again an Acig connection) Iran-Iraq war book the R550 was something of an improvement over the Aim-9B and the Vympel K-13. The Iraqis had both.
I think we share the opinion that ACIG-lists are the best available, but should never be taken as the agreed truth. The “green entries” have a reasonable level of correctness.
I thought the MiG-23 was supposed to be less maneuverable than an American sports-car? 😀
It still could do 8G instantaneous turn at low altitude, not for long though.
The MiG-23 suffered from high energy bleed (as most contemporary designs). the swept wing wasn’t optimal for maneuvering, it offered good cruise performance (while not exceptional, the MiG-23 beats the F-16 in lift over drag by a pathetic margin – even in forward swept [in middle and backward the MiG-23 cruises quite inefficient]) and good supersonic performance.
The Iraqis seem to have had some degree of success with the MiG-23 in the ‘BVR’ role. I was told the R-23/24 were utterly useless weapons. I count some nine MiG-23 WVR kills in the Acig list (counting only entries were weapons are identified) and three BVR kills using the R-23/24, the last figure jumps to six BVR kills if you count the unconfirmed ones.
Not to forget that the Iraqis didn’t have much alternative. The MiG-23 was their primary air defense fighter. When under such conditions the R-23/Mig-23 combination didn’t produce more kills, following reasons are thinkable:
1 missile is crap
2 they didn’t have much of them (missiles are expensive)
3 the target acquisition and firing process wasn’t that easy (my point)
4 the missile was unreliable (many duds, like AIM-7E in Vietnam)
5 “cooperative targets” were of short supply
6 rules of engagement
I guess a mixture primarily of 3,4 and 5.
My initial point was, that the MiG-23 cannot rightfully be called “BVR” just because it possesses radar-guided weapons. These weapons were added to allow forward quarter firing solutions under ground guidance. If McDonald Douglas in 1972 was hard pressed to put a working man-machine interface in place that allowed a single man to do BVR the first time (in the F-15A), I don’t think the Russkies could do it five years earlier.
SchorschNotwithstanding mixing supersonic cruise and subsonic cruise does enlarge the combat radius of the F-22, but no evidence to prove that mixed combat radius is longer than MiG-31, furthermore the speed of MiG-31 is faster than F-22 under this condition, regardless other supercruise range of MiG-31 is true or not, if we say “without a/b used” is for extense combat radius, then MiG-31 offer a combat radius longer, if not, what the condition we shall give to the definition of supercruise?
Combined with the other obvious advantages of the MiG-31
– inability to engage in any maneuvering fight
– biggest target in all domains
– clearly identifiable radar signature (best friend of all RWRs)
– unable to deliver air2ground ordnance
– very expensive to procure and operate
– missiles designed to hunt bombers
the radius becomes quite irrelevant.
You are a true fanboy.
Sign In
