Schorsch-The max speed , with 2x medium range R-24 missiles, is 2.35 Mach.
Very relevant.
-The combat T/W is 1.01:1 sea level, with excellent high altitude thrust.
The “W” does only include two missiles and a bucket of fuel, so the pilot enjoys this T/W for a very brief moment.
-Max allowed maneuvering Angle of Attack is 28 degrees Alpha at 45 degrees wing sweep ( can do Loops, split-S, turns etc at this high Alpha).
It is much higher that that was allowed for F-14A.
The sad story is that the MiG-23ML does need high AOA to do any maneuvering, and at the same time will bleed lots of energy. The F-14 will make circles around the MiG-23 after short time.
-No maneuvering limits, no missile firing limits.
Why should it have: The AA-2 misses from any angle. 😉
For example: The Mig-23 ML is cleared for maneuvers at 27 degrees alpha at 8.5G at 860 km/h.
A half turn entered with 900 km/h will see the MiG-23ML end up with less 450 km/h.
It is more than F-16 can do ,which is allowed to 9G but at only 15 degrees Alpha.
Another lesson for you, Mr engineer: high AOA is not what it is about, it is high lift. If your aircraft can do lots of lift with 15° AOA you have a good aircraft, if it needs 27° AOA for the same you have a lousy one.
The F-16 is cleared to 25° AOA (that’s where the FCS limits pitch authority), a well flown F-16 will make tight turns and never ever touch the 20 mark.
The MiG-23 has severe problems generating lift. The best lift generating capability is with wings swept forward, the often quoted 8.5G are only allowed with wings fully swept back. The 45° position is a compromise.
Anyways, no self-respecting air force operates the MiG-23 any more and it is rightfully considered as one of the worst cold war aircraft. It totally missed the mark, never ever dominated the skies (not even for a very brief moment) and was a nightmare to operate. The only convincing performance figure was its take-off and landing performance, and the 2x R-23 at Mach 2.35.
The initial MiG-23 couldn’t compete with a Phantom A.
The MiG-23M couldn’t compete with a Phantom E.
The MiG-23ML couldn’t compete with a slatted Phantom E, F-16A or F-15A.
Neither could the MiG-23MLD.
The MiG-23BN never could compete with an F-104G.
SchorschThe only 600km air-to-air weapon that exists (to my knowledge) is American. That’s the Boeing YAL-1 Airborne Laser. Right now, I honestly believe that the F-22 Raptor and the ABL represent the two surest ways to quickly and decisively engage and destroy an airborne AWACS platform operating at altitude.
Are you sure it achieves a 600km range with some remaining firepower?
I thought the maximum range is something like 200km, but I might be outdated on this.
SchorschThe Russians look like they learnt something out of the Cuban Missile Crises after all!
And a big help from decades of modern military technology!
There is no reason to base SRBM/IRBM in the America’s, when you have true intercontinental-range strategic bombers, like that of the Tu-160!
The Strategic bomber can come and go – brilliant!!Is Venezuela to be the new Cuba for Russia, in its bid to hold on to its title and dreams of once being a superpower? (I hope not for the Venezuelans sake!!)
Hell I hope that Chavez, does not put all his eggs and trust in being a want-to-be allies of Russia!
Ask how Cuba and Castro fell about being left high and dry, after communism failed!
But then again Cuba did not have oil!The biggest thing that has me worried about this modern day superpower ‘sabre rattling’ game, since the Georgia incident is one important and dangerous ingredient
‘George. W. Bush’
Scary!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Regards
Pioneer
What they basically learnt is that in times of submarine based strategic missiles the position of the bombers is maybe of some political interest, but on the other hand boring news.
Basing aircraft in Venezuela is like sleeping in the lion’s cage: they cannot even defend their air space and have to trust Venezuela’s mighty air force to do it.
SchorschThe Strategic bomber can come and go – brilliant!!
They can even be some 2000km away from the US landmass some where in the North Atlantic or the Pacific and launch those deadly X555 stealthy cruise
missiles and the game is over. This is a nation(Mr. loud mouth) who cannot even internally defend itself against mere civilian aircrafts, radars cannot even detect a deviation of passenger airliners from their normal routes until the inevitable happened— may they rest in peace.
While they could:
– nuke all Russian airfields
– shot down all aircraft exiting Russia (the Tu-160 has to go via Northern Ice Sea, and through GIUK)
– cluster-bomb Venezuela (with prior notice)
– put the Black Fleet out of service within hours
I would say the threat to the USA from a better dozen of airframes carrying weapon system that primarily exist in the fantasy of their fans is an acceptable one.
SchorschThe Problem is you are asumming something which has not proof, Russia could had sent the MiG-23ML in july 1989 or February 1989.
Such thinking does not prove a bit the delivery date.I can even say Russia sent the MiG-23MLs in January 14th 1989.
Your Sipri example does not fill anything because you have to show the USSR did not sell any MiG-23ML to Libya in 1989 or 1990.
Bring data from 1989 proving the USSR did not deliver MiG-23MLs to Libya
At least from Russian sources the vast majority claim Libya only had MiG-23MS in 1991 and the vast majority say MiG-23MS fought the F-14s.
No picture or film has proved the MiG-23s were indeed MiG-23MLs armed with AA-7s and much less they fired at the F-14s
While the educated user might ask, why aircraft so disabled like the MiG-23MS get involved in such an engagement. Furthermore, in order to find the F-14 and take a direct course on them, they either need a radar with limited look down capabilities or ground guidance.
Ground guidance was unavailable after the F-14 went to 3000ft.
The only thing that truly remains strange is the motivation of the pilots in the MiGs. They surely were no novices, and the whole situation was somehow planned (the F-14s did not enter Lybian airspace). So, if a planned mission was executed by the Lybians they either were very stupid or did underestimate the American superiority.
SchorschThat Libya stated these were unarmed recce MiG-23s, however the F-14 gun sight camera showed R-23s, but surprisingly the MiG-23s did not open fire.
Which might indicate that they were unable to get a lock on the F-14, given the conditions not a total surprise.
The F-14s were also equipped with latest ECM specially aimed at the Lybian equipment.
SchorschWell that is already wrong, as it wasn’t a pair of MS’s shot down in 1989 unless they were rewired to carry the AA-7. Had to at least be an MF.
Yefim Gordon and Keith Dexter’s 2005 book on the MiG23/27 lists no MiG-23ML in Libyan service, do you then believe that they were supplied after 2005?
If we believe the factual information about the engagement, a MiG-23MS would have had “serious trouble” to track the Tomcats. The MS didn’t have look down radar, so keeping an interception course after the F-14 went below the coastal radars horizon should have been quite difficult.
(Always assuming the USN told the truth about the whole engagement.)
SchorschThe typhoon, though outstanding,it doesnt bring anything totally new does it :confused: that the RAF has never had before, the F-22 ticks this box in terms of a stealth fighter.
Combination of
– BVR engagement capability
– WVR engagement capability
– probably the best performing aircraft currently available
– ground attack capability
– very good if not best man-machine interface
When it came out, British fighters couldn’t catch it for anything. Even in the era of the Phantom, I’ve read that Canberras would toy with them by flying higher than RAF Phantoms could intercept. That’s impressive.
While I think the Canberra (and neither the Lightning) wouldn’t win a ceiling contest versus a Sparrow missile, would it?
SchorschNATO fighter aircraft accompanied the Russian Tu-160 en route to Venezuela
Maybe they feared their navigation equipment might fail.
But I guess they have a Garmin GPS in stock in case that happens.
SchorschI am still intrested to to learn the USN explanation of a closing speed of 870 kt at 10000 feet from Floggers against disengaging F-14As? 😉
I think “turned away” has to be interpreted as going on a 45° angle to direct interception course. Anyways, I just copy & paste Wikipedia. We have to stick to the American story, which might have some minor “corrections” in order to show that the F-14s acted just for “self defense”. Actually, I think the cocky USN pilots didn’t mind to defend themselves, and get lured into an engagement which truly favored them (better aircraft, better weapons, better information, better support, better training, better everything).
The story of the Lybian pilots would be different, but they are dead. Maybe all involved didn’t mind that fact, either.
Schorschthe Russians would had advised the Libyans to use their MiG-25s to kill the Tomcats or fire BVR R-24s form their MiG-23s, see this detail, the MiG-23s never fired upon the Tomcats, niether at BVR or close range, no R-24 was fired, so no MiG-23ML only an aircraft with AA-2s would had done what the Libyan MiG-23s did, so only MiG-23MS can be the variant that fought the F-14s
If not in a head-on encounter the chances of any MiG-23 version to use its BVR weapons is limited. If the MiGs were not directly controlled by ground station and vectored into an intercept position, the cumbersome process of firing a missile combined with the out-of-standard situation, and maybe unclear rules of engagement, would have prevented a “BVR”-kill by the MiGs.
At 11:50 hrs, after some time on patrol, the E-2 informed the F-14 crews that four Libyan MiG-23s had taken off from Al Bumbaw airfield, near Tobruk. The F-14s turned towards the first two MiG-23s some 50 km ahead of the rear pair and acquired them with radars. At the time the Floggers were 72 nautical miles (133 km) away at 10,000 ft (3,000 m) and heading directly towards the Tomcats and carrier. The F-14s turned away from the head on approach to indicate that they didn’t want to engage. The Floggers changed course to intercept at a closing speed of about 870 knots (1,000 mph, 1600 km/h). The F-14s descended to 3,000 ft (910 m) to give them a clear radar picture of the Floggers against the sky and leave the Floggers with sea clutter to contend with. Four more times did the F-14s repeat this maneuver, still tracking the Libyans. At 11:59 the Radar Intercept Officer (RIO) of the lead Tomcat ordered the arming of the AIM-9 Sidewinder and AIM-7 Sparrow missiles it was carrying. The E-2C had given the F-14 crews authority to fire if threatened; the F-14 crews did not have to wait until after the Libyans opened fire.
At almost 12:01 the lead Tomcat RIO said that “Bogeys have jinked back at me again for the fifth time. They’re on my nose now, inside of 20 miles”, followed shortly by “Master arm on” as he ordered arming of the weapons. At a range of 14 nmi (26 km) the RIO of the lead F-14A fired the first AIM-7M Sparrow; he surprised his pilot, who did not expect to see a missile accelerate away from his Tomcat. The RIO reported “Fox 1. Fox 1.” The Sparrow failed to track because of a wrong switch-setting. At 10 nmi (19 km), he launched a second Sparrow missile, but it also failed to track its target.
The Floggers accelerated and continued to approach. At 6 nmi (11 km) range the Tomcats split and the Floggers followed the wingman while the lead Tomcat circled to get a tail angle on them. The wingman engaged with a Sparrow and downed one of the Libyan aircraft. One of the US pilots broadcast “Good kill! Good kill!” The lead Tomcat closed on the final Flogger from the rear quadrant and at 1.5 nmi (2.8 km) the pilot fired a Sidewinder, which hit its target. One crewman broadcast “Good kill!” and “Let’s get out of here.” The Libyan pilots were seen to successfully eject and parachute into the sea, but the Libyan Air Force was unable to recover them. The Tomcats then proceeded north to return to the carrier.
The Floggers engaged out of range of their ground radar (3000ft should be below radar horizon) and onto a target that was only barely trackable by their radars due to ground clutter (look down shot down is not exactly a specialty of the MiG-23M).
Actually, engaging under such conditions was a questionable decision. If the MiG pilots actually grasped the situation they were in is also doubtful.
SchorschI was thinking more along the lines of intercepting bombers when I was talking about their weapons. But now that you mention it, the Lightning did enjoy a huge performance advantage when it came to control ability at its combat ceiling. If the F-4 and Lightning were pitted head to head I think the Lightning would take its chances fast & high against the Phantom. The Sparrow wasn’t a great weapon for use against a lofted target because it bled energy too fast to be useful in that respect.
While the targets you meet fast and high over a European battlespace would be few if any. The advantages of the Lightning in the upper right corner of the flight envelope were no surprise, many other designs did enjoy an advantage over later types there, too (think of Mirage, F-106, F-104). And no one questions that a designated supersonic aircraft will have an edge over a carrier borne aircraft.
While I still think the effectiveness of a Phantom with 8 missiles versus incoming bombers is much better, even it might not win the acceleration contest to Mach 2 or fly at 55000ft.
However, if we think of the engagements the RAF would have had to face in late 1960ies and 1970ies, the Phantom did outpace the Lightning in all practical categories. The interception tasks to defend British mainland could be fulfilled by the Lightning as could duties as point interceptor. While the Lightning was even unable to defend airspace farer than 200nm from its operating base, Phantoms could do air defense duties over Germany while operating from British mainland.
The Lightning was held in service as it was paid and operational and still could do some missions. But if you had to face the MiGs of the late 60ies and 70ies, the Lightning would not be the fighter you want to sit in.
SchorschIf a phantom did come up against a lightning in a head on attack the phantop would be able to fire first but the sparrow is a SARH missilw which needs the target to be continuously illuminated, the lightning would soon get in range and would be able to release its IR red top, a fire and forget missile. Sure the lightning would be destroyed but soon followed seconds later by the phantom, this was proven when small F-5 with sidewindres were able to shoot down large powerful F-15’s with sparrows. The maths of trading larger two seater a/c for smaller cheaper single seaters just doesn’t work.
It does, under some conditions.
Note first, that the Phantom scored a positive kill ratio versus “the smaller ans cheaper single seat” MiG-21 over Vietnam, despite serious shortcomings in tactics, strategy and weapons of USAF/USN at that time.
Note further, that the Lightning is neither lighter nor is it necessarily cheaper than a Phantom. Both are twin engine, 12-14t OEW.
Third, if you really look at AIMVAL/ACEVAL results, the exchange ratio did favor the BVR-equipped aircraft, though did it not justify if based on acquisition cost. Additionally, the AIM-9L was something different than the Red Top.
Fourth, the Red Top is no all-aspect IR-AAM.
SchorschIt wasn’t about the capability, it wasn’t even about the price, it was about which company was going to be the primary Naval contractor for the years following the end of the Cold War.
McDonnell Douglas had been the prime supplier of Naval fighters since the F-4, had shown that they had a firm grasp on low observable technology, and overall had a much healthier and broader diversification of products (helicopters, naval/marine/air force fighters, missiles, air liners, trainers, military transports). Grumman was top loaded with over half their revenue coming from systems integration, had decaying primary manufacturer expertise as it sputtered out 1960s airframes at low rate production, and was ranked dead last out of the major US contractors in low observability expertise. McDonnell Douglas was in the stronger position to produce advanced designs down the road. Add on top of this the inducement fraud and cancellation of convenience the Navy/DoD had done in the A-12 program, the Navy felt they owed it to give McDonnell Douglas the program. A textbook case of “Industrial Welfare” or “Industrial Statesmenship”, call it what you will.
Fast forward 18 years and where are we? St. Louis, under Boeing’s flag now, is still the primary producer of tactical airframes for the Navy. Northrop Grumman is pumping out more geriatric E-2 airframes and doing systems integration for the EA-18G. Not much has changed, but either the F-35C or X-47 will break this rut.
And don’t forget that the F-14 was a late 1960ies product, from the airframe technology point of view less advanced than the F-15. In the early 90ies, Grumman had not produced a top end fighter aircraft for over two decades. The shiny proposals of the F-14 “Super Tomcat” do not tell how Grumman wanted to pull that project from its limited resources.
SchorschWeak weapons set? They carried more sensitive IR seekers in their missiles than the comparable sidewinders up until the 80’s. Pretty much the same reason F-106A planes beat F-4’s in simulated combat.
And the impressive number of … two missiles.
The Sidewinder can go with worse infrared seeker. It is a smaller, more expendable weapon. In case of the Phantom, it is augmented by the Sparrow. In case of a head-on intercept, the Phantom would get the first shot.
A Phantom having two crew, 8 missiles and still the capability of carrying over 3t external fuel, beats an EE Lightning in overall capability with margin, considering the single seat design, limited radar and still only slightly lower OEW of the Lightning.
By the way: if the Red Top were so much better, why didn’t the RAF introduce them on the Phantom? Adapting an aircraft for IR-missiles isn’t exactly a hard job.
Sign In
