SchorschThe forward wing setings are for TO and landings only, in every VG a/c.
But the Mig-23 MLD has combat flaps. This is a big advantage over F-14.
The MiG-23 has higher wing loading and much higher drag at high lift coefficients. Therefore someone gave it “combat flaps”, to remedy this problem.
But The Flight mechanics say otherwise.
In order to have good subsonic sustained turn rate, you have to have high aspect ratio wing, low wing loading and high T/W ratio.
The MiG-23 has both. It has also very low induced and parasite drag coef.
The “high aspect ratio wing” is limited for the MiG-23 to a very small band and it is definitely not intended for combat. The T/W ratio is roughly comparable. the induced drag of a 45 or 72° MiG-23 is impressively high.
The F-14 had about the same wing aspect ratio, higher wing loading and far lower T/W. Its Specific excess power was miserable compared to Mig-23.
Once again: specific excess power is not the mark for everything. You need to maintain acceptable excess power at higher lift coefficients, something the MiG-23 is unable of.
What other Mach 3 aircraft has 1.06 M sea level speed.
By its operational limits (that is the same like the 6.5G you quote for the F-14, or the Sidewinder with slats, operational limits), the MiG-25 is neither Mach 3 at altitude nor Mach 1 at sea level. See posted flight envelope above.
SchorschIt would be interesting to know if you could modify a ship (a merchant) so it can carry two F-35B and bring this ship within striking distance of a hostile coast. However, as long as no nuclear weapons are involved, the effect would remain limited. But for a nation like Israel such an option would allow to threaten nations far away with retaliation.
Same could be done with UAVs, maybe a UAV that is contained and launched in a single 40ft container.
SchorschThere were limitations in place for Argentinia and Britain about how far this post-colonial non-sense conflict could go. Nuclear options were definitely not included, similarly out was the escalation of war beyond the area of the Falklands.
Worst case scenario would have seen the USN providing air cover for the British, in which case the fleet would have been safe. The air cover provided by a single CVBG equipped with F-14A and E-3B is sufficient to seal of the islands. I don’t think Us involvement would have come with lots of enthusiasm, on the other hand a smoking conflict destabilizing the entire region (which still was considered the US backyard) was not acceptable.
As soon as British forces were landed on the Falklands there isn’t much the Argentinians could do about it.
SchorschAnd let’s see anybody list even one “in service” design that doesn’t have it’s roots in a prior design, even if only on paper.
New technology is rarely a “right-first-time” thing. Therefore, you’ll hardly find something revolutionary in a service aircraft that wasn’t tested before in a testbed in some way.
To name a ground breaking aircraft: the F-111
It was the first swing-wing low level intruder and was the first of many similar designs, namely:
Su-17/22
Su-24
Tornado
B-1
Tu-22
Tu-160
MiG-23BN/27
All types were optimized for the low level intruder mission, were equipped with at the time sophisticated electronics (yes, even the Su-17 had electronics on board 🙂 ).
The F-111 actually introduced many other truly ground breaking features, such as:
– turbofan engines with reheat
– automatic terrain following system
SchorschThere is no way to discuss with firebar. He is living in an own world. 😉
As you use to say … for the benefit of others.
SchorschAnd one post especially for firebar.
MiG-25RB maximum vertical load factor:
[ATTACH]164207[/ATTACH]
3.8g are not much.
The flight envelope:
[ATTACH]164208[/ATTACH]
No Mach 1 before 5000m.
SchorschI looked it up again. the F-14’s glove vanes are designed to reduce the drag at supersonic maneuvering. It translates into a huge advantage once supersonic and pulling some g’s. The gloves vanes effectively reduce the static margin. Most supersonic aircraft of the 1950ies and 60ies were control authority limited above Mach 1. For a swing wing aircraft this is even more worrying as the neutral point shifts back anyways. No problem for 1g flight (F-111, Tornado) though.
SchorschI think there will be VERY few that fit that description. Take fly-by-wire for example. It didn’t just suddenly appear on the F-16 but “trickled” in on various aircraft and in various guises over decades.
That is the reason why the term “ground breaking” was not invented by engineers but by the Discovery Channel.
However, it is always an achievement to mature technology in a way that it can be used in an operational (average line pilot + drafted maintenance guy) aircraft. Therefore, the F-16 is a ground breaking fighter showing the way for the future years before other designs adopted it.
SchorschNot so. Remember that Mig-25 is fast at low level also (1300kmh, earlier versions 1200kmh). It is in fact capable of 11 G pull-outs with subsequent safe landings, which was proved.
Limit is 4.5G. If you quote g-limits, either take the official ones or take the ultimate ones, but stay consistent. An F-4 has pulled 11.5g and stayed in one piece.
The MiG-25 is barely able to break the sound barrier at low level. Its flight performance aside the high Mach and high altitude region is pathetic at best.
The Mig-31 has even stronger airframe than Mig-25.
Correctly set: the MiG-31 has a slightly less weak airframe.
Compared to contemporary fighters, both are useless for close combat.
At 18.000 m altitude , Mig-25 has a 100 m/sec climb rate, with 4 large missiles.
Compare that with 16.000 m service ceiling of F-14D !!
Great, where does it climb then? Intercepting the ISS? Any Sparrow or AMRAAM will have better climb rate.
You forgot to mention that at more relevant speed of Mach 0.9 and 10000m, just where the MiG-25 stays most of the time, its climb rate is far worse than that of the F-14 or F-4 or anything else.
The MiG-25 is lightning fast and can come suddenly from nowhere. Arm it with more modern missiles and you will get very dangerous beast.
The chance of a MiG-25 to score a kill is very limited. Its radar is the biggest light bulb in the sky, its missiles are short ranged and after a pass the MiG either runs or loses its energy in a turn. It is an interceptor and not more.
SchorschThe F-14 had nice capabilities on paper but in reality it was something different.
Actually the aerodynamics suited the mission, which was flying longer legs and landing on aircraft carriers. 100% of your MiG-21 would have stalled on approach.
Its glove vanes were little short of useless, so that it was concluded that it was better to weld them retracted.
From the information I have on this glove vanes I agree. It looks like the priorities were shifted in its early career (less M2).
Its leding edge slats were of little use because it was restricted to 5 g maneuvers with them extended. Also the AIM-9 firing was forbiden with extended slats !!!
Different than other aircraft it has plenty of lift available when wing are swept forward. LE devices are for landing and take-off only. The MiG-23ML is not even allowed to pull 5g when having wings forward.
And in a combat situation the Sidewinder will fire regardless of the slat setting.
Anyways, this is a rather pointless detail.
Its max allowed loading was 6.5 G. Too low compared to Mig-21 bis or MiG-23 ML (8.5G).
We’ve been over this a 100 times. The F-14 first of all has 7.33g, secondly it is designed with a different mission in mind. The fact that the structure accepts more g does not make an aircraft automatically the more useful.
Its specific excess power was patheticaly low.
The MiG-23ML may have nice excees power in some more or less irrelevant corners of the flight envelope, but as soon as you start to turn your energy drops like hell. For maneuvering flight the MiG-23 is a very bad aircraft. Specific excess power only tells you about 1g, if you look at 3 or 5g you start to see the difference.
In fact it was a Phoenix missile carrier. Not more.
If I remember correctly it carried Sparrow and Sidewinder and actually scored kills with it, at least more than the MiG-23 with its missiles.
SchorschWhat exactly is the point of the discussion: that the Exocet that hit the Sheffield did explode?
I can’t see why the RN should be lying about this issue, I mean if the warhead had exploded the loss of the ship would seem less embarrassing.
SchorschDo I assert correctly that on both the USS Stark and HMS Glamorgan the warhead did explode?
If so, I am a bit surprised about the small damage.
I would have expected more.
This is the damage caused by a Sea Sparrow “attack” on a Turkish ship. I read that of the two Sparrows only one detonated, each Sparrow carries a 40kg warhead.
SchorschIf you take a look at the low resolution picture I posted a bit back, you will see in that semi- alongside shot the “petals” as I “described” them 😮 clearly going outwards…. considering the planking on the side of the ship must be at least an inch ( 25,4 mm) thick, I reach the conclusion that they were “blown outwards” by the blast of the warhead. I can not imagine those “petals” being first pushed inwards by the hit of the bulk of the missile and then blown back as result of the aftershock..
I would be careful with such conclusions. A vehicle nearly 300kg in weight and 900km/h fast hits a quite stiff steel sidewall. The structural consequences may be anything, depending on the exact location of the impact (possible one stiffened place). An explosion of 160kg of explosive inside a lightly armored ship would have more disastrous consequences.
The explosion of the remaining fuel may have sufficed to do some bending.
SchorschSatorian, like you I also would not be suprised if the 22 can Supercruise at those lofty heights – what exact Mach No’s it does it at? Classified.
Apparently according to the latest AFM the F-22 can SC at Mach 1.82 now. With a top end speed of Mach 2.25 and sea level speed of Mach 1.4.
When we assume an operational F-22 we will surely have lower figures, I guess something like M1.5 SC and M2 max.
And as Satorian said correctly, the maximum Mach number for conventional “afterburning jets” is reached at 36000ft. Starting from this altitude (in standard atmosphere), the temperature (and thus the local Mach number) stays constant, while air pressure still drops.
For a max kinetic energy launch it will probably engage its reheat and quickly increase its energy height.
SchorschThe Royal Navy lost one ship due to poor damage control design due to a fire started by AM39. IF AM39 was the weapons system you seem to want to believe it to be how did USS Stark survive its encounter with a similar weapon?. The other ship lost to AM39 in the Falklands was not a Royal Navy vessel.
Not to dispute your point, but I think it is rather academic if the ship sinks or not, it is out of the battle. And that what’s counts, at least from the military point of view, is the continuation of the battle (history may only count the sunken ships and killed soldiers).
The Kamikazes didn’t manage to sink a single US carrier in World War II, still they sent a couple of them back to port to an extended stay.
Sign In
