Flex,
Did you actually read my post. I compared the Viggen with Skyflash to an F-4E with AIM-7F/M, and the upgraded F-4 with AIM-120 to the JA-37D. Regarding the F-1, I wasn’t aware of the Morrocan upgrade, but does that upgrade give it a weapon comparable to AIM-120? I insist that you actually READ my ENTIRE post, and you’ll see I compared apples with apples and oranges with oranges. I wasn’t aware of anyone actually buying the MiG-23-98 upgrade, so thus I didn’t put the R-77 in the equation.

Comparing two would certainly give the MiG-23 a better chance, with the R-77 being involved, but with a maximum loadout of four AAM’s (two R-77 and two R-73) or six if you use the less capable R-60, the payload is still inferior to that provided by an upgraded F-4. In addition, the Flogger still suffers from lack of range, and while a two-man crew doesn’t make an airplane perfect by any stretch its always nice to have that second pair of eyes. The radar is an interesting situation because I’m under the impression that there are actually two different upgrade packages……option 1 gives the Flogger a new radar in which case it’s probably more comparable to the APG-65, while option two keeps the old Sapfir 23 but gives it the capability to launch the R-77 and an additional radio correction channel. The second option certainly means the radar performance advantage (and as such, performance in the BVR arena) goes to the F-4 and its APG-65GY.

Comparing upgraded models, the JA-37D does have AIM-120 AMRAAM and so does the F-4E PI 2000 and F-4F ICE. Both carry four of those weapons with the Phantom carrying four AIM-9’s as well and the Viggen carrying two AIM-9’s. Range and SA are still on the F-4’s side.

Read that and tell me I wasn’t comparing the correct models to one another? And then go back and read the rest of my post. Don’t accuse me of things I didn’t do…..you tend to like to put words in my mouth or in this case assume I didn’t say something when I clearly pointed it out. Please stop that behavior because it’s getting old. I thought you had grown out of it by now….

Now on to the next topic….

This table shows that F-4 Phantom II was good enough against ground attacker version MiG-23BN. In Iraq-Iran war even a monkey version MiG-23MS has positive combat record against F-4 with 7:4. (pretty much a surprise for me).

I find it interesting that you assume that all F-4’s shot down were in the air performing some type of air combat mission. You have to remember that the F-4 was the backbone of the IRIAF during this war. It was used in the air-to-air mission along with the F-14 that is true, but it was also tasked with attacking some of the most heavily defended targets in and around Baghdad and various other areas across the country of Iraq. Phantoms flew long distances with heavy payloads, and not only did they have to make sure they had enough gas to make the trip, but they had to avoid anti-air defenses and fighters, and if they survived all that, they had to attack their targets and hopefully get successful hits. Then, they had to avoid fighters and flak and get out of country and back home safely. Compare the MiG-23 fighter versions…..what did they do? They flew around looking for Iranian aircraft to engage, and that was their only mission. You wouldn’t see a MiG-23MS take-off on an intercept mission only to come back the next day with a full load of 500 pound bombs. Rather, a MiG-23BN would have been tasked with this role. So if there was a way to distinguish between F-4’s shot down while heavily loaded on bombing missions and F-4’s shot down while on combat air patrols (like there is with the MiG-23 because you’ve got MS and ML’s for air-to-air work and BN’s for air-to-ground work) you’d probably find that the point you try to make by comparing variants of Flogger shot down is quite irrelevant. And if MiG-23BN’s don’t count as kills as you make them out to be, then why are you making a point to mention RF-4’s? You see where I’m going with this? I smell a double standard here Flex….

You are right about the MiG-23 upgrade packages; the MiG-23-98-1 has new radars options, three to be exact, the Zhuk being the best option.

The MiG-23-98-2, the one that Angola took is the cheapest and the less capable because it just upgrades the old Sapfir and perhaps not as capable as current operational F-4 upgrades in radar range or multitarget engagement capability.

About the payload well it is true, the MiG-23 will carry at the most four R-77/AA-12 Adder or two AA-12 and two AA-11, this is a limited combat payload.

However if you compare them as dogfighters, the MiG-23ML/P/MLA and MiG-23MLD are better dogfighers.

As an attack aircraft the MiG-23 can launch several modern russian missiles making it a good fighter bomber but with limited payload

But to be honest the MiG-23-98 upgrades and the F-4 upgrades out there i guess the F-4 are better because as you said in payload and sophistication these are much capable however in price the MiG-23-98-2 is quit cheap and in that perhaps the F-4 is not so competitive.

However the JA-37 upgrades i guess they are quit sophisticated does any body know the JA-37 upgrades packages?

BTW, is there any combat record alone between F-4s and MiG-23s? That would be a highly interesting comparison..

i think the one of the Mirage F1 should be an excellent one

Flogger this has been discussed with you one thousand times, and you’ve yet to convince anyone of anything. Everybody realizes the MiG-23 has shot down some airplanes, but that still doesn’t change the fact that relative to the F-4 and other fighters, it’s air-to-air record is very poor.

That’s why I didn’t want to get involved with this thread because I knew it would end up being like this, so I’m probably going to leave before you get all worked up like you tend to do. I’m not going to argue with someone who’s 9 years my junior. By the way one of those picture is false……that’s a B-52 in one of them and I don’t remember MiG-15’s and B-52’s ever meeting in combat. Care to give an explanation for it?

Do not worry you do not need to believe the kills by MiG-23, i did just mention the combat record according to MiG-23 users.

Like i said before it is impossible to confirmed all kills unless you prove it with pictures and i laugh how few pictures i have seen of kills or gun camera kills 😡 see that the F-4 has a 400+ kills can you prove all of them with physical evidence? I mean with pictures and pictures of wreckages.

I guess a book of kills shoud be made with only gun cameras since WWII you can prove kills with gun camera why we see so little?

See that i am not saying the F-4 users lie or the Air Forces that shoot down F-4s lied just simply that an acurate 100% proven with pictures score is hard to compile.

Well I probably shouldn’t get involved, but what the hell. I gotta defend my airplane, even though most of the posters here have made the choice I’d make of the four. 🙂

All of them have pros and cons. The F-4 is large, has twin engine safety, a two-man crew, long range, and a very large payload capacity. Modern upgrades of various nations have allowed the F-4 access to the latest avionics and weapons available, and combined with the above-mentioned traits, they remain very viable combat aircraft even today. The Mirage F-1 is also a capable multi-role airplane like the F-4, though it doesn’t have quite the payload capacity or range. It also lacks the two-man crew and has a single engine. With all that being said it’s certainly a capable airplane, and French Mirage F-1CT’s are very capable fighter-bombers even today though they lack the latest generation AAM’s. The Viggen and MiG-23 series both suffer from a similar design idea in that no one variant is truly a multi-role airplane with different variants being required for air-to-air (JA-37 and MiG-23) and air-to-ground (MiG-27 and AJS-37) missions. The JA-37 was very good interceptor and perfect for Sweden’s needs although the fact that it was designed for Swedish needs solely means that it lacks the range of the Phantom, and as such endurance (i.e. time in the air for CAP’s) suffers. It has a similar weapons suite although with only seven hardpoints the max number of AAM’s is limited to six plus the external tank while an F-4 can carry 8 AAM’s and still have room for three tanks and/or ECM pods. The AJS-37 has some pretty good air-to-ground options, though they pale in comparison to the wide variety of U.S. and NATO munitions that the Mirage F-1 and F-4 can carry.

The MiG-23 has suffered over the years because as of yet, no one has carried out an extensive upgrade on the type. The best MiG-23 variant, the MLD in service with Russia was retired in the 1990’s. That model was a pretty good fighter with great acceleration and good speed, and though lacking in agility compared to Hornets, Falcons, and Fulcrums, it would be well able to stay with the F-4, Mirage F-1, and Viggen in a close-in fight. The R-73 and HMS was also a nice feature that the Mirage F-1 and Viggen don’t have a capability similar to and the F-4 currently lacks that capability until the introduction of the IRIS-T and its helmet sight for the Greek Air Force. (Israeli F-4’s had helmet sights and Python AAM’s, but they were retired in May of 2004.) In short, the MiG-23 is largely irrelevant as serious fighter theat nowadays because not many are still in service that are well-equipped. The MiG-27 on the other hand has been treated well in the case of India, with the MiG-27M being a very potent strike jet. It’s only real handicap that I can see is a lack of range when compared to the F-4 and Mirage F-1. It does have a much better close support capability with its big 30-mm gun and other similar weapons though.

When you look at overall records, the F-4 stands out as the best of the four. It has seen combat during the Vietnam War, The War of Attrition, the 1973 Yom Kippur War, 1974 Cyprus conflict (though its role was limited in that conflict), 1982 Bekaa Valley conflict, Iran-Iraq War, Persian Gulf War of 1990/1991, and then the various Bosnia campaigns all the way up until it was retired from U.S. service in 1996. In all the wars it was involved in, it proved to be a success story. It’s overall kill to loss ratio is some where around 4 to 1 and with most of the losses being U.S. because of improper tactics, that’s not all that bad. Israeli F-4’s had much better ratios against their opponents, and Iranian F-4’s also has a very favorable ratio against the Iraqi fighters they opposed (namely the MiG-21 and MiG-23).

The Viggen hasn’t seen combat so you can’t really judge it in this area.

The Mirage F-1 has seen some combat, with most of it being during the Iran-Iraq war and the various U.S./NATO campaigns of the 1990’s. In did fairly well during the Iran-Iraq war, fighting well against the F-4 and F-5 and not quite as well against the F-14. It was also a potent ship killer with the AM.39 missile. During the 90’s and 2000’s, the aircraft has been purely and strike, and using weapons such as AS.30L and Paveway, it has done well.

The MiG-23 has seen much combat with appearances in the 1982 Bekaa Valley conflict, the Iran-Iraq War, Russian involvement in Afghanistan during the 1980’s, and the Persian Gulf War of 1990/1991. Needless to say it’s air combat record wasn’t all that good, although many times it faced aircraft of newer generations. Despite what Flogger will have you believe, the F-4 actually has a favorable kill to loss ratio against the MiG-23 during the Iran-Iraq war, although whether that was due to the aircraft in question of the training of the pilots is open for debate. Against F-15’s, F-14’s, and F-16’s, it didn’t do very well at all. Compared to aircraft like the F-15, and even later versions of the F-4, the MiG-23’s avionics and weapons just didn’t really stack up. While the AA-7 compares well to later versions of AIM-7E and maybe even the AIM-7F, the AIM-7M and AIM-7P are better weapons, and the AA-8 Aphid is a decidedly inferior weapon to the AIM-9L/M, namely due to the warhead being so puny. The AA-11 is of course better than the AIM-9L/M, although I don’t think any in-service MiG-23’s currently carry that weapon with Russian examples being retired during the 1990’s. While acceleration and speed is the best of the four fighters mentioned, the range and payload of the MiG-23 are relatively poor, and avionics-wise it doesn’t hold a candle to upgraded models of the F-4. As of yet, nobody has purchased the MiG-23-98, which would give the Flogger a more comparable capability against upgraded F-4’s.

Then comes ML, then F1, Phantom is last

I found this statement rather interesting….

The JA-37 was indeed a very capable interceptor (especially the JA-37D variant with AIM-120 AMRAAM), and for the defense of Sweden it was perfect. However as I mentioned above, it suffers from relativley short-range compared to the F-4, and it has a lack of situation awareness due to lack of a two-man crew. If comparing a late-build F-4E with AIM-7F and AIM-9L and latest variant of APQ-120, then you have a similar capability to that provided by the Viggen (before the D model), but with longer range (i.e. more endurance) and a slightly larger payload (8 AAM’s compared to six, with 4 of the 8 being BVR weapons compared to 2 for the Viggen). The situational awareness is also much better with a two-man crew and intercepts are that much easier. Comparing upgraded models, the JA-37D does have AIM-120 AMRAAM and so does the F-4E PI 2000 and F-4F ICE. Both carry four of those weapons with the Phantom carrying four AIM-9’s as well and the Viggen carrying two AIM-9’s. Range and SA are still on the F-4’s side.

The ML and MLD are certainly better dogfighters than the F-4, though it would be a bit outrageous to say an F-4 wouldn’t be a danger to a MiG-23 in close. The R-73 was definitely the MiG-23’s big edge in close, though nowadays that advantage is gone. The F-4 had off boresite capability with Israeli jets up until 2004, and the F-4 will get it again when the IRIS-T enters service. BVR-wise the R-23/24 is probably better than AIM-7E and roughly equal to late AIM-7E-4 and AIM-7F. The newer AIM-7M and AIM-7P are better weapons with improved look down capability and guidance. With an AIM-120 equipped F-4, the MiG doesn’t stand a chance. The F-4 can also carry four BVR weapons compared to two for the Flogger. If R-73’s are carried only a total of four AAM’s may be carried for the Flogger, while the F-4 can always carry eight AAM’s. If R-60’s are used the total is increased to six, but the R-60 is likely be fired in pairs because its warhead is fairly small, and sometimes more than one shot is required (the same is true with AIM-9, but the AIM-9 is more likely to get a kill in one shot because of its larger punch). One-man crew, single-engine safety, and lack of range all add up to give the F-4 the advantage in these areas though acceleration is on the MiG-23’s side.

The Mirage F-1 is very comparable to a late-build F-4E although like the Viggen and MiG-23 it is limited to six AAM’s (two BVR and four WVR weapons). The Super 530D is the equal of the AIM-7F and maybe the M, while the Magic II is certainly just as capable as AIM-9L/M. Upgraded F-4’s with AIM-120 and later IRIS-T are certainly more capable jets. The F-1 is more agile than a Phantom, although like the other two it isn’t quite as long-legged. I’m not sure about acceleration, but I would assume the F-1 has a slightly better acceleration than the F-4, although I know the TWR for the F-1 isn’t that great due to low engine power. Agility is also on the side of the F-1, although it’s certainly not in the F-1 class.

In short, all four are broadly comparable in the air-to-air role, and the outcome would likely differ everytime an engagement was fought. With the advantage of a two-man crew, twin-engine safety, longer range, larger payload, and more upgraded options having been undertaken I’m going to go with the F-4.

With the upgrades being carried out on certain jets, I’m inclined to say the F-4 would be first followed by the JA-37D, then the Mirage F-1, and then the MiG-23.

The countries that still use the F-4 in the air-to-air role are doing the right thing with shoot and scoot tactics. It’s a fast jet, it has long-range, great avionics, and a large payload. A superb interceptor to use in conjunction with more agile jets like the F-16 or Mirage 2000.

Sorry for the long post. I hope it was informative.

There are two things i have to add to your comments.

A)There is a MiG-23-98-2 buyer and that is Angola only 20 are being upgraded though and that means the AA-10 and AA-12 are new weapons in the MiG-23 arsenal.

B)The MiG-23 combat record i know is according to what each side claims around 100 MiG-23 have been shot down if we calculate the MAX NUMBER OF CLAIMED KILLS, around 36 MiG-23 shot down by Israel, 40+ claimed by Iran, around 10 by the US, 5-10 by Pakistan, and another few by other air forces in Africa.
However the Iraqi recieved 90 MiG-23 probably that number is higher since very likely the Iraqies lost all their MiG-23s in the GWII due to combat action (probably many were destroyed by american bombs in their Air bases) or simply by neglect of mantainance, the total number of MiG-23 lost by direct cause of war is around 150 aircraft

According to the MiG-23 Users, the MiG-23 did shoot down around 40 aircraft including Helicopters, transport aircraft, trainer aircraft, and fighters.

Syria claims at least 15 aircraft between F-16s, F-4s, A-4 and incredible to believe few F-15s.
Iraq claims F-14, F-5s and F-4s fighter aircraft plus AH-1 Cobra Helicopters.

Cuba claims at least 5 aircraft to my knowledge two Mirage F1 and a Mirage III and other aircraft like an Impala trainer or a C-130 Hercules.

Russia claims some CH-47 Chinook and some Pakistani F-16s and some Iranian Helicopters.
It is probable many adject the MiG-23 users claims of the kills by MiG-23s and only accept the MiG-23 losses as valid.

But since the F-4 kills are so many around 400+ few can be validate with a picture of gun camera like these kills by MiG-15s i attached.

oh so nothing has beaten the MiG-23? how come the F-4 doesn’t have an overwhelming superiority over the JA-37

It has been beaten, no doubt about it, it has been shot down i personally have seen several very good pictures of MiG-23s that clearly have been shot down, two are Syrian MiG-23s on Arab streets, one is a MiG-23 parked in an Iraqi Air base on the gun sight camera moments before being blown out by a USAF bomb from an american Aircraft. another is an Angolan MiG-23 wreckage.

You can see also several pictures of Iraqi MiG-23s that were either bombed and destroyed on the ground by the americans or simply abandon by the Iraqies to rust in the Desert.

Also i have seen a picture of a MiG-23 on a F-14 gun camera and one on a Mirage F-1s, the F-14`s i know the aircraft were shot down and the Mirage F1`s accoding to acounts i have read never was able to lock on and shoot down the MiG-23ML

The only picture i have seen of a MiG-23 kill is a Mirage F1.

The Air Forces that fought the MiG-23 claim at least 100 MiG-23 shot down while the air forces that used MiG-23 at least claim 40-50 kills by MiG-23s.

Probably around 150 MiG-23 have been destroyed as direct consequence of war.

By the Way the JA-37 has almost the same weaponry that the F-4 has why can not this aircraft beat it? specially with all those advances in avionics the JA-37 had for the 1970s?

nope, it means it was in service by the time it was the 60’s. The F-4 wins because all the other contendors weren’t in service in any air force until the 70s.

All flew in prototype form in the 1960s:

The MiG-23 on April 10 1967; the Mirage F1 on 23 December 1966 and the AJ-37 on 8 February 1967 so all are 1960s technologies despite the first F-4 flew on 27 May 1958 so in the 1970s all were operational and all ended production in the 1980s with the exception of the JA-37 ending in June 1990 one year after the Mirage F1.

It is not the time it first flew but the design philosophy and technologies they have what makes them third genration fighters.

1960s technologies is mostly third generation fighters and the J-8II is also a third generation fighter like the F-4 and JA-37 despite it flew for the first time on 12 June 1984

The J-8II is basicly a Chinese F-4E Phantom II

Check all were in production in the 1980s

MiG-23ML flew in 1976 monkey boy

the last F-4 was built in 1981 in JAPAN so the last of the 5201 F-4s was built in 20 May 1981 as an F-4EJ and was the last of 5201 F-4 built 😉 at the same time the last MiG-23MLs were built.
Last American F-4 was built in march 1978 😀

I too, pick the Phantom without a doubt… and it IS ugly!!!!!

big, mean and ugly, yeah the right stuff!:)

is there only one pick or on second thought I’ll put them in order of prefference:

1. f4
2. f1
3. j-37 viggen
4. mig-23

Cool my personal list is upon technical specifications and weaponry i think the MiG-23 is the best:

1-MiG-23ML
2-AJ-37 Viggen
3-F-4
4-J-8II
5-Mirage F1

But if it is by beauty and design impact all will pick the AJ-37 as the most beautiful and influential of them all followed by the MiG-23ML

1-AJ-37 Viggen
2-MiG-23mL
3-Mirage F-1
4-J-8II
5-F-4

If we consider historical impact i guess perhaps the MiG-23 and F-4 are too tight but perhaps the list would be:

1-F-4
2-MiG-23
3-Mirage F1
4-AJ-37
5-J-8II.

In the list of relation production number/Combat record (losses and kills in combat) the list will be:

1-F-4 with around 800-900? F-4 lost in combat of 5201 aircraft built but around 400+ claimed kills.

The USAF might have lost around 700 F-4s in Vietman, Israel around 60 and Iran at least another 55 F-4 in the respective wars these nations have fought

2-MiG-23 with around 150-140? combat losses for 45-40? claimed kills of 6000+ built.
Iraq recieved 90 MiG-23s probably all are lost or in total state of neglect with no mantainance and Syria lost at least 36 according to the Israelis other few were lost in African wars and Afghnanistan perhaps around 20?.

3-Mirage F1 Does any body know how many were produced, how many kills are claimed in combat by the Mirage F1? and how many have been lost in combat ?

4-J-8II 400 built none lost in Combat one lost in an international incident.

5-AJ-37 Viggen none lost in combat