MiG-23MLD vs F-16

Agreed, it will never be a fair fight but how would the F-16 match up against the ... ?
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

basher54321

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1764
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post21 Jul 2017, 13:15

Crikey yes - based on the above the MiG-23ML/D is no where near comparable to an F-16C Block 52 - lot closer to an F-4E perhaps.
Offline

milosh

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 785
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post21 Jul 2017, 21:28

f-16adf wrote:
Now I'm not trying to sound like an arrogant Yankee, but according to my countries pilots (like FF who did an exchange with the GAF and flew the Mig-29), it is the other way around. The GE Vipers all have a better STR/P's than the Mig-29. Against the NATO A models sure the Fulcrum "could" be a tad better?


Germans reduce engine thrust for ~10% (so it had ~20% less thrust then BAF MiG-29) to extend service life until EF2000 be ready.
Offline

f-16adf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 686
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46

Unread post21 Jul 2017, 21:53

Yes, I am well aware of that.

Fulcrum: A Top Gun Pilot's Escape from the Soviet Empire authored by the late Alexander Zuyev says the Mig-29 takes 18 seconds to complete a 360 degree turn. The Block 30 F-16 can do it in 15 seconds.
Offline

basher54321

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1764
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post21 Jul 2017, 22:41

milosh wrote:
Germans reduce engine thrust for ~10% (so it had ~20% less thrust then BAF MiG-29) to extend service life until EF2000 be ready.


Somebody - possibly Jon Lake never got the full story it seems.

When people say they were detuned or reduced what they mean is the ground crew flicked a switch on the standard RD-33s to put them into LPM (Limited Power Mode) - they were set back to the fully tuned up mode when deployed for these exercises.

The RD-33 had 3 modes (flight manual) :

Normal Power Mode (NPM) - Fully tuned up mode
MaxAB =8300kgf / Mil = 5040kgf

Limited Power Mode (LPM) - reduces thrust and as the flight manual states "In order to enhance the service life time "
MaxAB =7520kgf / Mil = 4680kgf

Combat Mode (NPM+) - Gives additional thrust over M1.5 at Max AB (F-16As had a similar mode but switch was in the cockpit)
Offline

fulcrumflyer

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 22
  • Joined: 30 Jun 2009, 23:52
  • Location: Las Vegas, NV

Unread post22 Jul 2017, 05:31

We ran the engines in the normal power mode for our annual deployments to Sardinia. The most noticeable increase in thrust was in MIL power. Still noticeable in full AB; however, not as significant an increase. The MiG-29's combat power switch is in the left main gear well.
Offline

basher54321

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1764
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post23 Jul 2017, 12:33

Many thanks for that :notworthy:

Found it interesting that the sustained turn charts in the manual suggest the LPM mode is even putting out more thrust over NPM around the 469 - 518KIAS mark at higher altitudes.


LPMvNPM.JPG
MiG-29G_LPMvNPM



One thing I have noticed is that the acceleration charts in the GAF manual are exactly the same as the ones in the Russian MiG-29 manual (albeit drawn on a graph to make usable) which probably means they use the same standards - and the MiG-23 charts might not be far off.


No surprise the MiG-23ML might have had better supersonic acceleration over the F-4E - an F-16C however with 2 missiles is pretty much twice as quick as the MiG.

MiG-23ML (2 x R-23 / 67% fuel) vs F-4E Block 50 ( 4 x AIM-7E / 67% fuel)
• MiG-23ML Accel @ 32808ft M1.0 to M1.6 full AB = ~87 seconds [72 degree sweep]
• F-4E B50 Accel @ 30000ft M1.0 to M1.6 full AB = ~114 seconds
Last edited by basher54321 on 23 Jul 2017, 20:16, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2264
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post23 Jul 2017, 14:47

MiG-23 was - using an analogy of sports cars - designed for high speed in a straight line. It was fuel starved for taking advantage of that speed in a sustained flight. And it's turbojet was optimized for conditions over a small set of parameters against a much larger reality of possible conditions. The MiG-23MLD was by far the best use of the design, but by today's standards its design is rather narrow in scope.

Surely a redesign of the MiG-23 would have made it much more similar in capability to the F-16. But the Soviets were incapable of funding that development.
Offline

f-16adf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 686
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46

Unread post23 Jul 2017, 15:37

The MIg-23ML(D) with the wings back at 72 degrees will pretty much blow by anything at supersonic speeds. The frontal air-frame cross section is tiny (hence low drag) coupled with 72 degree set wings. It's pretty much like a blazing arrow.
Offline
User avatar

dragracingmaniac

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 115
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2005, 11:21

Unread post23 Jul 2017, 22:32

f-16adf wrote:The MIg-23ML(D) with the wings back at 72 degrees will pretty much blow by anything at supersonic speeds. The frontal air-frame cross section is tiny (hence low drag) coupled with 72 degree set wings. It's pretty much like a blazing arrow.

...soon to become burning wreckage :devil:
Offline

f-16adf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 686
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46

Unread post23 Jul 2017, 23:19

Wish I had some numbers on the Su-15 Flagon, such as acceleration (I am unable to locate a manual). I always wondered how it compared to the later Mig-23 versions? I was guessing the Flogger with the wings back could still blow by it, probably not by much. Seems like PVO still stayed with it, even if the Flogger was a superior interceptor.
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2264
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post24 Jul 2017, 03:20

Su-15TM - the ultimate Flagon - probably was similar to the F-106A. Obviously without F-106A wing tanks the range issue rears its ugly head. Sorry to point out the 800 pound gorilla in the room, but raw physics is always going to slap us in the face with reality.
Offline

arian

Banned

  • Posts: 1293
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post29 Jul 2017, 02:37

lawndarter wrote:As to the general sequence of events of 12 September 1988, both the Pakistani and Soviet reports were largely coinciding. However, regarding the final stage of the skirmish and its immediate outcome, the Soviets had a slighly different story to tell.

According to Markovsky's narrative ("MiG-23 Fighters In Afghanistan") and Petkov's private recollections, Bunin and Golosienko were indeed very eager to retaliate the attack by firing R-24R missiles at the Pakistanis but were given strict orders to disengange, to join the rest of the group and to return to Bagram ASAP. Very much to the dislike of Bunin and Golosienko.The Soviet "higher brass" on the ground deemed the overall tactical situation infavourable, and with the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan on the horizon, they didn't want to escalate the already existing tensions with Pakistan any further.
Petkov later stated that both Bunin and Golosienko were well able to detect and track the Pakistanis using the "ГОР/GOR" (mountain) mode of the MLD's Sapfir-23MLA-2 aka N-008 radar. A mode specifically implemented for operations over mountainous terrain.


Probably some wishful thinking on the part of these MiG-23 pilots, if this is indeed the case that they wanted to push on the attack. MiG-23MLD and R-24 would not have been able to engage retreating tail-on F-16s from anything but very close ranges, even more so in "look-down" mode (which is that this "mountain" mode was. There's no such thing, but some rudimentary look-down mode which was really just tilted antenna). Probably had to close to <5km range for that. And since these MiG-23s were responding after the F-16s had already carried out their attack and were flying low and retreating, the likelihood seems nil.

If it is true that they detected anything at all on their radars (which in look-down mode at such high separation between them and the targets, the range would have been ~20km in the ideal situation)
Offline

piston

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 149
  • Joined: 07 May 2014, 18:36

Unread post08 Oct 2017, 20:05

Well, is there any data about tests of late MiG-23 version (MLA/MLD) in US? I think some ex-east germany machines were tested....
Offline
User avatar

pmi

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 107
  • Joined: 06 Oct 2011, 09:12

Unread post09 Oct 2017, 00:29

piston wrote:Well, is there any data about tests of late MiG-23 version (MLA/MLD) in US? I think some ex-east germany machines were tested....


Google Project Constant Peg & the 4477th TES. There have been other programs involved with testing Russian aircraft, but that is the one you'll find the most info about (Constant Peg's existence was declassified in '06).
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2264
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post09 Oct 2017, 06:09

Based on what they had available, were there any glaring coulda shoulda woulda design elements that MiG missed on the MiG-23MLD? I remember reading how Al-31 could have improved MiG-27, but it wasn't a great idea for the MiG-23. It sounded like R-60 was a better fit than R-73, too. Anyone with experience during that timeframe have any thoughts on it? Not asking about a redesign, just if they could have managed a better design with different choices.
PreviousNext

Return to F-16 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests