5 MiG-23s vs 2 F-16s

nastle2000 · by **nastle2000** » 10 Feb 2005, 17:42

This is a hypothetical scenario b/w 5 mig-23s and 2 f-16s on the european front in 1980s (NO AIM-120 AMRAAM). Lets just ignore the AWACS issue (lots of Su-15s MiG-25/31 to deal with then).

MiG has a BVR advantage over the falcon and even if 1 in 10 hits is succesful....that leaves one falcon against five floggers...

kubam4a1 · by **kubam4a1** » 10 Feb 2005, 19:19

Sure that MiGs win. If they lanuch all ten R-23Rs at one target (the closest) one, two or three must hit. Single Falcon has just no chance. One MiG can be attacked and hit by AIM-9L (it has front-targeting capability at low ranges), but MiGs are very fast, remaining will attack by their R-60Ms (at least four, they ALSO have front-targeting capability and difficult to outsmart) and Falcon has no chance. Remember that late MiG-23s (MLD) had R-73 and helmet-mounted sight. So first of Falcons might be destroyed by R-23/R-24 and second by R-73 w/o losses in MiG-23s. But if it had been MiG-23MS without BVR capabilities and R-60s (which was not used both in Russia and in Warsaw pact countries), 2 Falcon would have had some chance, because of the fact that R-3S used by these fighters could attack only from tail (they are similar to old AIM-9B) and only from very short ranges. They are easy to evade, especially when you use flares.

nastle2000 · by **nastle2000** » 10 Feb 2005, 19:46

Thanks for the reply. You are absolutely right the flogger E has real problems against the falcon but the MF, ML and MLD versions will not be so easy to kill. On the central front it is likely the Soviets would have deployed the most capable migs leaving the MS versions for the far east.Superority in numbers did work... I guess.

griffinsrulz · by **griffinsrulz** » 11 Feb 2005, 06:04

It will come down to situational awareness and the pilots, but more likely than not if the Migs dont get the BVR shot, the F-16 will make quick work of them once the fight gets close.
Case in point, the F-16s have faced the Migs over Afghanistan in similar numbers and always come on top.

kubam4a1 · by **kubam4a1** » 11 Feb 2005, 10:49

Especially MLD is very difficult to cope with - because of its R-73's, but R-60Ms are also quite good. I agree with you.

About Afghanistan: there's no conifrmed kill between F-16 and MiG-23MLDs...

LebaneseAce · by **LebaneseAce** » 07 May 2005, 15:16

5 floggers VS 2 F-16´s?
The Falcons will lose in a matter of minutes.
If the Floggers are armed with Archer missiles, if even they are capable of wielding such missile systems, the Falcons will lose on the double.

parrothead · by **parrothead** » 07 May 2005, 15:40

How do you figure

? Why wouldn't the F-16 kill the Floggers BVR with the help of the AWACS in the area?

hansundfranz · by **hansundfranz** » 07 May 2005, 17:19

1980s no Amrams was the situation mnetioned in the beginning.

I aagree with tha majority, higher numbers win that fight.

agilefalcon16 · by **agilefalcon16** » 07 May 2005, 19:22

LebaneseAce wrote:5 floggers VS 2 F-16´s?
The Falcons will lose in a matter of minutes.
If the Floggers are armed with Archer missiles, if even they are capable of wielding such missile systems, the Falcons will lose on the double.

Just curious, but do you at all like the F-16? It seems that most of you posts talk about how the F-16 would loose against particular aircraft.

LebaneseAce · by **LebaneseAce** » 07 May 2005, 20:08

parrothead wrote:How do you figure ? Why wouldn't the F-16 kill the Floggers BVR with the help of the AWACS in the area?

5 Floggers versus 2 Falcons... The F-16's are outnumbered. There are countless ways to bust 2 Falcons.

Viperalltheway · by **Viperalltheway** » 07 May 2005, 20:27

Correct me if I'm wrong but in 1980, there were no mig-23 MLD, and no archer either..

The AIM-9L was the best short range missile at the time. It had a good pk. Its all-aspect attack capability combined with the very good instantaneous turn rate of the F-16 would have been a very lethal combination..

parrothead · by **parrothead** » 07 May 2005, 20:28

LebaneseAce wrote:
parrothead wrote::wtf: How do you figure ? Why wouldn't the F-16 kill the Floggers BVR with the help of the AWACS in the area?

Get your crap together, man. 5 Floggers VS 2 Falcons... The F-16´s are outnumbered. There are countless ways to bust 2 Falcons.

LebaneseAce, I would kindly ask that you adjust your tone on this site. We try to keep it civilized around here.

If there are countless ways to bust 2 Falcons, as you say, could you please elaborate?

Now, I still say the Viper wins due to superior pilot training (not dependant on GCI), superior tactics (developed through flying against actual MiGs in the Nevada desert), and a dose of good ole Yankee Ingineuity. I highly doubt the Vipers are going to go head to head in a neutral merge knowing that the MiGs have longer ranged weapons? I think the intel shop at the squadron would have this type of info and would be working with the pilots to develop counter tactics.

parrothead · by **parrothead** » 07 May 2005, 20:29

Oh yeah, and the F-16 also has the advantage of better visibility from the cockpit once the fight gets to WVR as well :wink:

.

ACSheva · by **ACSheva** » 07 May 2005, 20:32

If there are countless ways to bust 2 Falcons, as you say, could you please elaborate?

Hey guys, I think he meant that a missile fire would do the trick. But seriously to bag a 16 in an old Mig is a hard deal. Unless its some really good pilot. Again its 5vs2. :?:

But the 16 still has my vote on this one

Sheva

parrothead · by **parrothead** » 07 May 2005, 20:37

Wow

!!! You mean you agree on the F-16 winning against a MiG Shev??? Just kidding of course :wink:

.

I don't know for sure, but I think missiles were easier to outmaneuver and evade back then, as well. Sure, the MiGs might bag a Viper if they launched ten missiles at two jets and got lucky enough for enough of the missiles to track. I just don't think the Vipers would get in that bad of a situation to begin with.