Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

[geforcerfx]

The Supersonic ASTOVL development of the Harrier wasn't going to look anything like the Harrier.

http://www.harrier.org.uk/P1216.htm

Hmm never saw that one.

The P1154 still looked like a harrier to me.

OK... but how can combat record NOT be included in this assessment. Every time people bring up the Mig-29's combat record, I hear excuse after excuse. It was an early model. They weren't maintained properly. They were flown by monkeys.They were outnumbered. From what I saw on the dogfights channel, Iraqi Mig-29's were in close (WVR) combat with F-15's, not BVR. They weren't flown by monkeys, they were flown by combat tested Iraqi pilots (on some accounts, their best pilots).

So why is it they couldn't score a SINGLE victory? I dunno. I can see the point the Mig-29 has better maneuverability than say, a Mig-23. It just seems that every time one gets involved in a real life situation to use that vaunted ACM, it ends up being turned into spare parts, hair, teeth and eyeballs...

There was one maneuvering fight between a 2 Mig-29 and 2 F-15 in DS, well at least one we could call a dogfight, the Mig-29 maneuvered into the ground. His wingman was waxxed at 10 miles by one of the F-15's before the engagement started. I think in ACM the F-15 and Mig-29 are pretty even, comes down to pilot. But the F-15 is a BVR beast, the Mig-29 not so much.

[hythelday]

ACM = Air Combat Manoeuvring so in this context not a MiG-29 ever despite the combat record which is no reflection on the platform in that regards.

...

OK... but how can combat record NOT be included in this assessment. Every time people bring up the Mig-29's combat record, I hear excuse after excuse. It was an early model. They weren't maintained properly. They were flown by monkeys.They were outnumbered. From what I saw on the dogfights channel, Iraqi Mig-29's were in close (WVR) combat with F-15's, not BVR. They weren't flown by monkeys, they were flown by combat tested Iraqi pilots (on some accounts, their best pilots).

So why is it they couldn't score a SINGLE victory? I dunno. I can see the point the Mig-29 has better maneuverability than say, a Mig-23. It just seems that every time one gets involved in a real life situation to use that vaunted ACM, it ends up being turned into spare parts, hair, teeth and eyeballs...

Cuase we were discussing ACM, not mission effectivness. MiG-23 didn't score against 4th gen jets, and MiG-29 weren't shot down by F-4s and Mirage F1s. I don't think the Iraqis had HMS, which was the real threat with Fulcrum. Bottom line is: if MiG-23 and a MiG-29 met in WVR, who would you chose to bet against?

Actually I think Tornado ADV deserves a spot here. An interceptor built in the eighties? That's a little late to the party.

Su-33 is also worth to mention. Take a vanilla Flanker, add more weight to it and remove useful load; what do you get? Not an optimal ACM platform, especially considering closest rivals (F/A-18, Rafale).

[zero-one]

So why is it they couldn't score a SINGLE victory?

I guess when your advantage is not that overwhelming, it will really come down to the pilot and USAF pilots were simply better trained even if they had no experience at the time.

The Mig-29 is said to be very similar to the F-16. and there are numerous reports of F-15s going against F-16s. The major consensus is, Its close, even when flying guns only the F-16 only has a slight superiority against the Eagle.

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/how-t ... 1682723379

An F-15C and GE-powered F-16C merge head-on, no missiles, guns only. This is truly where the F-16 excels. The F-15 is absolutely no slouch in this arena and the margin for error is small, but he F-16 enjoys a sustained turn rate advantage and a thrust-to-weight advantage. My game plan would be not to slow down too much in the F-16. Where the F-16 starts to fall off in comparison is when it gets slow and butts up against its hard-wired angle-of-attack limiter. Slow is not a place to be in the F-16 unless absolutely necessary. I wanted to keep my airspeed up relative to the Eagle and beat him down to where his nose track starts to slow and use the vertical as required and the F-16's turn rate advantage to bring my nose to bear. Both jets bring excellent handling qualities and visibility to the equation. What you really don't want to be is the MiG pilot who faces off against either jet in this scenario.

[megui]

Well quite unfair for sea harrier. Brits had no proper CV for proper CV-based fighter so by proxy, harriers were doing lots of AA works then.

Despite numerous halfarse jobs in history, an normal ACM platform should have some pros alongside cons for example tailless deltawing sacrifices landing performance/sustained turn rate for supersonic performance,that's Mirage2k i'm talking about, but so few hardpoint until mirage2k-5. On the other hand bug/superbug really sux at top speed but excellent at WVR fight. BTW MiG-31 was mentioned above, with R-33 it can be the best interceptor purebred so far instead.

By comparison Fulcrum was underrated. For sure its hydraulic flight control handles like hell, not so horrifying as Fishbed then that's a victory. Twist cassegrain N019 and N001 on Flanker meets the very definition of halfarse, no match to APG-63 but still better than Mirage's. My point is most of time you should consider the context. In case of DS without overall air supremacy, gifting Red an F-22 and it still would turn into a kill mark on Blue.

[hornetfinn]

I think Chinese J-10 has to be mentioned here. Not that it's necessarily that bad ACM platform, but it came out so late in the game (2006 IIRC). It's basically an F-16C Block 25 level aicraft introduced during time when F-22, Eurofighter Typhoon, Dassault Rafale and Super Hornet were operational.

[sferrin]

I think Chinese J-10 has to be mentioned here. Not that it's necessarily that bad ACM platform, but it came out so late in the game (2006 IIRC). It's basically an F-16C Block 25 level aicraft introduced during time when F-22, Eurofighter Typhoon, Dassault Rafale and Super Hornet were operational.

While that may have been the case in the early days it certainly isn't that way now. AESA radar, LO intake, and 3D TVC on a more powerful engine (30,000lb+ class)

[zero-one]

I think Chinese J-10 has to be mentioned here. Not that it's necessarily that bad ACM platform, but it came out so late in the game (2006 IIRC). It's basically an F-16C Block 25 level aicraft introduced during time when F-22, Eurofighter Typhoon, Dassault Rafale and Super Hornet were operational.

Well, how far is the block 25's compared to the block 30, which I often hear is the best ACM viper.

But to be honest I'd take a block 25 viper over a lot of things.
Mirage F-1,
Mirage 2000,
F-14,
Tornado,
Sea Harrier,
Hawk 200(light fighter variant)
Yak-130(light fighter variant)
F/A-50
Mig-23
Su-17 family, by the way, since the fitter is designated as a fighter-bomber, I think it deserves a spot too

[basher54321]

A big difference between the Block 25 and 30 (B30 has a significant thrust advantage)

[madrat]

J-8I ranks right up there with Yak-38...

[hornetfinn]

I think Chinese J-10 has to be mentioned here. Not that it's necessarily that bad ACM platform, but it came out so late in the game (2006 IIRC). It's basically an F-16C Block 25 level aicraft introduced during time when F-22, Eurofighter Typhoon, Dassault Rafale and Super Hornet were operational.

While that may have been the case in the early days it certainly isn't that way now. AESA radar, LO intake, and 3D TVC on a more powerful engine (30,000lb+ class)

AFAIK, all those are still in development or prototypes and not operational capabilities. I just pointed out that J-10 is very late in the game for the capabilities it offers. It's probably quite capable ACM platform, but so is 30 years older F-15C.

[ricnunes]

Well, as some others pointed out I disagree that the Sea Harrier was the "worst post 1970s ACM platform". Another advantage of the Sea Harrier was that it had a quite good radar (specially for that time).

I've seen platforms mentioned here that I trend to agree that could "earn" this title such as the Tornado ADV but how about the Mig-25?
I remember to have read that the Mig-25 had the agility of "a brick". The Mig-31 (a Mig-25 development) was indeed mentioned here and while the Mig-31 agility "leaves a lot to be desired" it was nevertheless somehow better than the Mig-25. The agility was actually one of the improvements that the Mig-31 has compared to the Mig-25.

[zero-one]

I take back my Sea Harrier comments.
Looking at post 1970's designs they all seemed good, but looking at it twice, there were some really bad ones, specially from inside the iron curtain.

Mig-23, 25, 31
Su-22
but to me, the Yak-38 takes the cake. designated as a fighter/bomber, it should be qualified. but really, it was more of a VTOL attack platform

[mixelflick]

I'd put the Mig-23 as far worse than the Mig-25. Hell, at least the Mig 25 managed to shoot down and F/A-18C. It seems every time the Mig-23 flew in anger it died in anger. The Mig-31, no real combat record to speak of, but at least it's a universally feared/respected aircraft...

I'd much rather face a Mig-23 in all instances vs. a Mig-21, 25, 31 or even a Mig-29..

[zero-one]

It seems every time the Mig-23 flew in anger it died in anger

. .

Flogger, they should named it Manned target drone (Mig-23MTD)

But in hindsight, heres how Wiki describes the MLD version

The MiG-23MLD was the ultimate fighter variant of the MiG-23. The main focus of the upgrade was to improve manoeuvrability, especially during high angles of attack (AoA). The pitot boom was equipped with vortex generators, and the wing's notched leading edge roots were 'saw-toothed' to act as vortex generators as well. The flight-control system was modified to improve handling and safety in high-AoA maneuvers.

[hythelday]

I've seen platforms mentioned here that I trend to agree that could "earn" this title such as the Tornado ADV but how about the Mig-25?
I remember to have read that the Mig-25 had the agility of "a brick". The Mig-31 (a Mig-25 development) was indeed mentioned here and while the Mig-31 agility "leaves a lot to be desired" it was nevertheless somehow better than the Mig-25. The agility was actually one of the improvements that the Mig-31 has compared to the Mig-25.

Can't agree. Again - Which one would you rather pilot in a duel against another one - a Foxbat or a Flogger? While contemporaries, a Foxbat was probably a better BVR fighter than the flogger, owing to its huge radar and equally monstrous R-40. WVR? Well, Foxbat could always run to fight another day.

Of course Foxbat/Foxhound do not turn well, but ridiculous speed of Foxbat allowed it to engage/disengage at favorable conditions. Even Israeli F-15s had troubles splashing Egyptian MiG-25s, something they admit without any sense of shame of dismissal.

Moreover, MiG-25 and MiG-31 were borne out of unique requirements for the Soviets. Their huge Polar frontier with very little infrastructure made a big interceptor a must for air defence, while by the time Tornado ADV came around Western European countries could have provided equal or even better air defence with a multirole type that could also do other type of missions.