Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

[zero-one]

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.

Well thats just it isn't it. Just because you can run, doesn't mean you're good at ACM. Quite the contrary, the reason the Foxbat/hound runs is because they know they are terrible at ACM.

Surviving not to dogfight doesn't really count as a good ACM quality.

[megui]

You'll find it interesting how low-drag the Flogger were, 127kN on wet for M2.35, virtually limited for sake of structure integrity and stability. Low wing span should make better maneuverability than Foxbat at supersonic. It just needed an apple of eye, better missiles in this case. R-60 literally leaves just scratches.

Before Gen.4 soviet fighters were always designated to intercept, Fishbed for Phantom, Flogger for Aardvark. LIke Aardvark, which was misjudged as a fighter rather than bomber, variable wing was intended to improve left part of the envelop, except on Flogger it didn't…… Later given R-27 it can be one decent interceptor, still no reason to waste on it. Mikoyan's Flogger could have been their first try to make overall agility, though failed afterall.

[ricnunes]

I'd put the Mig-23 as far worse than the Mig-25.

Can't agree. Again - Which one would you rather pilot in a duel against another one - a Foxbat or a Flogger?

By looking/reading at what this thread's original poster (zero-one) and specially at this thread's title, the OP/author of this thread is asking which is in our opinion the "worst performer" in terms of ACM which is also and more commonly known as "dogfight".

If you asked me which between is the Mig-23 and Mig-25 is more deadly, I would agree with you because the Mig-25 has a combination of factors such as a better and specially much more powerful radar which allows the Mig-25 to operate better in situations of heavy jamming and/or if the help of GCI or AWACS is not present. The fact that the Mig-25 is faster may also help sometimes.

But if the Mig-23 and Mig-25 faced each other in a dogfight (ACM) than I have no doubts that the Mig-23 would "eat the Mig-25 alive". The Mig-23 is certainly much more agile than the Mig-25 and the Mig-23 is certainly no slouch in terms of acceleration - I would bet that it would be on par or who knows even better than the Mig-25 in terms of acceleration.

It's curious that we're kinda comparing the Mig-23 versus the Mig-25 since I remember a few years ago that a friend of mine which is a cop detained an Ukrainian truck driver (I don't remember the exact reasons for this) and then learned that he (truck driver) was a former Soviet Union Air Force pilot which flew the Mig-21, Mig-23 and the Mig-25. Since my friend is also a military aviation enthusiast as myself, he took the chance (when the detainee was not subjected to the actual police questioning ) to ask some questions about the detainee's/truck driver/former USSR fighter pilot experiences about the aircraft he flew and basically what he told my friend was:
- He considered the Mig-21 to be a fine aircraft.
- He considered the Mig-23 to be a very good aircraft and definitely the best of the 3 aircraft he flew. He said that the Mig-23 flew very well and was a quite stable plane to fly.
- He considered that flying the Mig-25, specially supersonically to be a very scary experience! He told my friend that the Mig-25 would shake and rattle all over the place when the aircraft was flying supersonically which again he considered a scary experience since it gave the impression that the aircraft (Mig-25) could break in mid-air at any time.

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...

Well, if I'm not mistaken the Mig-23 enjoyed some successes during the Iran-Iraq War and according to the link below it even shot down a couple of F-14s:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_I ... 93Iraq_war

But again, we're talking about a dogfight/ACM scenario not aerial engagements in overall terms which can/could/would involve BVR (at least and again, that's the impression that I get with this thread).

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

Well, I find odd that you would prefer to face a Mig-21 instead of a Mig-23 since the Mig-23 is better than the Mig-21 is basically...everything
Comparing the Mig-23 versus the Mig-25, as I mentioned above and while the Mig-25 is technically a more capable interceptor than the Mig-23, the Mig-25 is not certainly better than the Mig-23 in terms of dogfight/ACM.
Regarding the Mig-31 and Mig-29, sure! The Mig-31 is an improved (in basically everything) version of the Mig-25 and the Mig-29 is of course a more modern (actually a next generation) aircraft compared to the Mig-23 and also the Mig-29 is more agile than the Mig-23 of course.

Ops, sorry for the long post...

[madrat]

Did anyone propose the Nimrod or Orion?

[firebase99]

Did anyone propose the Nimrod or Orion?

True OP never mentioned anything about fighters lol. Thumbs up for the P3

[zero-one]

True OP never mentioned anything about fighters lol. Thumbs up for the P3

I did, I said which was the worst ACM platform.
Bombers, recon aircraft, cargo planes aren't ACM platforms at all.

Basically we can only count,
Fighters, Fighter/bombers, Armed Trainers and maybe some interceptors that at least had some ACM in mind

By the way,

Mig-21 vs Mig-23
heres a good statement from Viper aggressors

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/33 ... ary-hotrod

To simulate the MiG-21, we flew it full up, except we would select more than zone two (zone five being the max) afterburner. To simulate the MiG-23 we flew the F-16N at the speed of heat and made no turns greater than about four G

[ricnunes]

Did anyone propose the Nimrod or Orion?

True OP never mentioned anything about fighters lol. Thumbs up for the P3

LOL

But to be fair to the OP, he said the following in his fist post:

The 1970s was great time in aviation as nearly all major fighter projects placed a premium on Kinematic performance because of Vietnam and because of all the new technology available.

Which IMO it kinda hints on fighter aircraft.
But in case I'm wrong I could suggest the C-5 Galaxy

[ricnunes]

By the way,

Mig-21 vs Mig-23
heres a good statement from Viper aggressors

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/33 ... ary-hotrod

To simulate the MiG-21, we flew it full up, except we would select more than zone two (zone five being the max) afterburner. To simulate the MiG-23 we flew the F-16N at the speed of heat and made no turns greater than about four G

I find odd that the USN simulated Mig-23s with their F-16Ns by limiting their turns to no greater than 4 Gs when the Mig-23 according to several different sources had a G-limit from +7.5 to 8.5 G.
According to Wikipedia and about the Mig-23ML:

The early "Flogger" variants were intended to be used in high-speed missile attacks, but it was soon noticed that fighters often had to engage in more stressful close-in combat. Early production aircraft had actually suffered cracks in the fuselage during their service career. Maneuverability of the aircraft was also criticized. A considerable redesign of the airframe was performed, resulting in the MiG-23ML (L – lightweight), which made it in some ways a new aircraft. Empty weight was reduced by 1250 kg, which was achieved partly by removing a rear fuselage fuel tank. Aerodynamics were refined for less drag. The dorsal fin extension was removed. The lighter weight of the airframe resulted in a different sit on the ground, with the aircraft appearing more level when at rest compared to the nose-high appearance of earlier variants. This has led to a belief that the undercarriage was redesigned for the ML variant, but it is identical to earlier variants. The airframe was now rated for a g-limit of 8.5, compared to 8 g for the early generation MiG-23M/MF "Flogger-B".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-23

And below it states the G-limit for the Mig-23 as being +7.5 G:
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/mig23/

Perhaps those F-16N pilots were simulating Mig-23s with full swept wing configuration only?

Anyway and if my memory doesn't fail me, the main problem with the Mig-23 was that its initial variants were pretty much crap when it came to avionics, namely radar. But later generation of Mig-23, namely the Mig-23ML and later variants MiG-23MLA and MiG-23MLD pretty much solved the problems of initial Mig-23 variants.

[mixelflick]

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

Well, I find odd that you would prefer to face a Mig-21 instead of a Mig-23 since the Mig-23 is better than the Mig-21 is basically...everything
Comparing the Mig-23 versus the Mig-25, as I mentioned above and while the Mig-25 is technically a more capable interceptor than the Mig-23, the Mig-25 is not certainly better than the Mig-23 in terms of dogfight/ACM.
Regarding the Mig-31 and Mig-29, sure! The Mig-31 is an improved (in basically everything) version of the Mig-25 and the Mig-29 is of course a more modern (actually a next generation) aircraft compared to the Mig-23 and also the Mig-29 is more agile than the Mig-23 of course.

Here's my rationale: The Mig-21 was much smaller than the 23, thus it was much more difficult to see in ACM. Although the 23 may have been faster/better acceleration, it wasn't by much. A lightly loaded Mig-21 was plenty sprightly, and brought many of the same weapons to WVR/ACM that the Mig-23 did. Finally, we have the reports from former Soviet and Warsaw Pact front line units that (upon receiving their Mig-23's) were then wishing they still had their Mig-21's. Especially from a maintenance perspective. If you can't fly, you can't be a very good ACM aircraft!

[ricnunes]

Here's my rationale: The Mig-21 was much smaller than the 23, thus it was much more difficult to see in ACM. Although the 23 may have been faster/better acceleration, it wasn't by much. A lightly loaded Mig-21 was plenty sprightly, and brought many of the same weapons to WVR/ACM that the Mig-23 did.

Well, the Mig-23 also had other advantages which could certainly help in ACM such as having a HUD (the first Soviet fighter aircraft to carry one if I'm not mistaken) and better avionics.

Finally, we have the reports from former Soviet and Warsaw Pact front line units that (upon receiving their Mig-23's) were then wishing they still had their Mig-21's. Especially from a maintenance perspective. If you can't fly, you can't be a very good ACM aircraft!

Well this looks like initial "teething problems" to me, which basically affects most if not all new aircraft that enters in service.
I would even say that such "initial teething problems" probably plagued Soviet fighter aircraft more than Western aircraft since traditionally Soviet aircraft used to be a "nightmare" in terms of maintenance - I believe that when the Mig-29 entered in service that it also didn't "escape" these same problems as well.

[madrat]

Which IMO it kinda hints on fighter aircraft.
But in case I'm wrong I could suggest the C-5 Galaxy

Unlike the C-5 Galaxy, both Orion and Nimrod were able to carry and launch sidewinders in actual operations. I think the Atlantique 2 had been proposed with a Magic II rail, but I don't think it ever bore fruit.

[hythelday]

Which IMO it kinda hints on fighter aircraft.
But in case I'm wrong I could suggest the C-5 Galaxy

Unlike the C-5 Galaxy, both Orion and Nimrod were able to carry and launch sidewinders in actual operations. I think the Atlantique 2 had been proposed with a Magic II rail, but I don't think it ever bore fruit.

A Sidewinder? C-5 says: go big or go home!


After many a thought, I do agree that MiG-25/31 are not ideal ACM platforms and since we are talking about BFM, then yes, they could be on the list; however, unlike MiG-23, they were intentionally designed that way, so they get a pass. I would still nominate MiG-23 for the worst post-1970 ACM machine of the Red team (get it? RED), and Tornado ADV the worst ACM fighter of the Blue team. I am now reading that ADVs became operational in 1986, and even then they didn't have a functional radar? Meanwhile F-16 armed with AIM-120 killed a Foxbat less than 10 years later!

[ricnunes]

A Sidewinder? C-5 says: go big or go home!

LOL
Alternatively the C-5 could also "launch" M-1 Abrams MBTs. I would like to see any fighter aircraft surviving after being smashed by a M-1 Abrams

After many a thought, I do agree that MiG-25/31 are not ideal ACM platforms and since we are talking about BFM, then yes, they could be on the list; however, unlike MiG-23, they were intentionally designed that way, so they get a pass. I would still nominate MiG-23 for the worst post-1970 ACM machine of the Red team (get it? RED), and Tornado ADV the worst ACM fighter of the Blue team. I am now reading that ADVs became operational in 1986, and even then they didn't have a functional radar? Meanwhile F-16 armed with AIM-120 killed a Foxbat less than 10 years later!

Yes, I agree with you.
However (and like I previously) said I got the impression either by the ACM acronym which is usually associated with "dogfight" and even by the OPs first post that this was a comparison in these terms (and as such BVR for example was not included or necessarily included).

[F-16ADF]

3 Books tell of the Mig-21/23/25.

1. "Fulcrum" by Alexander Zuyev

2. "Mig Pilot, the Escape of Lt. Belenko" by John Barron

3. "Red Eagles" by Steve Davies



Most export versions of the Flogger were of the downgraded type (aka Libya, Syria circa1981).

Yet, it seems most Air Forces that operated both types chose to retire their Mig-23's and keep their Mig-21's (or even upgrade them).

[ricnunes]

Yet, it seems most Air Forces that operated both types choose to retire their Mig-23's and keep their Mig-21's (or even upgrade them).

From a maintenance perspective I would say that makes sense. I believe that it's well acknowledged that Variable-Sweep Wings are considered to be a maintenance burden.
If you notice most if not all of those countries that you mentioned suffer or suffered from very restricted defense budgets at the time when they decided to retire the Mig-23s and keep the Mig-21s and even afterwards.