Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2018, 14:29
by zero-one
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.

it was a real turning point in performance which resulted in the teen series, The Raptor, F-35, the Typhoon Etc.

But just for fun, whats your worst post 1970s ACM platform and why?
I'm not saying these things are bad because I think any 4th gen can win against even a Raptor in a gun fight given the right pilot.

But which ones will be at the greatest disadvantage compared to it's contemporaries.

My oppinion.....

the Sea harrier,

If I'm not mistaken, all other harriers post 1970 are classified as attack aircraft so they won't count,

but the sea harrier was actually classified as a "Strike fighter".

to me, that means it was intended to take out other fighters.

And yes I know it was the star Air superiority platform of the Falklands, but I think that was largely thanks to the excellent RN pilots that flew them and the Aim-9L.

It's not a duck by any means, but I think compared to all other fighters, post 1970s, it would need the most skilled pilots to compensate. it would be at a disadvantage on almost any metric.

Anyway, its just me

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2018, 14:45
by marsavian
Sea Harrier was fine, great thrust/weight ratio, great climb rate, good turn rate and limited vectored thrust. My vote goes to the MIG-23 whose poor record speaks for itself and whose only good point was acceleration.

Sea Harrier hanging with an F-16

https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=f ... rage&hl=en

VIFFing

https://web.archive.org/web/20080416131 ... -1,00.html

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2018, 14:50
by zero-one
hmmm yeah Mig-23 was pretty bad, but it was fast though. You can do hit and run with it. Harriers were pretty much stuck there

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2018, 14:54
by madrat
F-105G

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2018, 14:58
by marsavian
zero-one wrote:hmmm yeah Mig-23 was pretty bad, but it was fast though. You can do hit and run with it. Harriers were pretty much stuck there


We are talking about ACM though not supersonic tail chases. I see the F-35B/C as the Sea Harrier's spiritual successors and I am pretty sure would have an equally very positive kill ratio if ever called upon and they are not going to tail chase a MIG-23 either ;).

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2018, 15:05
by zero-one
marsavian wrote:We are talking about ACM though not supersonic tail chases. I see the F-35B/C as the Sea Harrier's spiritual successors and I am pretty sure would have an equally very positive kill ratio if ever called upon and they are not going to tail chase a MIG-23 either ;).


good point, But I'll have to disagree with the F-35B/C as a Harrier successor.

In ACM, those 2 models are Hornets in my opinion. High AOA capability and tight turn radius with less than 9G limits. They may have better energy and acceleration which is the only gripe against the F/A-18

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2018, 15:07
by zero-one
madrat wrote:F-105G

This is pre 1970s though. I think they rolled out 1967

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2018, 15:22
by element1loop
zero-one wrote:
madrat wrote:F-105G

This is pre 1970s though. I think they rolled out 1967



mid 1950s development

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2018, 15:39
by zero-one
I did a review and quickly found other platforms that may be even more inferior than the Sea harrier

-Hawk 200
-F-CK-1 (Is it just me or does that look like a certain...word)
-potential armed version of the M-346

but all of these would look like the F-15 against the new worst ACM platform in my opinion, the YAK 38,

With a T/W ratio of less than 1:1 and wing loading at around 81 lbs per square feet at EMPTY Weights, no LERX, body lift, dog tooth or even maneuvering slats I think....This could really be F-105's food

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2018, 19:02
by hythelday
Forger isn't a ACM platforn - it's a shturmovik - ground attack plane. It didn't even have a radar, neither for A-A nor A-G. That's like saying Frogfoot was a bad ACM machine.

My vote also goes to MiG-23. Purpose built for air-to-air, it is responsible for a lot Israeli aces: subpar compared to the platforms it was supposed to match, kinematically, in terms of avionics and in weapons department. R-60? Don't make me laugh.

BTW is Tejas a valid contender?

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2018, 19:24
by zero-one
I don't know, granted that there is such a small amount of info about it.
Wikipedia classifies it as a "VTOL fighter". If it was just an attack aircraft, then yes its off the hook.

I'll agree that the Mig-23 was pretty bad,

Tjas, it does have the GE-F404 as the powerplant, so you can bet it'll do well in going back and forth between Idle thrust and max AB, its not susceptible to compressor stalls and such and can even survive a tail slide. Thats one heck of a good engine strapped on that plane.
Some publicly available Indian graphs show that the instantaneous turn rate is superior to the F-16.
It is a Delta after all.

What about the Hawk 200?

I still give it to the YAK-38, unless you can prove that it was actually not a fighter

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2018, 20:39
by marsavian
Better still, how about the Hawk and Tornado ADV ? Surely no problem for Tomcats and Hornets in ACM ? Think again ...

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/16 ... n-training



I can see a trend with your way of thinking though, subsonic bad, supersonic good. That's what all the Harrier detractors thought before the Falklands but not one was lost to any supersonic Mirage.

https://forums.spacebattles.com/threads ... ir.375305/

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2018, 23:26
by hythelday
zero-one wrote:I don't know, granted that there is such a small amount of info about it.
Wikipedia classifies it as a "VTOL fighter". If it was just an attack aircraft, then yes its off the hook.

I still give it to the YAK-38, unless you can prove that it was actually not a fighter


Well unless you can read russian then you'd have to take my word for it. It's an attack plane, mate:

https://translate.googleusercontent.com ... AvabxzsWEA


Image

There's no radar. The device in the nose cone is some sort of auto-pilot actuator for control surfaces, called САУ-36, I assume it stands for система автоматического управления.

Its only guided weapons were IR-AAM R-60 and an ARM Kh-23/25 (that apparently required additional guidance and targeting pod)
Image

It only had a MiG-21 ballistic sight.

Forger was quite a remarkable machine, actually. It flew from the ship earlier than Sea Harrier and also was baptized in combat before Harrier (some sorties from ground bases in Afghanistan)

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2018, 06:41
by zero-one
marsavian wrote:Better still, how about the Hawk and Tornado ADV ? Surely no problem for Tomcats and Hornets in ACM ? Think again




Ecactly, ive seen that clip. It took clever tactics employed by the RAF to compensate for the diaadvantage the Tornoado had against the Tomcat.

I'm not saying the Tornado is bad, I'm saying its just at a disadvantage in performance terms.

I can see a trend with your way of thinking though, subsonic bad, supersonic good. That's what all the Harrier detractors thought before the Falklands but not one was lost to any supersonic Mirage.

https://forums.spacebattles.com/threads ... ir.375305/


Its actually the power that makes supersonic flight possible that I see as an advantage. Usually that means better energy and better acceleration.

In the 1st post I mentioned that all or most of these planes can take out any aircraft even a Raptor given the right pilot and tactics. So I'm not hating on the Harrier, i love that thing, but compared to others, I'd have to say shes at tail end of my list.

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2018, 09:03
by basher54321
Tornado ADV F.2 definitely a candidate - would have to check but seem to remember it turning up with balast where there radar was supposed to be. It was bought up to speed after about 10 years as the F.3 but the airframe was an interceptor only and didn't have the performance or agility associated with 4 Gen (Okay nor did Tomcat A)

The Forger seemed more like the Kestrel - almost like they didn't get to develop it properly and had to carry those dead weight engines around in flight.

The point of the Harrier FAA defence as I understand was to intercept the large Soviet Naval recon jets that would have found the fleet and directed the Nuclear bombers - as proven in the Falklands it wasn't really much cop as an interceptor against low level Daggers etc. Subsonic it seemed pretty good to a point.

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2018, 12:27
by marsavian
Its actually the power that makes supersonic flight possible that I see as an advantage. Usually that means better energy and better acceleration.


Not in Sea Harrier's case, it was the shape that stopped it being supersonic not lack of power. It had a fat 21,500 lbf (95.64 kN) dry thrust only engine which it took until the very last Mirage 2000 to match on afterburner. This gave it a 50,000 ft/min (250 m/s) climb rate so there was no shortage of power or acceleration ... in its subsonic speed range. The Tornado ADV was designed differently, modest thrust/weight ratio but great aerodynamic shape giving it great acceleration all the way to Mach 2.2. The poor thrust/weight would have killed it in any sustained turning but for slash and burn fast attacks it was pretty good especially as it was primarily a high endurance fast interceptor.

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2018, 12:44
by madrat
I see no reason a 10:1 TWR modern engine - able to supercruise - wouldn't have benefited the Harrier program.

The Pegasus engine couldn't sustain the Harrier in supersonic flight. I don't believe for one minute the Harrier shape was too much drag.

That being said, the F-35B simply is an overall superior VTOL platform. The idea is now moot.

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2018, 17:04
by sprstdlyscottsmn
madrat wrote:The Pegasus engine couldn't sustain the Harrier in supersonic flight. I don't believe for one minute the Harrier shape was too much drag.


It was not so much the airframe as the inlets. The whole harrier line has rounded inlet edges to help with airflow at low, zero, negative, vertical, and sideways airflow velocities. The type of shockwave that comes off these "edges" is extremely draggy and could end up stalling out the engine. There were experiments in a "Sharp" inlet edge that would "inflate" at low speed to round the edges but the system proved troublesome.

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2018, 19:04
by zero-one
Does anyone have any DACT or BFM training info with the Hawk 200 line? I think that would also be a candidate. But the info available is so small.

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2018, 19:15
by marsavian
The Hawk 200 could sustain 8g turns, it probably killed a test pilot through g-loc.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... lP52Eu3pPc

(The Hawk 200 had demonstrated its ability to
maintain 8g/300kt indefinitely)

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2018, 20:29
by basher54321
The Supersonic ASTOVL development of the Harrier wasn't going to look anything like the Harrier.

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

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2018, 17:14
by mixelflick
The Mig-23 is a great pick, but I honestly feel the Mig-29 is the correct choice.

A MUCH better design vs. the Mig-23, it nonetheless has an abysmal combat record. It has been trounced by F-15's and F-16's, as well as its larger stablemate the SU-27. Its sole air to air victories apparently coming when 2 Cuban examples downed a Piper Cub (or 2). For beating up on Piper Cubs, I have to give it a negative rating LOL.

For whatever reason, her combination of speed, maneuverability and excellent thrust to weight ratio has failed to translate into success. Interesting, given how deadly it seemed especially with the Archer and its helmet mounted site...

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2018, 20:54
by basher54321
mixelflick wrote:The Mig-23 is a great pick, but I honestly feel the Mig-29 is the correct choice.

A MUCH better design vs. the Mig-23, it nonetheless has an abysmal combat record. It has been trounced by F-15's and F-16's, as well as its larger stablemate the SU-27. Its sole air to air victories apparently coming when 2 Cuban examples downed a Piper Cub (or 2). For beating up on Piper Cubs, I have to give it a negative rating LOL.

For whatever reason, her combination of speed, maneuverability and excellent thrust to weight ratio has failed to translate into success. Interesting, given how deadly it seemed especially with the Archer and its helmet mounted site...


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.

There really is no mystery here - both Iraq and Serbia not only had the 9.12B version (which didn't help), in Serbias case they were in a right state. There was a video years after with the pilots giving an account of the totally ridiculous situation they were in.
Iraq faired no better in 1991, but again not much they could do in reality - an R-73 and close in capbility not much use if you cant even get there. (There was 1 merge sure but in the light of it being a 2 v 1 the Iraqi pilot may have done all he could)

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2018, 21:49
by f-16adf
As Basher said, prolly the Tornado ADV.

Maybe the Shenyang J-8II.

Or the HAL Ajeet.

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2018, 07:47
by geforcerfx
Mig-31?

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2018, 09:27
by zero-one
There were a lot of reasons for the Mig-29's poor combat record:

-poor training of some of the pilots vs the highly trained coalition pilots they came up against.
-poor support from from external sources like AEWACS and EW platforms
-and lastly, speed and maneuverability is only one part of the story, the Mig-29s that most coalition forces came up against had inferior sensors (some say the Serbian Fulcrums had no working radar) inferior weapons and probably inferior maintenance as well.

but in the hands of competent pilots with adequate support, the Mig-29 can prove very formidable:
https://www.airspacemag.com/military-av ... 03/?page=3
Plenty of the Fulcrum’s smug “show us what you got” adversaries—F-16 Fighting Falcon, F-15 Eagle, and U.S. Navy F-14 Tomcat and F/A-18 Hornet jocks among them—became humbled, and often bloodied, after their first Fulcrum tangle. “With some experience, you could outmaneuver any jet, even Vipers [F-16s]and [high-angle-of-attack] Hornets,” says Steiniger.

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2018, 13:05
by pmi
If you keep reading the article, it isn't as glowing.

...
As good as the Fulcrum was in a knife fight, most Western pilots soon discovered its flaws. Mike Jaensch, a former F-16 pilot and Air Force Weapons School graduate with a background in air defense, returned to active duty in 1994 after being furloughed from American Airlines. Fluent in German, he won a spot in a small group of exchange pilots posted to Laage in 1998 with a combined MiG squadron. Jaensch loved the MiG’s power and maneuverability, but felt hampered by its radar and associated systems. “The Soviet philosophy was that basically pilots were stick actuators,” he says. “It was obviously very different from what we were used to. The avionics were marginal. That same philosophy meant [the Soviets] didn’t see the need to pass information on to the pilot.” Since the MiG’s systems couldn’t convey a complex battlespace to the pilot, combat deployments were vetoed. In 1998, NATO forces had considered dispatching the Laage MiGs to Kosovo but scrapped the idea. The Airborne Warning and Control System operators would have had to offer the MiGs special handling. “With AWACS calling out [information] to three to six combat air patrols, they’d have to give us extra information,” Jaensch says. “We decided we’d get more in the way than help.” In addition, the Serbs also flew Fulcrums, making identification in the air difficult.

In 1996, Fred “Spanky” Clifton became the first American MiG-29 exchange pilot with JG 73. A Weapons School graudate in the F-16, with thousands of hours in F-15s, F-5s, and MiG-29s as well, he turns an analyst’s cold eye on the Fulcrum. “It’s a great [basic fighter maneuvers] machine,” he says. “But of the four fighters, it’s easily the worst-handling of any I flew.” Before becoming a Fulcrum driver, Clifton had his first pilot-scholar assignment as an aggressor, flying F-5 Tigers in intensive training aimed at honing the skills of experienced pilots against known threats, including the MiG-29. When he joined JG 73, it was a unique opportunity to judge the Stateside syllabus. “I got to see if what I was teaching as an aggressor pilot was correct,” he says. “Much of what we ascertained through intelligence was indeed accurate.” Yes, the Fulcrum was a highly capable dogfighter, and its ability to fire a shot regardless of where the nose was pointed was impressive. (The Russians lost the aiming advantage by 2002, according to Fred Clifton, when the U.S. military fielded the AIM-9X missile and the Joint Helmet-mounted Cueing System.) But it had low fuel capacity, a head-down, knob- and switch-congested cockpit, a so-so radar, and not much versatility: It wasn’t designed to do much besides intercept and shoot down adversaries who were flying not far from its airfield. Eastern bloc pilots were trained to slavishly follow ground controllers, so the Fulcrum’s systems, including its head-up display, were not highly developed, and the situational awareness the pilots got was very limited.

.../snip/...

Peter Steiniger runs a website that enthusiastically chronicles the German MiG experience, and is replete with stunning photos and heartfelt tributes to the Fulcrum. And yet Steiniger says: “Would I want to go to war with it? No. Except for the [AA-11 Archer system], the cockpit was terribly labor-intensive. Our overall [situational awareness in beyond visual range] setups was in the map case.” In other words, the pilot had to put his head down, break out the paper, and figure out where he was.

Although a small number of Fulcrums continue to be upgraded—Poland’s MiGs are receiving new mission computers, navigation technology, and even a Rockwell Collins UHF/VHF radio—other air forces, except for an inordinate number of former Soviet-aligned states, never queued up to buy the Fulcrum after the cold war. “The MiG-29 really got exposed with the fall of the Iron Curtain,” Clifton says. “You don’t see further foreign sales. Who’s bought it? Nobody.” As to the wisdom of upgrading the Fulcrum into a modern, data-linked, multi-role fighter, Clifton says, “Go buy an F-16. It would be more economical, and it’s a better airplane.”

...

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2018, 13:06
by gtg947h
basher54321 wrote:The point of the Harrier FAA defence as I understand was to intercept the large Soviet Naval recon jets that would have found the fleet and directed the Nuclear bombers - as proven in the Falklands it wasn't really much cop as an interceptor against low level Daggers etc. Subsonic it seemed pretty good to a point.


That's kind of the impression I get from the Forger, too. It wasn't intended to knock down fighters--look at the ships it was intended for. The Kiev class protected boomer bastions; the Forgers would have been intercepting things like Orions, Nimrods, etc.

I suspect the A/G weaponry came about partly as a secondary role for antiship use, and then later during the Afghanistan experiment. I think the Soviets saw the Harrier and figured "maybe there's something to this VSTOL for attack use" and decided to see if it worked.

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2018, 14:13
by zero-one
pmi wrote:If you keep reading the article, it isn't as glowing.



yes, I'll agree. I was simply responding to the comment that the Mig-29 deserved to be in the list of worst ACM platforms.

The Fulcrum is not a great plane overall, but if there is one thing that it is very very good at, its ACM. In fact, thats the only thing it might be good at.

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2018, 14:56
by mixelflick
basher54321 wrote:
mixelflick wrote:The Mig-23 is a great pick, but I honestly feel the Mig-29 is the correct choice.

A MUCH better design vs. the Mig-23, it nonetheless has an abysmal combat record. It has been trounced by F-15's and F-16's, as well as its larger stablemate the SU-27. Its sole air to air victories apparently coming when 2 Cuban examples downed a Piper Cub (or 2). For beating up on Piper Cubs, I have to give it a negative rating LOL.

For whatever reason, her combination of speed, maneuverability and excellent thrust to weight ratio has failed to translate into success. Interesting, given how deadly it seemed especially with the Archer and its helmet mounted site...


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.

There really is no mystery here - both Iraq and Serbia not only had the 9.12B version (which didn't help), in Serbias case they were in a right state.
Iraq faired no better in 1991, but again not much they could do in reality - an R-73 and close in capbility not much use if you cant even get there. (There was 1 merge sure but in the light of it being a 2 v 1 the Iraqi pilot may have done all he could)


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...

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2018, 15:35
by geforcerfx
basher54321 wrote: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.

Image

mixelflick wrote:
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.

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2018, 15:36
by hythelday
mixelflick wrote:
basher54321 wrote:
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).

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 11 Apr 2018, 16:55
by zero-one
mixelflick wrote:
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.

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 13 Apr 2018, 05:30
by 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.

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 13 Apr 2018, 09:30
by 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.

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 13 Apr 2018, 13:18
by sferrin
hornetfinn wrote: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)

J-10C TVC-testbed - magazine cover part 2 xs.jpg


web7-2017-3-j-10c-new-aams.jpg

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 13 Apr 2018, 14:39
by zero-one
hornetfinn wrote: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

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 13 Apr 2018, 19:50
by basher54321
A big difference between the Block 25 and 30 (B30 has a significant thrust advantage)

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2018, 02:30
by madrat
J-8I ranks right up there with Yak-38...

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 16 Apr 2018, 07:10
by hornetfinn
sferrin wrote:
hornetfinn wrote: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.

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 16 Apr 2018, 23:06
by 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.

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 17 Apr 2018, 14:24
by 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

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 17 Apr 2018, 14:45
by 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..

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 17 Apr 2018, 15:47
by zero-one
mixelflick wrote:It seems every time the Mig-23 flew in anger it died in anger

:lmao: :lmao:. :lmao: :lmao:. :lmao: :lmao:

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.

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 17 Apr 2018, 16:20
by hythelday
ricnunes wrote: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.

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 17 Apr 2018, 16:51
by zero-one
hythelday wrote:
ricnunes wrote:

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.

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 17 Apr 2018, 20:32
by 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.

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 17 Apr 2018, 22:49
by ricnunes
mixelflick wrote:I'd put the Mig-23 as far worse than the Mig-25.


hythelday wrote: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 :mrgreen: ) 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. :shock:



mixelflick wrote: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).


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 :wink:
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...

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 18 Apr 2018, 03:38
by madrat
Did anyone propose the Nimrod or Orion?

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 18 Apr 2018, 04:20
by firebase99
madrat wrote:Did anyone propose the Nimrod or Orion?


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

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 18 Apr 2018, 09:37
by zero-one
firebase99 wrote: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

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 18 Apr 2018, 09:44
by ricnunes
firebase99 wrote:
madrat wrote:Did anyone propose the Nimrod or Orion?


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


LOL :mrgreen:

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 :mrgreen:

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 18 Apr 2018, 10:03
by ricnunes
zero-one wrote: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.

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 18 Apr 2018, 12:14
by 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 :wink:
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!

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 18 Apr 2018, 16:38
by ricnunes
mixelflick wrote: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.

mixelflick wrote: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.

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 19 Apr 2018, 12:13
by madrat
ricnunes wrote:Which IMO it kinda hints on fighter aircraft.
But in case I'm wrong I could suggest the C-5 Galaxy :mrgreen:


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.

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 19 Apr 2018, 14:06
by hythelday
madrat wrote:
ricnunes wrote:Which IMO it kinda hints on fighter aircraft.
But in case I'm wrong I could suggest the C-5 Galaxy :mrgreen:


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!
Image

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!

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 19 Apr 2018, 15:01
by ricnunes
hythelday wrote:A Sidewinder? C-5 says: go big or go home!
Image


LOL :mrgreen:
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 :mrgreen:


hythelday wrote: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).

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 19 Apr 2018, 15:36
by 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).

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 19 Apr 2018, 15:53
by ricnunes
f-16adf wrote: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.

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 19 Apr 2018, 16:18
by f-16adf
I wonder if any flew the -23MLD (most consider the ultimate Flogger) and the 21 at the same time. And if they still opted to keep the -21 over the -23MLD?

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 19 Apr 2018, 16:30
by SpudmanWP
ricnunes wrote: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


Just have a Stinger team jump out the back and launch on the way down. With a C-5 you can have a massive "magazine" of Stingers.

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 19 Apr 2018, 18:31
by sferrin
SpudmanWP wrote:
ricnunes wrote: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


Just have a Stinger team jump out the back and launch on the way down. With a C-5 you can have a massive "magazine" of Stingers.


Or take an F-89 and swap out those Might Mouse rockets for Stingers. 104 Stinger in the wing tip pods, couple of nuke Genies under the wings. . .

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 19 Apr 2018, 20:54
by basher54321
geforcerfx wrote:
Hmm never saw that one.

The P1154 still looked like a harrier to me.



The P.1154 wasnt even a viable concept - not enough was known about PCB engines at the time it was cancelled in 1965.

That was slowly developed over many iterations into the P.1216 of the 1980s - and some of that work ended up in the JSF program apparently.

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 19 Apr 2018, 23:04
by ricnunes
f-16adf wrote:I wonder if any flew the -23MLD (most consider the ultimate Flogger) and the 21 at the same time. And if they still opted to keep the -21 over the -23MLD?


The only country that partially match what you asked that I found is Bulgaria.
Bulgaria operated the Mig-23MLD (the only country that I found to have flown and retired the -23MLD outside Russia and/or other ex-Soviet states) and the Mig-21 at the same time and apparently kept the Mig-21 flying longer than the Mig-23MLD but then again Bulgaria also had (and still operates) the Mig-29 as well.
Therefore Bulgaria had a "good reason" to retire their Mig-23MLD since they already operated Mig-29s (which should be superior, of course).

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 19 Apr 2018, 23:06
by ricnunes
SpudmanWP wrote:Just have a Stinger team jump out the back and launch on the way down. With a C-5 you can have a massive "magazine" of Stingers.


sferrin wrote:Or take an F-89 and swap out those Might Mouse rockets for Stingers. 104 Stinger in the wing tip pods, couple of nuke Genies under the wings. . .


LOL, both ideas would give the "flying porcupine" term a whole new meaning :mrgreen:

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 20 Apr 2018, 21:54
by madrat
MiG-23MLD just never inspired upgrades. MiG-23-93 was a nice expansion in capabilities. And MiG-23-2000 would have been even better. Something tells me the vertical stab on top had too many problems to bother fixing. And that big stab under the tail was an eyesore. Upgrades just didn't fix a bad design. I always liked the premise of MiG-23, but the reality is it just was more mythical promise than practical experience. My favourite what if of the MiG-23 looked vaguely like a crossbreed with the F-14, with canted pylons to hold an SARH and a heatseeker missile, and a droptank under each intake.
Image
But it doesn't fix the awful vertical stabs.

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 20 Apr 2018, 22:03
by botsing
madrat wrote:<broken image link>

FTFY:
Image

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 20 Apr 2018, 22:06
by sferrin
basher54321 wrote:That was slowly developed over many iterations into the P.1216 of the 1980s - and some of that work ended up in the JSF program apparently.


PCB was not used by any of the three JSF competitors.

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 20 Apr 2018, 23:27
by basher54321
sferrin wrote:
PCB was not used by any of the three JSF competitors.


That's right - knowledge and experience from the entire program apparently "provided key UK buy in to the JSF demonstration and dev stages" - what specifically don't know.

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 22 Feb 2019, 18:01
by hythelday
F-111 pilot says "Flogger turned worse and couldn't out accelerate us. It also had tiny cockpit with poor visibility".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLjOcpsrLsI

According to wiki 4477th TES had BN (export ground attack) and FS (export fighter) versions. The question is what engines did "Red Eagle" birds have.

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 22 Feb 2019, 18:45
by basher54321
The single seater they used is the MiG-23MS Flogger E and is stated as 27,600 lbs max SLS thrust R-29-300.


Good sources:

Red Eagles (Steve Davies)
Americas Secret MiG Squadron (Gail Peck)

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 24 Feb 2019, 16:18
by mixelflick
hythelday wrote:F-111 pilot says "Flogger turned worse and couldn't out accelerate us. It also had tiny cockpit with poor visibility".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLjOcpsrLsI

According to wiki 4477th TES had BN (export ground attack) and FS (export fighter) versions. The question is what engines did "Red Eagle" birds have.


Quite a remarkable "accomplishment", LOL. The story I heard was that Soviet front line units that got Mig-23's wanted their Mig-21's back, pronto. It was a (much) worse turner, couldn't see out of the cockpit worth a damn and a nightmare to maintain. The pilot/radar/weapons interface left much to be desired too.

And then of course, we have its combat record. Like most Russian fighters, it has been thoroughly trounced by American jets. It was superb however, at intercepting American AIM-54 A and AIM-7 Sparrow missiles. On one instance, an Iranian F-14 destroyed 3 Mig-23's flying in tight formation with a single Phoenix. In another, 3 Mig-23's were downed by AIM-7 Sparrows from American F-15's. Mercifully, the fourth Mig-23 that was slated to be part of that flight had to turn back, suffering mechanical difficulties. Israeli F-15's and 16's also had a field day with it, adding to the carnage.

It seems as if no matter who was flying it and what model, the Mig-23 was a born loser...

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 24 Feb 2019, 21:49
by milosh
Iranians done lot of propaganda BS about war, one of those it three MiG-23 down by one AIM-54 :roll:

I think even Tom Copper start doubting in what he wrote after he talked with iraq's pilots.

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 25 Feb 2019, 15:22
by mixelflick
milosh wrote:Iranians done lot of propaganda BS about war, one of those it three MiG-23 down by one AIM-54 :roll:

I think even Tom Copper start doubting in what he wrote after he talked with iraq's pilots.


That may be true. But it speaks volumes Mig-23's (and other aircraft) would bug out when painted by the AWG-9. You can also look at the remaining stock of F-14's in Iran and Mig's in Iraq after the war.

If I'm not mistaken, Mig-23's have fallen to F-4's, F-14's, F-15's and F-16's. I'm not aware of any F-18's with MIg-23 kills. Only those 2 Mig-21's in ODS. I would certainly hope if presented the opportunity, they could finish off Mig-23's if necessary.

It did some things well (acceleration), but too many things were sub-par to make it an effective combat aircraft. Perhaps as this thread says, the worst post 70's ACM platform there is/was. Also, I think it speaks volumes the Chinese never sprang for the type. At the time, China went all in on Mig-21's and the Chinese derivative (F-6?). I would have thought the Mig-23 was enviable, at least in terms of range. The reason I speculate they never bought the Mig-29 either, as the Flanker is much better suited to the SCS theater.

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 25 Feb 2019, 20:07
by basher54321
The first Gen MiG-23s are poor whichever way you look at it however the 2nd Gen ones were much improved. They did have some success in the Iran V Iraq war it seems - most of it (like any aircraft) really comes down to its operators and how it is used tactically including any supporting systems.


Not related to the MiG-23 of course is the case of 3 aircraft with one missile. If 3 aircraft are in a formation of unknown distance and not aware of attack and the lead jet (loaded with bombs) is hit with an AIM-54 - are any following jets immune from debris in any way outside of luck? Has anyone run this scenario to prove this is impossible?

Sadly it seems the Iraqi war records were possibly destroyed.

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 25 Feb 2019, 22:41
by hythelday
milosh wrote:Iranians done lot of propaganda BS about war, one of those it three MiG-23 down by one AIM-54 :roll:

I think even Tom Copper start doubting in what he wrote after he talked with iraq's pilots.


There recently was a video that featured two former USN and onr Iranian F-14 pilots talking about the plane; that's where I heard the story from. Supposedly they found the wrecks of all three. Phoenix is a big missile, so I do suppose that's not technically impossible, but I am highly scepticle of hundreds of claimed kills on Iranian side alone.

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 25 Feb 2019, 23:04
by Tiger05
milosh wrote:Iranians done lot of propaganda BS about war, one of those it three MiG-23 down by one AIM-54 :roll:


Lt Col. Asad Adeli, the Iranian pilot involved in the incident, was invited to the US last year to attend the American Fighter Aces Association's panel on the F-14. He explained in details how it happened:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2f5pmrePuQw

Feel free to not believe Col. Asadi but i would love to see you call him a liar in person... :roll:

Just because it doesnt fit you agenda doesnt mean it necessarily must be a lie.

milosh wrote:I think even Tom Copper start doubting in what he wrote after he talked with iraq's pilots.


As yes, the so trustworthy Iraqis. They are the experts at making false or exaggerated claims. They claimed kills on B-52s, F-111s and F-15Cs during Desert Storm... Need i say more?

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 26 Feb 2019, 10:59
by marsavian
hythelday wrote:I am highly scepticle of hundreds of claimed kills on Iranian side alone.


Remember that Iraq had constant reinforcements from Russia and France with some say actual pilots too over nearly 8 years while Iran had none from anyone. If IAF had not maintained a high kill ratio they would have had no fighters at the end of it and yet Tomcats still fly to this day as well as Phantoms and Tigers. The Shah probably saved the Ayatollahs ironically with his aircraft choices.

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 26 Feb 2019, 13:55
by zero-one
Tiger05 wrote:Feel free to not believe Col. Asadi but i would love to see you call him a liar in person... :roll:

Just because it doesnt fit you agenda doesnt mean it necessarily must be a lie.


I'm not gona accuse the Iranians of being liars but at the same time, their claims make it difficult for me to believe the stories.

So you're telling me that in the history of air combat the farthest air to air kill achieved is just around 20 NM away except for the IIAF using export versions of US systems who managed to score kills twice or even 3 times further?

In their defense The Iran-Iraq war is probably the most modern air war that lasted for years,
All the other post Vietnam air wars lasted weeks even days. (Israel might have some that lasted a bit longer)
the longer a war lasts the more chances something amazing takes place like those dumb bombs killing air to air targets in Vietnam.

Anyway, I'm on the fence with their claims, not saying they're false, but I'm not gona eat it all up just yet.

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 26 Feb 2019, 16:03
by mixelflick
zero-one wrote:
Tiger05 wrote:Feel free to not believe Col. Asadi but i would love to see you call him a liar in person... :roll:

Just because it doesnt fit you agenda doesnt mean it necessarily must be a lie.


I'm not gona accuse the Iranians of being liars but at the same time, their claims make it difficult for me to believe the stories.

So you're telling me that in the history of air combat the farthest air to air kill achieved is just around 20 NM away except for the IIAF using export versions of US systems who managed to score kills twice or even 3 times further?

In their defense The Iran-Iraq war is probably the most modern air war that lasted for years,
All the other post Vietnam air wars lasted weeks even days. (Israel might have some that lasted a bit longer)
the longer a war lasts the more chances something amazing takes place like those dumb bombs killing air to air targets in Vietnam.

Anyway, I'm on the fence with their claims, not saying they're false, but I'm not gona eat it all up just yet.


I believe them (most anyway), and I'll tell you why...

We know from test the Phoenix scored 5 hits and 1 near miss (assumed lethal) on everything from low and slow flying drones to high and fast. The Phoenix was custom made for such long range engagements, or at least long(er) ranged than the typical 20 mile (give or take) BVR kills.

I'm not crystal clear on this, but I don't think those drones were equipped with high powered ECM - nor did they appear to be maneuvering all that aggressively. We know that many of the Iraqi aircraft didn't have RWR, and even if they did knowing/seeing a Phoenix approaching would have been very difficult (in most instances, it attacks from the top down). Very difficult to see/defend against.

That and if they did have a RWR, they ran if painted by the AWG-9.

They apparently had a very healthy respect for the F-14/AWG-9/Phoenix. That had to come from experience...

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 26 Feb 2019, 17:08
by zero-one
mixelflick wrote:
They apparently had a very healthy respect for the F-14/AWG-9/Phoenix. That had to come from experience...


I can see where you're coming from, and yes apparently those are the things that make me consider their testimonies.
But On the other hand the US has had very poor combat experience with the Phoenix missile with no combat kills and they had the more advanced C models.

Anyway, I know that doesn't invalidate the Iranian claims, I mean just because you had no success with a certain tool doesn't mean everyone else should have the same experience right. However exaggerations on the story like how 18 miles suddenly becomes 65 miles on the debrief is another discussion altogether.

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 26 Feb 2019, 17:11
by sprstdlyscottsmn
zero-one wrote:But On the other hand the US has had very poor combat experience with the Phoenix missile with no combat kills and they had the more advanced C models.
If you recall the USN use of Phoenix all ended with a "failure to ignite". This was determined to be because the ground crew had improperly installed the motor ignition fuse, or something along those lines. Poor ground handling is the reason the USN never had success with the AIM-54 the one day they tried to use it in combat.

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 27 Feb 2019, 04:35
by zero-one
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:If you recall the USN use of Phoenix all ended with a "failure to ignite". This was determined to be because the ground crew had improperly installed the motor ignition fuse, or something along those lines. Poor ground handling is the reason the USN never had success with the AIM-54 the one day they tried to use it in combat.


I know its just Wikipedia, but they did state their sources. For what its worth, heres what it says:

On January 5, 1999, a pair of US F-14s fired two Phoenixes at Iraqi MiG-25s southeast of Baghdad. Both AIM-54s' rocket motors failed and neither missile hit its target.

On September 9, 1999, another US F-14 launched an AIM-54 at an Iraqi MiG-23 that was heading south into the no-fly zone from Al Taqaddum air base west of Baghdad. The missile missed, eventually going into the ground after the Iraqi fighter reversed course and fled north.


So according to them, 3 launches, 2 motor failures and 1 successfully evaided

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 27 Feb 2019, 05:47
by sprstdlyscottsmn
I forgot that second one, thanks!

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 27 Feb 2019, 13:03
by Tiger05
zero-one wrote:
I'm not gona accuse the Iranians of being liars but at the same time, their claims make it difficult for me to believe the stories.

So you're telling me that in the history of air combat the farthest air to air kill achieved is just around 20 NM away except for the IIAF using export versions of US systems who managed to score kills twice or even 3 times further?


Well, until very recently, the Phoenix was pretty much in a class of its own in terms of sheer range so i dont know why this is so hard to believe. Besides the Iranian claims, we know that the Phoenix was successfully tested at extreme range multiple times (including against manoeuvring, fighter-sized targets). What more do you want?

zero-one wrote:Anyway, I'm on the fence with their claims, not saying they're false, but I'm not gona eat it all up just yet.


Agreed that not all reported 'kills' should be taken at face value. Many of those hundreds of 'kills' are actually claims not confirmed kills. As is often the case, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.

One thing however that isnt even up for debate is that the F-14 did very well during the Iran-Iraq war. Iraq was never able to gain air superiority during the conflict as long as sufficient numbers of Iranian F-14s were operational. And Iraqis were clearly intimidated by the F-14's capabilities. On many occasions, Iraqi fighters would turn back as soon as they detected the characteristic emissions of the AWG-9. That same behavior was observed during ODS with Iraqi pilots trying their luck against F-15s rather than going against F-14s...

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 27 Feb 2019, 13:30
by Tiger05
zero-one wrote:But On the other hand the US has had very poor combat experience with the Phoenix missile with no combat kills and they had the more advanced C models.


The USN used the AIM-54 in anger on only two occasions. Not enough to draw any conclusion on its effectiveness IMO. As as sprstdlyscottsmn pointed out, ground crew error was to blame in one instance. I heard the same thing from a former F-14 ordie on another forum.

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 27 Feb 2019, 14:44
by mixelflick
Tiger05 wrote:
zero-one wrote:
I'm not gona accuse the Iranians of being liars but at the same time, their claims make it difficult for me to believe the stories.

So you're telling me that in the history of air combat the farthest air to air kill achieved is just around 20 NM away except for the IIAF using export versions of US systems who managed to score kills twice or even 3 times further?


Well, until very recently, the Phoenix was pretty much in a class of its own in terms of sheer range so i dont know why this is so hard to believe. Besides the Iranian claims, we know that the Phoenix was successfully tested at extreme range multiple times (including against manoeuvring, fighter-sized targets). What more do you want?

zero-one wrote:Anyway, I'm on the fence with their claims, not saying they're false, but I'm not gona eat it all up just yet.


Agreed that not all reported 'kills' should be taken at face value. Many of those hundreds of 'kills' are actually claims not confirmed kills. As is often the case, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.

One thing however that isnt even up for debate is that the F-14 did very well during the Iran-Iraq war. Iraq was never able to gain air superiority during the conflict as long as sufficient numbers of Iranian F-14s were operational. And Iraqis were clearly intimidated by the F-14's capabilities. On many occasions, Iraqi fighters would turn back as soon as they detected the characteristic emissions of the AWG-9. That same behavior was observed during ODS with Iraqi pilots trying their luck against F-15s rather than going against F-14s...[/quote]

Decided to try their luck against F-15's...

I don't know if there's a stronger testament to the F-14 than that. Bear in mind this was after USAF F-15's had cleaned their clocks in the opening days of the war. Mig-23's, Mig-25's, Mig-29's... it didn't matter. All fell victim to the F-15.

Oh, what I would have given to see a contest between F-110 powered F-14B's or D's vs. the Mig-25. Or even better, the first and only meeting between F-14B's/D's and the Mig-29. Hell. you can throw the A model in there for all I care. I'm betting the F-14 would have carried the day. Who knows? With an impressive showing in DS the F-14 may have survived longer and/or the up-rated models may have been bought.

Probably wasn't going to happen though, given the Iranians still flew them and if I'm not mistaken, there was some concern about the two operating in proximity to each other..

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 27 Feb 2019, 14:52
by sprstdlyscottsmn
mixelflick wrote:
Decided to try their luck against F-15's...

I don't know if there's a stronger testament to the F-14 than that. Bear in mind this was after USAF F-15's had cleaned their clocks in the opening days of the war. Mig-23's, Mig-25's, Mig-29's... it didn't matter. All fell victim to the F-15.

And how well did that work out for them? 31:0 in the F-15s favor? One skilled Foxbat driver got a hit but failed to kill. Given enough time the Iraqis may have been able to develop a counter tactic, just like they did to shoot down a Tomcat or two.

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 27 Feb 2019, 16:10
by hythelday
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
mixelflick wrote:
Decided to try their luck against F-15's...

I don't know if there's a stronger testament to the F-14 than that. Bear in mind this was after USAF F-15's had cleaned their clocks in the opening days of the war. Mig-23's, Mig-25's, Mig-29's... it didn't matter. All fell victim to the F-15.

And how well did that work out for them? 31:0 in the F-15s favor? One skilled Foxbat driver got a hit but failed to kill. Given enough time the Iraqis may have been able to develop a counter tactic, just like they did to shoot down a Tomcat or two.


Yeah but there is no cheesy movie about F-15 that reminds some geezers about that time they were young way back in the 80. Amazing how some on this forum drool over F-14 "could have, would have" capabilities.

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 27 Feb 2019, 16:16
by f-16adf
I think it is best to question both Iran and Iraq's A-A kills during that conflict. Both sides (their leaders/government officials) were/are known for inaccurate or fallacious claims (if not outright lies) concerning that 8 year war. The real truth may never be known.


On a side note, the AWG-9 was great for over water ops. Over land, at times had its share of problems (I believe in look down PD modes). So its effectiveness may have been compromised.

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 27 Feb 2019, 16:44
by quicksilver
hythelday wrote:Yeah but there is no cheesy movie about F-15 that reminds some geezers about that time they were young way back in the 80.


Don’t worry, you’ll likely have a similarly cheesy TOPGUN 2 to look back upon and remind you of those days before the polar ice caps melted and red meat was still sold legally...

Re: Whats the Worst Post 1970s ACM platform

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2019, 01:52
by pmi
Tiger05 wrote:As as sprstdlyscottsmn pointed out, ground crew error was to blame in one instance. I heard the same thing from a former F-14 ordie on another forum.


FWIW don't mistake that for independent verification. The aforementioned other forum appears to be the original source of that claim.

That doesn't mean it is inaccurate but it is something to keep in mind.