F-4E Air to Air Weapons/Capabilities Discussion

[Aussie_Mantis]

On 8/18/2023 at 10:55 PM, SgtPappy said:

Right, my bad I forgot you are the loadout guy! But no I don't think you can sadly. 

This is saddening and I will personally mail fifteen dubiously malodorous pipe-shaped packages to the US Air Force Reserve to get them to reinstate F-4E combat status so that I can watch USAF F-4Es with GE F110s, AIM-9Xs, JHMCS, BOZ Countermeasures rails, AMRAAMs, the AN/APG-78 AESA RADAR, pits ripped out of F-15Es and LANTIRN pods fly against the 3000 White J-7Es of Xi.

 

Then we'll see who gets the last laugh.

 

(NOTE TO MY PERSONALLY ASSIGNED REDHEAD TOMBOY FBI/ASIO AGENT: THIS IS A JOKE.

ALSO, YOU ARE VERY HOT. SEND NUDES.

NOTE TO NERDS: THIS IS A JOKE.

PLEASE PUT THE 40,000 WORD ESSAY ON THE SUPERIORITY OF GEN 4 PLATFORMS AWAY)

Edited August 20, 2023 by Aussie_Mantis

[CarbonFox]

22 hours ago, Aussie_Mantis said:

This is saddening and I will personally mail fifteen dubiously malodorous pipe-shaped packages to the US Air Force Reserve to get them to reinstate F-4E combat status so that I can watch USAF F-4Es with GE F110s, AIM-9Xs, JHMCS, BOZ Countermeasures rails, AMRAAMs, the AN/APG-78 AESA RADAR, pits ripped out of F-15Es and LANTIRN pods fly against the 3000 White J-7Es of Xi.

 

Not knowing the size difference between the J79 and F110, I'd imagine structural changes would be needed to fit the new engine into the Phantom. Certainly the intakes would need to be enlarged.

[G.J.S]

1 hour ago, CarbonFox said:

Not knowing the size difference between the J79 and F110, I'd imagine structural changes would be needed to fit the new engine into the Phantom. Certainly the intakes would need to be enlarged.

110 I believe is shorter but about 8” wider.

Could be a case of going down the “Spey” rabbit hole again!

[Aussie_Mantis]

7 minutes ago, G.J.S said:

110 I believe is shorter but about 8” wider.

Could be a case of going down the “Spey” rabbit hole again!

If they did it to the FG.1 they can do it again for the F110.

My Powdered Copium shall not be denied.

Edited August 21, 2023 by Aussie_Mantis

[_BringTheReign_]

Ed Nash had a great video on the proposed F100 upgrade for the "super phantom" The Boeing Super Phantom; Making a Legend Even Greater - Forgotten Aircraft - Military Matters

[Gunfreak]

On 8/20/2023 at 7:05 PM, Aussie_Mantis said:

This is saddening and I will personally mail fifteen dubiously malodorous pipe-shaped packages to the US Air Force Reserve to get them to reinstate F-4E combat status so that I can watch USAF F-4Es with GE F110s, AIM-9Xs, JHMCS, BOZ Countermeasures rails, AMRAAMs, the AN/APG-78 AESA RADAR, pits ripped out of F-15Es and LANTIRN pods fly against the 3000 White J-7Es of Xi.

 

Then we'll see who gets the last laugh.

 

(NOTE TO MY PERSONALLY ASSIGNED REDHEAD TOMBOY FBI/ASIO AGENT: THIS IS A JOKE.

ALSO, YOU ARE VERY HOT. SEND NUDES.

NOTE TO NERDS: THIS IS A JOKE.

PLEASE PUT THE 40,000 WORD ESSAY ON THE SUPERIORITY OF GEN 4 PLATFORMS AWAY)

 

Stay away from the redheads. They are mine.

[Bozon]

Israel Aerospace Industries had a flying prototype of Super Phantom, which was an Israeli upgraded “Kurnas” with the Lavi’s intended PW1120 engines. These were small enough to easily fit into the Phantom. The performance could embarrass some 4th generation fighters. This was in 1987.

https://www.19fortyfive.com/2021/07/israels-f-4-super-phantom-the-killer-fighter-jet-that-never-flew/
 

 

Edited August 27, 2023 by Bozon

[Kalasnkova74]

10 hours ago, Bozon said:

Israel Aerospace Industries had a flying prototype of Super Phantom, which was an Israeli upgraded “Kurnas” with the Lavi’s intended PW1120 engines. These were small enough to easily fit into the Phantom. The performance could embarrass some 4th generation fighters. This was in 1987.

https://www.19fortyfive.com/2021/07/israels-f-4-super-phantom-the-killer-fighter-jet-that-never-flew/
 

 

 

That fact occurred to McDonnell Douglas’ accountants , which is why they refused to approve the project. Tough to sell F/A-18s on the export market when an engine swap on their Phantoms gets better performance for less money. 

[Harlikwin]

On 7/9/2023 at 4:05 AM, Northstar98 said:

It can guide it (though without monopulse encoding on its illuminator, you won't have the advantages of an inverse-monopulse seeker, though not that that's modelled in DCS EDIT: Actually, looking through the files, the AIM-7F is defined with larger height_error values, so maybe something along those lines is in fact modelled, at least somewhat). Though regardless, the AIM-7M isn't listed in a 1984 revised 1990 -1.

It's somewhat of a mess, if the manual is supposed to be believed it would be circa 2003 (AN/APG-63(V)1 and AIM-120C-5). But being heavily simplified you could basically do whatever with it with weapons restricting, especially given that it has much older weapons available to it.

 

Pretty sure I recall reading the F4  radar couldn't actually illuminate the 7F out to its max range. 

Edited October 11, 2023 by Harlikwin

[Harlikwin]

On 7/14/2023 at 11:36 AM, Top Jockey said:

Hello everyone,

I suppose this is the right thread for my question, judging by the title.

Regarding the AIM-9 SEAM (Sidewinder Expanded Acquisition Mode) in the F-4 Phantom II, could anyone share some insight, on which airframe variants / missile versions used it, and how was this mode employed by the pilot as the Phantom did not had much in terms of HUD symbology ?

 

Thank you.

SEAM was a Navy winder thing. So Aim-9D/G/H/ and then the L. AF versions didn't have it. I.e. E/J/N/P. IDK how SEAM might have been added to the phantom for use with the 9L though, it might have not had it for the L. (edit. yeah I see klarsnow already covered this). 

On 7/16/2023 at 8:30 AM, Top Jockey said:

Thank you all guys for the insights regarding the AIM-9 and SEAM in the Phantom.

Also as far as I know (if I'm not mistaken) :

- besides the capability of slaving the AIM-9 seeker head to a radar track;

- SEAM also had the capability to make the AIM-9 seeker head perform a scan pattern by itself around the boresight / ADL (widening the target acquisition area)

There's more related to this subject, CAGE / UNCAGE function, scan pattern types, etc.

 

Anyone feel free to share your insight.

Yeah, you can see the "double-D" scan pattern, that navy jets do with it on the tomcat IIRC.

Fun fact there being is Iran never got their "navy" missiles, so they had to jerry rig Aim-9J/P to the tomcat, and therefore no SEAM there.

 

Edited October 11, 2023 by Harlikwin

[Harlikwin]

Also as to the whole Mig-23MLA vs F4E debate. More or less the Mig23 should be slightly better in most of the ways that matter, at least on paper. It turned a bit better than the phantom across most of the envelope, the radar was better. The missiles in terms of DCS probably matter less since ED doesn't model anything with seeker types. Technically the R-23 seeker should be better than the 7E series. And the R-24 in theory should be on par or better than the 7F fired from the phantom. AAM wise, the R60/60M were gonna be better than the early sidewinders in terms of tracking/dogfight performance aside from range. Once the 9L shows up, then the shoe is on the other foot. But as numerous people have pointed out, it was complicated IRL what jet would get what. In general the "on the paper" advantages are small however you slice it, so it will be down to how well things are modeled on either jet. Maybe HB models Jester 2.0 to be able to read thru clutter and lock stuff unrealistically, or maybe not. Or maybe either FM is off by enough to make the jet more OP or UP than it was IRL.

 

 

 

On 8/27/2023 at 10:04 AM, Bozon said:

Israel Aerospace Industries had a flying prototype of Super Phantom, which was an Israeli upgraded “Kurnas” with the Lavi’s intended PW1120 engines. These were small enough to easily fit into the Phantom. The performance could embarrass some 4th generation fighters. This was in 1987.

https://www.19fortyfive.com/2021/07/israels-f-4-super-phantom-the-killer-fighter-jet-that-never-flew/
 

 

 

Sad. your link is dead.

[Bozon]

17 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

Sad. your link is dead.

I think this is the same content, or very similar:

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/1980s-israel-developed-heavy-hammer-f-4-super-phantom-what-happened-44702
 

[Smyth]

On 10/10/2023 at 6:22 PM, Harlikwin said:

Also as to the whole Mig-23MLA vs F4E debate. More or less the Mig23 should be slightly better in most of the ways that matter, at least on paper. It turned a bit better than the phantom across most of the envelope, the radar was better.

That seems to be the consensus around here for some reason, but I still haven't seen any data to suggest that a MiG-23ML can outperform the F-4E in any way while subsonic (including acceleration and climb rate). Certainly the "Practical Aerodynamics" manual for the -23 does not, and it seems likely that the DCS version will be modeled on that document given Razbam cited it for the -19.

This assumes the aerodynamic and mechanical limits that prevent the Flogger from dogfighting at the 18 degree wing sweep are actually modeled, but they did include realistic limitations on the Farmer eventually so I have some hope.

[Harlikwin]

1 hour ago, Smyth said:

That seems to be the consensus around here for some reason, but I still haven't seen any data to suggest that a MiG-23ML can outperform the F-4E in any way while subsonic (including acceleration and climb rate). Certainly the "Practical Aerodynamics" manual for the -23 does not, and it seems likely that the DCS version will be modeled on that document given Razbam cited it for the -19.

This assumes the aerodynamic and mechanical limits that prevent the Flogger from dogfighting at the 18 degree wing sweep are actually modeled, but they did include realistic limitations on the Farmer eventually so I have some hope.

The Israelis evaluated a captured MLA vs slatted phantoms and came to that conclusion, they also concluded the 23 could keep up with vipers in certain parts of the envelope (high alt mostly). Doctrinally the Soviets fully expected the 23MLA and MLD to go against vipers and win. The Aero stuff I've seen suggest that the 23 and the slatted phantom have very similar STR, maybe 1-2 dps in the floggers favor for most of the flight regime. Absolute ITR might be a tossup. But the 23MLA typically outflew  mig21's as well and those are certainly within the F4's ballpark. As for acceleration, LOL, you have guys that flew against the red eagles overwhelmingly state that even the MS "walked away from them". And one of the Red eagles that Flew F-22's state that the 23MS would out accelerate it. Mind you the MS is over a ton heavier, and has a ton less thrust vs the MLA. And lol, no one is gonna dogfight in the 16 degree position, 45 was standard and what most of the charts are based on for the MLA, then they discovered 33 was the superior sweep which was utilized. 

Does the 23MLA have weaknesses with its aerodynamics, without a doubt. But its basically a totally different jet than the MS, which is where the bulk of western "aero" mig-lore comes from, and that was literally the worst model of 23 that ever flew. Which is <drum roll> why they sold them to the arabs (and where the US got them). 

Systems wise same thing. The MS was basically trash in terms of radar, lacked and IRST, no Lazur system and so forth. The MLA radar is more advanced than the F4 radar, no doubt there. It may be a misunderstood whacky engineered piece of sovietium, but from what I have read on it, it should perform quite well in lookup, and while it has its issues with lookdown, it will actually work unlike the APQ-120. Moreover its integration with the IRST will give the sensor advantage to the MLA even if its modeled right with its deficiencies (Though I have near zero confidence a good IRST model can be made in DCS at this juncture without a heavy lift from ED, which may or may not happen). Add to that an actual Lazur model (no idea if it will have this on release, but Razbam said they will try) then the advantage is firmly in the floggers court SA wise versus the phantom. 

BVR wise again, the MLA should have an advantage over the phantom due to the radar and the same assuming period correct missiles (i.e. R-23 vs 7E's), or later (R-24 vs 7F). But really given the fact that seeker performance differences for either IR or Radar guided missiles aren't modeled in DCS this will take away alot of that flavor.

As for DCS, its just down to how well this stuff gets modeled by either party. DCS devs, both HB and Raz have had their historical issues getting things modeled right (the F14 flaps fiasco for example, among many others) but both parties have eventually gotten there IMO. The F14 of today is vastly better than where they started off. Same for most of the Razbam jets.

My general hope for the Phantom is that the radar model is at least on par in terms of "limitations" of the APQ-120 as it is "performance" and this goes 5000% more true for how jester actually handles it, if he can just easily dig out targets from the clutter the rest of the radar model is pointless IMO. Same goes for him running the TGP and other systems. HB's areo modeling, I generally like, but the F14 went through IDK what 2 or 3 major revisions, and the flap exploit till they clamped down on it was the bane of fighting in MP. And then there were the famous Phoenix revisions. For the F4 I really hope "early sparrow" problems are actually modeled, but I have my doubts. The one potential upside we've seen is the new physics based RWR, so that gives me hope for a decent EW simulation, though given how the rest of DCS works I have questions on how they managed to do it.

As for the 23, I hope the radar model is good, and if Galinette is doing it, I'll give Razbam the benefit of the doubt since he did a great job with the eagle radar. As I mentioned earlier I think the IRST will likely be a major problem to get right/realistic given the existing IR modeling in DCS or rather lack therof, but I hope they figure out something better than what they did for the Harrier. Lazur again a toss-up as to how its done, if its like the TAF for the M2k it won't be very realistic, but at least it will be easy to implement. If they go whole hog and actually try to model "tactics" for the GCI it could end up being decent. The FM is the other big question IMO, I've never really cared for Razbams FM's in the past, but the Eagle is actually  pretty decent in book, and more importantly in the book of guys that flew em, so that gives me hope.

 

 

 

 

Edited October 13, 2023 by Harlikwin

[Smyth]

4 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

The Aero stuff I've seen suggest that the 23 and the slatted phantom have very similar STR, maybe 1-2 dps in the floggers favor for most of the flight regime. Absolute ITR might be a tossup. But the 23MLA typically outflew  mig21's as well and those are certainly within the F4's ballpark. As for acceleration, LOL, you have guys that flew against the red eagles overwhelmingly state that even the MS "walked away from them". And one of the Red eagles that Flew F-22's state that the 23MS would out accelerate it. Mind you the MS is over a ton heavier, and has a ton less thrust vs the MLA. And lol, no one is gonna dogfight in the 16 degree position, 45 was standard and what most of the charts are based on for the MLA, then they discovered 33 was the superior sweep which was utilized.

I made that statement based on official Soviet data, official US data, and nothing else.

This is not the place for a full Mig-23ML vs F-4E performance essay and I don't have the time right now, but here is an estimate for subsonic climb rate since that seems to be the most contentious point.

To start with the -23, here is the climb rate plot for an ML from the "Практическая Аэроднамика Самолетов МиГ-23МЛ И МиГ-23УБ"

That is 215m/s at 12100kg and 1000m altitude with 2x R-23.

Now for the Phantom, here is the climb rate plot from "Limited Performance and Flying Qualities Evaluation of the F-4E with the Retrofit Two-Position Maneuvering Slat Kit"

That is 33200ft/min at 10000ft and 37600ft/min at 5000ft

Climb rate can be accurately interpolated over short changes in altitude (look at any Standard Aircraft Characteristics page), so for 1000m = 3281ft we get 39110ft/min

That is 199m/s at 41185lb and 1000m altitude. Loading says "no external stores", but elsewhere in the report this is clarified as a drag index of 3.2 from the EROS pod and nose boom, which is about 2.5x the drag of an Aim-7, so this is completely fair. 1.5 more Sparrows worth of drag to get the standard 4x will not actually make a measurable difference anyway.

That shows the Phantom slightly behind the Flogger, but is it a fair comparison? Not really. 12100kg with 2x R-23 works out to about 28% useable fuel for the ML. 41185lb was 60% fuel for an original Blk36 F-4E. The fuel fraction of both aircraft is somewhat similar, so they should be compared at the same fuel load (generous toward the slightly shorter-legged MiG).

Some kind of correction is needed. Climb potential is just specific extra power in different units, so it would work to scale by weight if drag stayed the same. Of course drag doesn't stay exactly the same, but induced drag is tiny in level flight at high speed, so this almost works. To be generous toward the MiG-23, I will scale the Phantom down since that doesn't account for the very small decrease in induced drag.

The non-TISEO slatted Phantom at 28% useable fuel with 4x Aim-7E is 38300lb calculated from McDonnell reports (which give a higher weight than USAF manuals, so I use them to be conservative toward the Phantom). 199*(41185/38300) works out to 214m/s.

Trying to escape from a Phantom climbing at 214m/s, flying a MiG-23ML climbing at 215m/s is going to be a long wait, unless an Aim-7 intervenes.

Note that the acceleration of a MiG-23 IS amazing... when >M1.25 around tropopause. Even an R29 powered 23M/MF/MS easily out climbs and accelerates an F-15 under those conditions. The newer US fighters all feature large wings and turbofans for maximum ceiling and energy retention at high altitude during BVR, and pretty unimpressive raw acceleration at very high mach and lower altitudes as a result.

Calculating a similar estimate for turn rate from similar documents leads to the conclusion that a MiG-23ML/A will not out-turn the F-4E at anything other than 16/18 wing sweep setting either. Hence my comment about that wing setting not being a practical one.

If anyone can show a better document or better calculation for the excess power of a MiG-23, please share it. I will freely admit I am wrong if such a thing exists. Until then I am standing by this.

 

Edited October 13, 2023 by Smyth
format

[Smyth]

A separate post for a separate topic.

4 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

Does the 23MLA have weaknesses with its aerodynamics, without a doubt. But its basically a totally different jet than the MS, which is where the bulk of western "aero" mig-lore comes from, and that was literally the worst model of 23 that ever flew.

The MiG-23MS is a totally different jet from the MiG-23S (that did fly - barely). That was the worst model of Flogger. The Egyptian MiG-23MS the US evaluated had exactly the same airframe and powerplant as a MiG-23M (main production, most common and historically significant model) in service with the USSR at the same time. The only difference is that it was lighter than the M/MF and carried lighter weapons, resulting in a more favorable flight performance evaluation than if the US had tested a 'real' MiG-23M.

Imagine if the Soviet union got their hands on the lightweight export F-4F, used that to evaluate the performance of the F-4E, and based all their Phantom-lore from it. They would have concluded that an F-4E can turn with a combat-slatted MLD, which it really can't. Likewise the US concluded that a MiG-23M can turn with an F-4D, which it really can't.

Edited October 13, 2023 by Smyth
brevity

[Harlikwin]

11 hours ago, Smyth said:

I made that statement based on official Soviet data, official US data, and nothing else.

This is not the place for a full Mig-23ML vs F-4E performance essay and I don't have the time right now, but here is an estimate for subsonic climb rate since that seems to be the most contentious point.

To start with the -23, here is the climb rate plot for an ML from the "Практическая Аэроднамика Самолетов МиГ-23МЛ И МиГ-23УБ"

That is 215m/s at 12100kg and 1000m altitude with 2x R-23.

Now for the Phantom, here is the climb rate plot from "Limited Performance and Flying Qualities Evaluation of the F-4E with the Retrofit Two-Position Maneuvering Slat Kit"

That is 33200ft/min at 10000ft and 37600ft/min at 5000ft

Climb rate can be accurately interpolated over short changes in altitude (look at any Standard Aircraft Characteristics page), so for 1000m = 3281ft we get 39110ft/min

That is 199m/s at 41185lb and 1000m altitude. Loading says "no external stores", but elsewhere in the report this is clarified as a drag index of 3.2 from the EROS pod and nose boom, which is about 2.5x the drag of an Aim-7, so this is completely fair. 1.5 more Sparrows worth of drag to get the standard 4x will not actually make a measurable difference anyway.

That shows the Phantom slightly behind the Flogger, but is it a fair comparison? Not really. 12100kg with 2x R-23 works out to about 28% useable fuel for the ML. 41185lb was 60% fuel for an original Blk36 F-4E. The fuel fraction of both aircraft is somewhat similar, so they should be compared at the same fuel load (generous toward the slightly shorter-legged MiG).

Some kind of correction is needed. Climb potential is just specific extra power in different units, so it would work to scale by weight if drag stayed the same. Of course drag doesn't stay exactly the same, but induced drag is tiny in level flight at high speed, so this almost works. To be generous toward the MiG-23, I will scale the Phantom down since that doesn't account for the very small decrease in induced drag.

The non-TISEO slatted Phantom at 28% useable fuel with 4x Aim-7E is 38300lb calculated from McDonnell reports (which give a higher weight than USAF manuals, so I use them to be conservative toward the Phantom). 199*(41185/38300) works out to 214m/s.

Trying to escape from a Phantom climbing at 214m/s, flying a MiG-23ML climbing at 215m/s is going to be a long wait, unless an Aim-7 intervenes.

Note that the acceleration of a MiG-23 IS amazing... when >M1.25 around tropopause. Even an R29 powered 23M/MF/MS easily out climbs and accelerates an F-15 under those conditions. The newer US fighters all feature large wings and turbofans for maximum ceiling and energy retention at high altitude during BVR, and pretty unimpressive raw acceleration at very high mach and lower altitudes as a result.

Calculating a similar estimate for turn rate from similar documents leads to the conclusion that a MiG-23ML/A will not out-turn the F-4E at anything other than 16/18 wing sweep setting either. Hence my comment about that wing setting not being a practical one.

If anyone can show a better document or better calculation for the excess power of a MiG-23, please share it. I will freely admit I am wrong if such a thing exists. Until then I am standing by this.

 

 

So, honestly I'm no AeroE, nor do I particularly care to debate you on this. Maybe you're right maybe not. What I do know, and what makes sense is that the 23 is a pointy low drag dart thats been described by everyone that flew it or flew against it as having amazing acceleration. Meanwhile the F4, while having lots of thrust, also had a ton of drag and was described as a flying brick. 

On the maneuverability question I've seen charts (no, not gonna post em sadly because they way the are made I think violates rule 16) that put the mig23MLA STR at ~14.5dps, and ITR at like 19dps at like 5k alt (28k lbs, 2R23R, 50% fuel).

Looking at phantom charts for the same alt at around 12-13 dps STR and ~19dps ITR(4x Aim7, 41k lbs)

So not a huge difference, but slightly in the migs favor with a 45 deg wing sweep. I assume it gets somewhat better with the 33 deg sweep, but I've not seen any aero data for that.  

11 hours ago, Smyth said:

A separate post for a separate topic.

The MiG-23MS is a totally different jet from the MiG-23S (that did fly - barely). That was the worst model of Flogger. The Egyptian MiG-23MS the US evaluated had exactly the same airframe and powerplant as a MiG-23M (main production, most common and historically significant model) in service with the USSR at the same time. The only difference is that it was lighter than the M/MF and carried lighter weapons, resulting in a more favorable flight performance evaluation than if the US had tested a 'real' MiG-23M.

Imagine if the Soviet union got their hands on the lightweight export F-4F, used that to evaluate the performance of the F-4E, and based all their Phantom-lore from it. They would have concluded that an F-4E can turn with a combat-slatted MLD, which it really can't. Likewise the US concluded that a MiG-23M can turn with an F-4D, which it really can't.

 

Yup, I agree with you here, you need accurate evaluations. All I know is that the Israelis got their hands on Syrian MLD (which in reality is aerodynamically an MLA, with MLD radar/fcs). And they concluded it outflew their slatted F4E's across the envelope. Sadly that report doesn't have any actual flight data, just the conclusion.

 

[TLTeo]

Fwiw there were em charts posted in the F-104 section a while ago (so I assume they comply with rule 16 since they are still up) that show the F-4E having a slight edge over the Mig-23ML, in turn having a slight edge over the F-104G. Not sure what the source is though.

[Harlikwin]

5 hours ago, TLTeo said:

Fwiw there were em charts posted in the F-104 section a while ago (so I assume they comply with rule 16 since they are still up) that show the F-4E having a slight edge over the Mig-23ML, in turn having a slight edge over the F-104G. Not sure what the source is though.

Not seeing any 23ML data in that thread, just F4 vs 104. The revised STR on the phantom is 14dps tho vs another chart I have so the two are basically the same if the 23 is 14.5dps at the same alt. It might do better or worse at higher altitudes tho, for which I haven't seen numbers. 

Its interesting because the israeli commentary made it sound like it outperformed their F4 by more than a hair. I wonder if theirs was heavier or if they flew the 23 clean, cuz I'm sure the R23/24 is draggy as hell. Alternately they used the 33 degree wing sweep which reputedly bumps the STR up to ~16dps. Or the rather unlikely possibility it was an actual MLD with the additional Aero refinements. 

Then there is this gem from a former Viper pilot that flew the MLD that was quite impressed with its performance.
null

 

Edited October 13, 2023 by Harlikwin

[Smyth]

12 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

Maybe you're right maybe not.

Which is fine, I'm not offended if people don't believe me, I just want to make it clear that I am not making wild statements without any kind of justification.

8 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

Then there is this gem from a former Viper pilot that flew the MLD that was quite impressed with its performance.

I've heard that anecdote before and I can only say I have some... doubts that it was totally objective. However this is a F4E thread not a MiG-23 thread so I will restrain myself from continuing that rant.

11 hours ago, TLTeo said:

Fwiw there were em charts posted in the F-104 section a while ago (so I assume they comply with rule 16 since they are still up) that show the F-4E having a slight edge over the Mig-23ML, in turn having a slight edge over the F-104G. Not sure what the source is though.

I think you may be referring to a chart I made, which is based various available US and Soviet manuals including the "Prakticeskaja Aerodnamika Samoletov MiG-23" I mentioned previously.

I have a full F-4E vs F-5E vs 21bis vs 23ML version, but the problem is that there seems to be no available official data for non-standard wing sweep positions, so I can only include 45 degrees which will not satisfy this community. Also any 21bis vs F-4E conclusion based on IRL data is incorrect for DCS due to... reasons. Probably I should probably post it to the F-4 section of the forum anyway since it should still generate some interest and (heated) discussion.

[Alpha]

Guys, don´t fall for such fake Internet-Quotes. That "Leon van Maurer" is only quoted in various Forms on some Internet Forums, there´s nothing more to it. No reference to his name, no facts, just some made-up Quotes by - well: somebody.

 

There´s enough official books out there referncing the real trials with Floggers in the US and why pilots didn´t like the Flogger at all. The fake-Quote posted above is full of rather obvious BS and some Sentences in it which make an real military Aviatior burst with laughing. For a lot of former Military Fighter Pilots of my time (and before) that Jet was a pretty well known and studied potential enemy - and no, it´s systems and performance were never considered anywhere close to newer systems - and worlds apart from that ridiculous Quote. 

 

Germany has detailed experience with using F-4F, MiG-29 and MiG-23 at the same time after the reunification. There´s a reason the Mig-29 went out of Service way before the Phantom did and the Flogger was way worse than the Fulcrum - as suggested by our data and confirmed by our former east-german Pilots. Keeping Floggers in Service (except for getting to know them) was never even on the table, for good reason.

 

edit: That Quote is so funny... Like every sentence is. Nobody in RL mil aviation calls it the "Fighting Falcon" - but a sentence like "I thought I was piloting the best fighter, but when I later sat down in the Cockpit of a russian plane I realized, that I was wrong" had me in tears   If you ever just sit down in a russian Fighter of that time you´ll immediately notice the ergonomic and visibility nightmare it really is. And this is even true from my point of view, as a former Phantom-Guy (not an Ergeonomic/Visibility dream itself...). The other sentences are about as funny as that one.

Edited October 14, 2023 by Alpha

[Bozon]

19 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

…

Its interesting because the israeli commentary made it sound like it outperformed their F4 by more than a hair. I wonder if theirs was heavier or if they flew the 23 clean, cuz I'm sure the R23/24 is draggy as hell. Alternately they used the 33 degree wing sweep which reputedly bumps the STR up to ~16dps. Or the rather unlikely possibility it was an actual MLD with the additional Aero refinements. 
…

The Israelis did not test the defected Mig-23 against their F-4E directly AFAIK. The flights were against their F-16A and maybe also F-15A, I don’t remember. They were unimpressed by the Mig-23 capabilities except the acceleration which was excellent. The cockpit visibility was entirely unsuited for dogfighting. They concluded it was not really a match to F-16A or F-15A, but more in the league of the Phantom and Kfir.

[TLTeo]

21 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

Not seeing any 23ML data in that thread, just F4 vs 104.

It's in the highlighted post

 

[Dragon1-1]

6 hours ago, Alpha said:

There´s a reason the Mig-29 went out of Service way before the Phantom did

That reason being, Germany was poorly position to support the MiG-29, what with them mostly relying on Western kit. No parts, no logistics, almost nothing once the Soviet-era parts ran out. Those MiGs were still in NATO service until the Ukraine war (in Poland, a major MiG-29 user at the time), when they ended up in soon-to-be-NATO service, again mostly for logistical reasons. I suspect logistical reasons were also why nobody tried turning MiG-23s into fast bomb trucks, for instance. Keeping a Russian jet flying in an otherwise all-NATO made air force would be a losing proposition for anything less than a Su-57 (see the absurd lengths Iran has to go to in order to keep its F-14s in the air sans US support).

MiG-23 was a mighty fine plane, but never a dogfighter, neither in Soviet nor US sources. Sure, it could go up against the F-16A and win, easily, even. Lock up the Viper with the radar, go M1.5, shoot, crank, then watch as it tries to shake your radar-guided R-24s while cursing the old man Lockheed who decided he'll be fine without Sparrows. You're holding all the cards as long as your Fox 1s last (and by the time you run out, he's probably bingo anyway). That's how the MiG-23 was supposed to go against Viper, and as far as Fox 1 platforms go, it should be pretty great. Just try not to get into any dogfights with anything more agile than a C-130.

6 hours ago, Alpha said:

edit: That Quote is so funny... Like every sentence is. Nobody in RL mil aviation calls it the "Fighting Falcon"

Yeah, it's quite funny, almost like a poor translation, isn't it? I'm pretty sure that the original statement was probably made in Dutch, this guy being from the Netherlands, after all. I suspect some nuance might have been lost (notably, "sat in the cockpit"="flew" in casual speech in some languages). I imagine that someone used to the early model F-16A could praise MiG-23's radar (notoriously crap on early Vipers), amazing acceleration, swing wing and the radar display on the HUD, which some pilots loved and some hated, he might just have been one of the former ones. The only really dubious statement is that about turns, but then, I don't think that guy flew the MiG-23 a lot. Maybe just a subjective feeling based on a handful of training fights. The MiG-23 might suck at dogfights, but it will bite you if you get complacent, it's still a fighter after all.

[Alpha]

I´m pretty sure that whoever wrote that funny text has never flown a real military fighter. It´s not about translation, the whole lingo is as off as are the statements given. I trained and flew with dutch Viper Drivers, they´d never mix up commonly used concepts like names, terms, visibility, ergonomic aspects and avionics the way that fake-quote does. The Floggers radar was never praised, their whole concept of GCI-centric intercepts obviously not a testament of what some people on the internet think air combat for them looked like. Their RWR-Gear was bad, training minimal etc. Anything can kill you and complacency has no place in Air Combat - but the internet is attaching a value to the Flogger the real military aviation on both sides knew never existed. Which is, as I said, also what our very own Flogger-rated Pilots said. Their strength was in the numbers employed, not the individual capabilities.

 

Yeah, logistics were one reason - but by far not the dominant one. Way more important was their uselessness - bad avionics (radar and RWR-gear were a joke), minimal Range/Endurance, whole different design-concept (point defense fighter), extremely bad visibility, bad flight characteristics, yada yada yada. There was nothing those two birds offered in 1990 that other jets already in western inventory couldn´t do better. They were used for some time for intel gathering, quite good training - and that´s it. 

Radar in the HUD (when you want to call those two birds´ rudimentary radar-hud-interface that way) is a bad idea - and only partially usable if the radar supplies as little information as theirs did....  Swing Wing might be nice in some Air-Mud tasks or for getting long times onstation like for the big Cat - it´s not an advantage in the air-air world. Well, for the adversary it was always nice to get a huge signal in the sky about the others energy state - and the swing-restriction under G was helping anybody fight a flogger - but I digress...

 

Oh, and there´s way more layers of complexity IRL than "get to M1.5, shoot, kill" - gosh, what easy our job would have been were it as simple as that

Edited October 14, 2023 by Alpha