Search results

Firstly, as you mentioned yourself, 160 seconds data for Mig-23 is the average between 10-12 km, with acceleration time at 10km is lower and acceleration time at 12 km is higher, so the calculation is in favor of Mig-23. If I instead take the F-16 acceleration data at 35,000 ft -10.668 km then...

R-77 and R-24 aren't wonder weapon with 100% pk and Mig-23-98 if it exists still doesn't have anything that can allow it to beat F-16C F-16C has superior radar, lower RCS, ability to carry jammer/internal jammer, towed decoys, cruise decoys like MALD, superior acceleration, longer range AAM. So...

Firstly, I only make the comparison between Mig-23ML and F-16C because you claimed Mig-23ML have better acceleration than F-16C Secondly, to be frank, Mr. Leon van Maurer is an imaginary character created to tell a fake story. It is obvious because everything he said about the radar of both...

Mig-23MLD will only reach Mach 2.35 in test or if left to fly in straight line for very long time, in operational service, it almost never has the chance to reach that speed. The maximum distance that Sapfir23 MLA can detect a fighter is 52 km, at 12 km height speed of sound is 1062.36 km/h, so...

Yes, I understand target are moving and yes, I head on shot have longer range than tail chase shot. That is obvious. But that doesn't mean R-24 has the same range as AIM-120 R-24 max range for forward quarter shot is 11 km at low altitude and 35 km at high altitude R-24 max range for rear...

🙃 I can't believe that I have to explain the same thing again. At 28,000 lbs with DI =50, F-16 will takes 71 seconds to accelerate from Mach 0.54- Mach 1.25 DI =50 is about 6 AIM-120 and 1 centerline tank worth of drag. When you only carry wing tip missiles, the DI =0 and F-16 with 28000 lbs...

Firstly, I compare Mig-23ML and F-16C in the same condition, similar altitude, similar speed regime, similar volume of fuel and similar number of BVR missile Secondly, like I said before, the chart you gave isn't for acceleration time from speed x to speed y. Thechart you gave is the...

Well, it isn't like Mig-23ML in the chart carry more than 2000 liters of fuel. So they have the same restriction, Mig-23 won't accelerate from Mach 0.5-Mach 2 either. If we consider them both in the pakistan-soviet conflict, then there is no F-16C at that time, F-16A without AIM-120, will use...

:hail: :hail: Firstly, I already gave you the calculation for both density of fuel https://defenceforumindia.com/threads/mig-23-mld-vs-f-16-and-contemporary-fighter-aircraft.82173/page-4#post-1671737 At 28000 lbs, F-16 isn't faster, but it also carries an extra 4000 lbs of fuel and fly at higher...

Firstly, that chart you gave is the acceleration rate in km/h/s at different speeds and altitudes, it doesn't give you the time it takes to accelerate from Mach 0.5 to Mach 1.2. However, the acceleration rate in the chart isn't given as a fixed value but a curve with an unconstant coefficient...

So you have problem with the 30,000 ft comparison because F-16 was at lower altitude, but you don't have any problem with the 40,000 ft comparison when Mig-23ML is at lower altitude? Doesn't really matter either way since F-16 is still faster than Mig-23ML in both cases. I am not sure how can...

:hail: Every time you make this kind of post, it makes me think you didn't pay attention to anything that I wrote I already told you the difference between the speed of sound at 30,000 ft and 32,800 ft in...

Firstly, I was comparing the time it take for both Mig-23ML and F-16C to accelerate from cruising speed of 861 km/h (Mach 0.79) to a good speed to launch missile 1363.7 km/h (Mach 1.25). And F-16C will reach that speed 39 seconds faster than Mig-23ML. Secondly, F-16C radar is much more...

Firstly, I remember you were very much supporting the use of manual at the start of this thread https://defenceforumindia.com/threads/mig-23-mld-vs-f-16-and-contemporary-fighter-aircraft.82173/#post-1667743 Secondly, as I said previously, yes, I use manual data a lot, but that because they are...

That quite a terrible logical fallacy argument you are trying to pull there If the simple fact that the manual data doesn't mention all speed and altitude means it can't be used, then by that logic no charts can ever be used since they never be able to show every single condition of the...

What the point of repeating something that I already said? I have never said F-16 engine thurst is the same at all speed. Why are you lying? Firstly, I didn't use the 20.000 lbs mark at any point in this discussion. I used the 24,000 lbs at DI =0 and 28,000 lbs mark at DI = 50. I showed you...

No I am not cheating, you just refuse to believe that Mig-23ML can't accelerate as good as F-16 so you start to nitpick at tiny stuff. You didn't have any issue that Israel compared a F-16 with centerline tank to an clean Mig-23ML, but you have an issue with a possible few pounds increase in...

:hail: What the ..f.. make you think an empty F-16 mean they take out the M61 cannon ????? From the manual, the empty F-16C with pilot, oils, 2 wing tip AIM-120C and full load of 20 mm rounds are 21,000 lbs 2000 liters of JP-8 fuel weight 3417- 3703 lbs So total weight is 24,417 - 24,703 lbs At...

No I do not cheat F-16 empty weight is 19,700 lbs JP-8 fuel used on F-16 has a density between 0.775 – 0.840 kg/L so 2000 liter will weight 1550- 1680 kg (3417- 3703 lbs) AIM-120 weight 335 lbs So F-16C with 2000 liter of fuel, and 2 AIM-120 will weight 23,787 - 24,073 lbs, and wing tip AIM-120...

I have mentioned repeatedly that drag is not the same at all altitude because air density is not the same However, because aircraft are air breathing machine, their engine thrust is affected by air density When you go up, drag is lower, but thrust also decrease, so that why the acceleration at...