MiG-23 MLD vs F-16 and contemporary fighter aircraft

[StealthFlanker]

Tell what is the use of having a better radar when you have no infrared detectors and BVR missiles?
Pretty much your explanation has no sense since the F-16 fires AIM-9Ls of shorter ranges than R-24s, tell me how do you jam a IRST?
To detect air targets, a TP-23M or TP-26 heat direction finder is also used (it has a maximum detection range of jet aircraft in the rear hemisphere against a background of free space of up to 60 km). The heat direction finder allows you to quietly get close to the enemy at a distance of launching missiles from the TGS. It has the following modes of operation: T-I - target designation of missiles R-60, R-23T, R-24T and K-13M in the range of 60 ° in azimuth and 15 ° in elevation; TI - due to the narrowing of the viewing sector to +/- 7 ° in azimuth and +/- 3 ° in elevation increases the image scale; T-III - the main mode, used for auto tracking of targets maneuvering with angular speeds of 6-8 ° / s. Information from the radar and the heat detector, including the reticle for cannon fire, is output to the ILS.

http://xn--80aafy5bs.xn--p1ai/aviamuseum/aviatsiya/sssr/istrebiteli-2/istrebiteli-1960-g-1991-g/istrebiteli-okb-mikoyana-i-gurevicha/istrebitel-mig-23/mnogotselevoj-istrebitel-mig-23ml/

As you can see MiG-23MLD could fire R-24T and R-23Ts of longer ranges than AIM-9L.

Firstly, you don't need an infrared detector to engage target from BVR, F-15, F-16, F-18, F-22, Mirage didn't have an infrared detector and they were just fine. And keep in mind that TP-23M and TP-26 are not the same as the current IRST system on modern fighter, they are not imaging infrared system,
Secondly, even without a BVR missile, having greater detection range mean you can coordinate your squadron to flank enemy or climb, accelerate to increase the range of your own missiles. And while R-24 have longer kinematic range than AIM-9L, the SARH version still need a radar lock to be launched and that is easily denied by the combination of low RCS, low altitude flight and jamming from F-16 side. By contrast, IR version need the seeker to lock on target before they leave the rail which eliminates much of the range advantage. Additionally, Leon van Maurer (the so called F-16 pilot) didn't said Mig-23 has an advantage in having longer range missile, he claimed Mg-23MLD has more powerful radar than F-16A, which easily prove to be nonsense.
Thirdly, the TP-26Sh-1 range that I gave earlier came from Soviet Aide-Memoire for the MiG-23MLD Pilot on Air Combat vs F-15A, F-I6A, F-4E and Kfir C.2 manual and I would think the Soviet know the performance of their own equipment more than some random internet site and logically speaking pilot manual is as accurate as it could get.
While I can't jam an IRST, the performance of TP-26Sh-1 is not enough for it to be a significant threat, 11-25 km against target in tail aspect and only if that target is in afterburner? without afterburner that range easily reduced by 70% when AB is off and another 70% if target viewed from frontal aspect.

But for the sake of argument, let pretend TP-26Sh-1 did indeed have 60 km detection range against tail aspect target which bring it to the level of OLS-UE installed on Mig-35.

We can't forget that IRST can't measure range and target velocity themselves, they have to rely on laser range finder or radar for that. Without range and speed, there is no firing solution for BVR combat. The much more modern OLS-UE can detect a Su-30 from 60 km in the rear aspect and only 15 km from the frontal aspect and its laser range finder is only 15 km. But wait, there is worse news, TP-26Sh-1 on Mig-23MLD doesn't have a laser finder range system so it still has to rely on Sapfir23 MLA to measure range and target velocity, if Sapfir23 MLA is jammed then too bad no BVR combat. The later Mig-27 has a laser range finder system but they have to get rid of the radar to install that

Have you thought F100 on F-16 has to rely on a fixed pitot tube type intake?
While R-35 can be fed by a Variable geometry multishock intake?

Yes I have, and If you scroll up, I already mentioned that

in The 1980s and Gulf war in January 1991, F-16s used AIM-9s.
In fact if you were so right about the advertised capabilities of the F-16 radar, the 1991 kills by the americans were made by F-15s, no F-16s not even the vaunted F-14 could get the kill ratio of F-15, but F-16 did not down a single enemy fighter.
after 1992 F-16 were adapted to fire AIM-120, but the reality they always were fed information by AWACs and Iraq could not update nor operate its air force with the help of the USSR.
In 1982, E-2s were feeding information to the F-16.

Well, it is more due to Rule of engagement and Identifies friend or foe problems. F-15 were the only aircraft of that time that have Non-Co-operative Target Recognition mode in its radar, this mode give F-15 ability to identifies target types through their jet engine modulation.
I don't see any issue with AWACS feeding information to F-16, while F-16 radar is more powerful than Mig-23 radar, it is still no where comparable to AWACS's radar and it won't give 360 degree view of the battlespace.

So tell me if F-16 was so good with AIM-9L why the americans lost 7 in Iraq in 1991 these is according to american data, Iraqi data said close to 20 F-16 were downed by Iraq and they claimed a F-16 downed by a R-24 launched by a MiG-23!
remember the americans never give credit to claims of their enemies, but as you can see, they lost fighters and we have proof of that simply because their pilots were paraded by Saddam Hussain

I don't see the relevancy here, just because F-16 has better agility and radar than Mig-23 mld, doesn't mean it will be immune to SAM also. And there were very limited number of F-16 equipped with HARMs, about 13 if I remember correctly. And frankly, I can search up these F-16 losses quite easily so I don't see how "Americans never give credit to the enemy" is justified

As Interavia magazine wrote: “... This conclusion was reached by Israeli specialists after testing the Syrian MiG-23ML, which in 1989 hijacked a Syrian pilot, Major Abdul Bassem, into Israel. In the course of research, it was found, in particular, that the MiG-23ML is superior in acceleration characteristics to the F-16C

No, Mig-23ML does not have superior acceleration characteristics to F-16C
We can easily look into Mig-23UB (trainer) and Mig-23ML flight manual for references:
Here is the acceleration chart of Mig-23 UB and Mig-23ML at different altitude and sweep setting
The first chart is with 16° sweep
the second chart is with 45° sweep
and the third chart is with 72° sweep
The 16° sweep wing setting will give highest CL which is good for slow turning and take off, but also highest Cd, which is bad for accelerating due to high drag.
The 72° sweep wing setting ill give lowest CL so it is terrible for turning but it will give the lowest Cd, so it is the best setting for acceleration
The solid line represents MiG-23ML (single seat fighter) and the dotted line represent Mig-23UB (twin seat trainer)
So for the sake of simplification, I will only analyze the acceleration chart of Mig-23ML (the faster of the two) in 72° sweep setting (lowest drag)
MiG-23ML (Single seat fighter)
• Fuel = 2000 litres
• Engine R-35F-300 Turbojet
• SL Static Thrust @ Max AB 28,660 lbs (13,000kgf)
• Stores = 2 x R-23
• Total Weight =~26,809 lbs

So as we can see from the chart (look at the line marked with blue circles):
Mig-23ML armed with 2 R-23 at 1 km altitude, in max afterburner will take 35 seconds to accelerate from 600 km/h (Mach 0.49) to 1350 km/h (Mach 1.12)

For comparison, at sea level F-16 armed with 2 AIM-120 at wing tip (drag index =0), in max afterburner will take 25 seconds to accelerate from Mach 0.53 to Mach 1.13

But of course, now the argument is that Mig-23 is designed to have better acceleration at altitude, ok let move up, look at the line marked with 2 red circles:
Mig-23ML armed with 2 R-23 at 10 km (32.000 feet) altitude , in max afterburner , will take 120 seconds to accelerate from 600 km/h (Mach 0.55) to 1350 km/h (Mach 1.237)

R-23 is bigger than AIM-120, so to make it somewhat fairer, let make F-16 carry 6 AIM-120.
AIM-120 at wing tip has drag index = 0, AIM-120 and launcher at station 2-3-7-8 have drag index =4 each.

So the total of 6 AIM-120 on F-16 will have drag index of 16, still not enough? let make it carry a centerline fuel tank as well, the total drag index now is 34.

Let check with the manual:

F-16C armed with 6 AIM-120 and 1 centerline external fuel tank, at 30.000 feet altitude , in max afterburner, will take 68 seconds to accelerate from Mach 0.54 to Mach 1.25. With only 2 AIM-120, it will take 59 seconds. In other words, when carried similar load, F-16C takes about half the time to accelerate the same speed range. When carrying 4 more missiles and 1 extra centerline tank, F-16C still accelerate 76% faster than Mig-23ML
Does that look like Mig-23ML have superior acceleration characteristics? I don't think so.

 

[MiG-29SMT]

Firstly, you don't need an infrared detector to engage target from BVR, F-15, F-16, F-18, F-22, Mirage didn't have an infrared detector and they were just fine. And keep in mind that TP-23M and TP-26 are not the same as the current IRST system on modern fighter, they are not imaging infrared system,



We can't forget that IRST can't measure range and target velocity themselves, they have to rely on laser range finder or radar for that. Without range and speed, there is no firing solution for BVR combat. The much more modern OLS-UE can detect a Su-30 from 60 km in the rear aspect and only 15 km from the frontal aspect and its laser range finder is only 15 km. But wait, there is worse news, TP-26Sh-1 on Mig-23MLD doesn't have a laser finder range system so it still has to rely on Sapfir23 MLA to measure range and target velocity, if Sapfir23 MLA is jammed then too bad no BVR combat. The later Mig-27 has a laser range finder system but they have to get rid of the radar to install that



Yes I have, and If you scroll up, I already mentioned that




Well, it is more due to Rule of engagement and Identifies friend or foe problems. F-15 were the only aircraft of that time that have Non-Co-operative Target Recognition mode in its radar, this mode give F-15 ability to identifies target types through their jet engine modulation.
I don't see any issue with AWACS feeding information to F-16, while F-16 radar is more powerful than Mig-23 radar, it is still no where comparable to AWACS's radar and it won't give 360 degree view of the battlespace.



I don't see the relevancy here, just because F-16 has better agility and radar than Mig-23 mld, doesn't mean it will be immune to SAM also. And there were very limited number of F-16 equipped with HARMs, about 13 if I remember correctly. And frankly, I can search up these F-16 losses quite easily so I don't see how "Americans never give credit to the enemy" is justified




No, Mig-23ML does not have superior acceleration characteristics to F-16C
We can easily look into Mig-23UB (trainer) and Mig-23ML flight manual for references:
Here is the acceleration chart of Mig-23 UB and Mig-23ML at different altitude and sweep setting
The first chart is with 16° sweep
the second chart is with 45° sweep
and the third chart is with 72° sweep
The 16° sweep wing setting will give highest CL which is good for slow turning and take off, but also highest Cd, which is bad for accelerating due to high drag.
The 72° sweep wing setting ill give lowest CL so it is terrible for turning but it will give the lowest Cd, so it is the best setting for acceleration
The solid line represents MiG-23ML (single seat fighter) and the dotted line represent Mig-23UB (twin seat trainer)
So for the sake of simplification, I will only analyze the acceleration chart of Mig-23ML (the faster of the two) in 72° sweep setting (lowest drag)


For comparison, at sea level F-16 armed with 2 AIM-120 at wing tip (drag index =0), in max afterburner will take 25 seconds to accelerate from Mach 0.53 to Mach 1.13


But of course, now the argument is that Mig-23 is designed to have better acceleration at altitude, ok let move up, look at the line marked with 2 red circles:
Mig-23ML armed with 2 R-23 at 10 km (32.000 feet) altitude , in max afterburner , will take 120 seconds to accelerate from 600 km/h (Mach 0.55) to 1350 km/h (Mach 1.237)

R-23 is bigger than AIM-120, so to make it somewhat fairer, let make F-16 carry 6 AIM-120.
AIM-120 at wing tip has drag index = 0, AIM-120 and launcher at station 2-3-7-8 have drag index =4 each.



So the total of 6 AIM-120 on F-16 will have drag index of 16, still not enough? let make it carry a centerline fuel tank as well, the total drag index now is 34.


Let check with the manual:


F-16C armed with 6 AIM-120 and 1 centerline external fuel tank, at 30.000 feet altitude , in max afterburner, will take 68 seconds to accelerate from Mach 0.54 to Mach 1.25. With only 2 AIM-120, it will take 59 seconds. In other words, when carried similar load, F-16C takes about half the time to accelerate the same speed range. When carrying 4 more missiles and 1 extra centerline tank, F-16C still accelerate 76% faster than Mig-23ML
Does that look like Mig-23ML have superior acceleration characteristics? I don't think so.

The MiG-23 data is at 1 km of altitude while the F-16 is at sea level therefore you are cheating, and you are cheating because the MiG-23Ml manual is giving data from 1 km which is not sea level, 1 km is 3280 feet is that sea level to you? no i do not think so

Any way the MiG-23MLD can fire R-24T and at longer range than the AIM-9


You are denying a reality the only true super fighter was F-15

 

[StealthFlanker]

The MiG-23 data is at 1 km of altitude while the F-16 is at sea level therefore you are cheating, and you are cheating because the MiG-23Ml manual is giving data from 1 km which is not sea level, 1 km is 3280 feet is that sea level to you? no i do not think so

I didn't try to cheat, there is no 1km chart for F-16 so I pick the closest point.
But no problem, sea level acceleration isn't important anyway. Look at the second 30.000-32000 ft comparison just below it. Mig-23ML acceleration is not even remotely close to that of F-16C

 

[MiG-29SMT]

I didn't try to cheat, there is no 1km chart for F-16 so I pick the closest point.
But no problem, sea level acceleration isn't important anyway. Look at the second 30.000-32000 ft comparison just below it. Mig-23ML acceleration is not even remotely close to that of F-16C

you are cheating first the altitude does not match, and the chart starts at higher speed Mach 0.54 for the F-16 and it takes longer that at 1km. so you basically are cheating.


Mach 1.0 is the speed of sound in air, so a plane flying Mach 2.0 is flying twice as fast as the speed of sound. The speed of sound is not a constant, but depends on altitude (or actually the temperature at that altitude). A plane flying Mach 1.0 at sea level is flying about 1225 km/h (661 Knots, 761 mph), a plane flying Mach 1.0 at 30000 ft is flying 1091 km/h (589 knots, 678 mph) etc. Speeds below Mach 1 are called subsonic, between Mach 0.8-1.2 Transonic and above Mach 1.2 Supersonic.

ALTITUDE	TEMPERATURE	SPEED OF SOUND
Feet (ft)	Meter (m)	Celcius (°C)	Kelvin (K)	mph	knots	km/h	m/s
0 (sea level)	0 (sea level)	15	288	761.1	661	1,225	340.3
5,000	1524	5.1	278	747.9	650	1,204	334.4

Speed of Sound at different altitudes (km/h, mph, knots)

Speed of Sound (mach) at altitudes depends on temperature not air pressure

www.fighter-planes.com

 

[StealthFlanker]

you are cheating first the altitude does not match, and the chart starts at higher speed Mach 0.54 for the F-16 and it takes longer that at 1km. so you basically are cheating.

No, I didn't cheat, you know what, let have it your way then I can even use 10k chart for F-16 and it would still accelerate faster than Mig-23ml
Quick recap:
Mig-23ML armed with 2 R-23 at 1 km - 3280 feet altitude, in max afterburner will take 35 seconds to accelerate from 600 km/h (Mach 0.49) to 1350 km/h (Mach 1.12)

F-16C armed with 2 AIM-120, at 10.000 feet altitude, in max afterburner, will take 27 seconds to accelerate from Mach 0.45 to Mach 1.14
F-16C armed with 6 AIM-120 and 1 external centerline fuel tank, at 10.000 feet altitude, in max afterburner, will take 31 seconds to accelerate from Mach 0.45 to Mach 1.14

So you see, even if F-16C was at 6,720 feet higher, carrying 4 more missiles and 1 more fuel tank, it still accelerate much faster than Mig-23ML carrying 2 R-23. There is no version of this where Mig-23ML come out on top
Keep in mind that the acceleration value in the chart is for F-16 with drag index =50, while a normal F-16 with 6 AIM-120 and 1 centerline fuel tank only have drag index = 34, which mean it will accelerate even faster

Mach 1.0 is the speed of sound in air, so a plane flying Mach 2.0 is flying twice as fast as the speed of sound. The speed of sound is not a constant, but depends on altitude (or actually the temperature at that altitude). A plane flying Mach 1.0 at sea level is flying about 1225 km/h (661 Knots, 761 mph), a plane flying Mach 1.0 at 30000 ft is flying 1091 km/h (589 knots, 678 mph) etc. Speeds below Mach 1 are called subsonic, between Mach 0.8-1.2 Transonic and above Mach 1.2 Supersonic.

ALTITUDE	TEMPERATURE	SPEED OF SOUND
Feet (ft)	Meter (m)	Celcius (°C)	Kelvin (K)	mph	knots	km/h	m/s
0 (sea level)	0 (sea level)	15	288	761.1	661	1,225	340.3
5,000	1524	5.1	278	747.9	650	1,204	334.4

Speed of Sound at different altitudes (km/h, mph, knots)

Speed of Sound (mach) at altitudes depends on temperature not air pressure

www.fighter-planes.com

I know, that why I have to convert for you guy the equivalent Mach speed at each altitude

Any way the MiG-23MLD can fire R-24T and at longer range than the AIM-9

and F-14 can launch AIM-54 at longer range than F-35 can launch AIM-120C, but it still doesn't matter does it.

 

[Foxbat]

Then that isn't very strong proof, given that from the Pakistan perspective, it was a friendly fire incident where the F-16 got hit by his wing men's AIM-9

If you like to believe the Pakistani perspective they won the 1965, 1971 wars, Kargil war (only freedom fighters participated), 1 of their soldiers = 10 Indians and no F-16 was used or shot down on 27/02/19.

As you only trust western sources is this New York Times article from 1987 good enough for you?

AFGHANS DOWN A PAKISTANI F-16, SAYING FIGHTER JET CROSSED BORDER
Afghanistan said it shot down the American-made F-16 after two F-16's crossed the border at Khost district in Paktia Province in the border area southwest of Peshawar. It said the F-16's were at first warned and then fired upon by Afghan jets. Pakistan acknowledged that one of its jets had been downed but dismissed the Afghan version, saying that its planes had never violated Afghan airspace and were attacked in Pakistani territory.The Pakistani authorities said the incident occurred Wednesday when six Afghan aircraft violated Pakistani airspace and two Pakistani jets intercepted them. They said one jet was shot down over the Pakistani town of Miram Shah.
In any case, the incident marked the first time that a Pakistani Air Force jet had been shot down by Afghanistan and was seen by Western diplomats here as a blow to Islamabad and its air force.

Here is an article by a western website that says Iraqi Mig-23s shot down Iran's best F-14 ace:

Iraq Did All It Could to Kill Hashem All-e-Agha, Iran’s Top F-14 Pilot

Puzzled by this message, the Iraqi ground controller required an explanation, and Ameer replied that there was an “F-14 sitting right in front … 500 meters or less away!”
He was ordered to calm down, decelerate and thus fall back within the minimal range for R-60M missiles. Within seconds, one of these acquired the target and Ameer squeezed the trigger.
The crew of the Tomcat in question consisted of All-e-Agha and 1st Lt. Mohammad Rostampour. They had been airborne for hours and had survived at least one engagement with another formation of Iraqi MiGs earlier the same day. They focused their attention northward as the MiG-23s approached from the west.

“Despite our high altitude, the visibility was poor,” Rostampour recalled. “We switched the position with our wingman while turning port towards the coast. After that turn, Hashem felt some movement in his controls and requested our wingman to check our six, and also make a visual inspection of our aircraft for possible combat damage. When the wingman looked back, he saw a missile approaching and — bang! Our right engine was hit!”

“I was knocked unconscious by the impact,” Rostampour continued. “When I recovered, I felt as hot as in a sauna. The cockpit hood was still intact, but our aircraft was afire and the sea surface rapidly approaching. Instinctively, I pulled the handle and ejected both of us, crashing into the water only seconds later. [My vision] was still poor and I couldn’t see very far. I also needed minutes to reach my dinghy and climb into it. Once outside the water, I called for Hashem several times, and I heard his voice calling back. But he was never found.”

 

[StealthFlanker]

If you like to believe the Pakistani perspective they won the 1965, 1971 wars, Kargil war (only freedom fighters participated), 1 of their soldiers = 10 Indians and no F-16 was used or shot down on 27/02/19.
As you only trust western sources is this New York Times article from 1987 good enough for you?

If I only trust western source then I wouldn't have referenced Russian flight manual repeatedly like I always do.
And to be frank with you, I couldn't give 2 fuck about the feud between Pakistan and Indian, it is not interesting and it is not something I care about. Countries close to each other almost always have a feud one way or another. Poland hate Russia, Russian hate Japan, Vietnam hate China, ...and so and so on. It always has been, it always will be. Sure as an Indian citizen, it is normal that you care about that. But for people from countries that is not related to the feud, they often don't care, politic is quite boring for most unless it involved their own country.

 

[Foxbat]

If I only trust western source then I wouldn't have referenced Russian flight manual repeatedly like I always do.
And to be frank with you, I couldn't give 2 fuck about the feud between Pakistan and Indian, it is not interesting and it is not something I care about. Countries close to each other almost always have a feud one way or another. Poland hate Russia, Russian hate Japan, Vietnam hate China, ...and so and so on. It always has been, it always will be. Sure as an Indian citizen, it is normal that you care about that. But for people from countries that is not related to the feud, they often don't care, politic is quite boring for most unless it involved their own country.

You conveniently avoided the topic being discussed and went on a personal rant. You asked for proof of the F-16 shot down I gave it to you supposedly from the main stream media and a trusted source. You said the Mig-23 has a very poor combat record I gave you link from a Western website stating that it had shot down F-14s.

Also not sure what analysis you did to come to the conclusion that everyone here is an Indian Citizen.
BTW it is called "Indian Defence Forum" for a reason, if you don't give a f*** maybe you have come to the wrong place.

 

[StealthFlanker]

You conveniently avoided the topic being discussed and went on a personal rant. You asked for proof of the F-16 shot down I gave it to you supposedly from the main stream media and a trusted source. You said the Mig-23 has a very poor combat record I gave you link from a Western website stating that it had shot down F-14s.

No, I don't conveniently avoid the topic being discussed, I already stopped discussing history with Neptune since the previous page and focus on discussing the technical aspect with Mig-29SMT
And no, what you gave isn't a proof, you simply brought what the media reported at the time, and that it. There is no rule that the initial report from a magazine must be accurate.
Given that according to Soviet, on that day their Mig-23 didn't carry air to air missile and that their pilots were forbidden from attacking Pak F-16, and according to Pakistan , the incident was a friendly fire, the two stories match up perfectly.

Also not sure what analysis you did to come to the conclusion that everyone here is an Indian Citizen.
BTW it is called "Indian Defence Forum" for a reason, if you don't give a f*** maybe you have come to the wrong place.

Well you see, many people come to a defense forum to discuss weapons systems rather than politics

 

[MiG-29SMT]

No, I didn't cheat, you know what, let have it your way then I can even use 10k chart for F-16 and it would still accelerate faster than Mig-23ml
Quick recap:
Mig-23ML armed with 2 R-23 at 1 km - 3280 feet altitude, in max afterburner will take 35 seconds to accelerate from 600 km/h (Mach 0.49) to 1350 km/h (Mach 1.12)
View attachment 47405

F-16C armed with 2 AIM-120, at 10.000 feet altitude, in max afterburner, will take 27 seconds to accelerate from Mach 0.45 to Mach 1.14
F-16C armed with 6 AIM-120 and 1 external centerline fuel tank, at 10.000 feet altitude, in max afterburner, will take 31 seconds to accelerate from Mach 0.45 to Mach 1.14
View attachment 47406

So you see, even if F-16C was at 6,720 feet higher, carrying 4 more missiles and 1 more fuel tank, it still accelerate much faster than Mig-23ML carrying 2 R-23. There is no version of this where Mig-23ML come out on top
Keep in mind that the acceleration value in the chart is for F-16 with drag index =50, while a normal F-16 with 6 AIM-120 and 1 centerline fuel tank only have drag index = 34, which mean it will accelerate even faster


I know, that why I have to convert for you guy the equivalent Mach speed at each altitude


and F-14 can launch AIM-54 at longer range than F-35 can launch AIM-120C, but it still doesn't matter does it.

Speed of Sound at different altitudes (km/h, mph, knots)

Speed of Sound (mach) at altitudes depends on temperature not air pressure

www.fighter-planes.com

5km are 16404 ft

10 km are 32808ft

Do you understand that lower the height higher the mach number?

at 1km mach 1 is higher speed 1.2 mach is lower speed at 10000 feet than a 3280 feet so you still are cheating

0 (sea level)	0 (sea level)	15	288	761.1	661	1,225	340.3
5,000	1524	5.1	278	747.9	650	1,204	334.4
10,000	3048	-4.8	268	734.5	638	1,182	328.4

 

[StealthFlanker]

Speed of Sound at different altitudes (km/h, mph, knots)

Speed of Sound (mach) at altitudes depends on temperature not air pressure

www.fighter-planes.com

5km are 16404 ft

10 km are 32808ft

Do you understand that lower the height higher the mach number?

at 1km mach 1 is higher speed 1.2 mach is lower speed at 10000 feet than a 3280 feet so you still are cheating

0 (sea level)	0 (sea level)	15	288	761.1	661	1,225	340.3
5,000	1524	5.1	278	747.9	650	1,204	334.4
10,000	3048	-4.8	268	734.5	638	1,182	328.4

*sigh* No, I do not cheat
Do you still not understand why I gave you the data at Sea level and 10k feet?
Firstly, do you notice the trend in acceleration vs altitude? the higher the altitude, the slower the acceleration, and this is true for all air breathing aircraft, because when air density is lower, their engine thrust is lower as well, yes I am aware that drag is lower at high altitude as well, but F=ma, so when the resultant force is smaller, the acceleration is smaller as well. In shorts, the acceleration rate at sea level generally > acceleration rate at 3280 feet > acceleration rate at 10,000 ft. Of course if the altitude is very close, it won't matter much, however because you said it skew the number in favor of F-16, so I gave you the 10k feet acceleration chart. Now if the acceleration rate of F-16C at 10,000 feet is still greater than Mig-23ML acceleration rate at 3280 feet, what does that tell you when they are at the same altitude?.

Secondly, do you not notice that for F-16 10,000 feet acceleration chart, I specifically choose the acceleration reference point to be from Mach 0.45 to Mach 1.14?
Speed of sound at 10,000 feet is 1,182 km/h so Mach 0.45 is 531 km/h, and Mach 1.14 is 1347.5 km/h
Now, look back at Mig-23ML acceleration chart, what is the speed reference point? 600 km/h- 1345 km/h
In short, I even do you a favor by making F-16C accelerate through a bigger speed regime, at higher altitude, yet it still much faster than Mig-23ML.

 

[MiG-29SMT]

*sigh* No, I do not cheat
Do you still not understand why I gave you the data at Sea level and 10k feet?
Firstly, do you notice the trend in acceleration vs altitude? the higher the altitude, the slower the acceleration, and this is true for all air breathing aircraft, because when air density is lower, their engine thrust is lower as well, yes I am aware that drag is lower at high altitude as well, but F=ma, so when the resultant force is smaller, the acceleration is smaller as well. In shorts, the acceleration rate at sea level generally > acceleration rate at 3280 feet > acceleration rate at 10,000 ft. Of course if the altitude is very close, it won't matter much, however because you said it skew the number in favor of F-16, so I gave you the 10k feet acceleration chart. Now if the acceleration rate of F-16C at 10,000 feet is still greater than Mig-23ML acceleration rate at 3280 feet, what does that tell you when they are at the same altitude?.

Secondly, do you not notice that for F-16 10,000 feet acceleration chart, I specifically choose the acceleration reference point to be from Mach 0.45 to Mach 1.14?
Speed of sound at 10,000 feet is 1,182 km/h so Mach 0.45 is 531 km/h, and Mach 1.14 is 1347.5 km/h
Now, look back at Mig-23ML acceleration chart, what is the speed reference point? 600 km/h- 1345 km/h
In short, I even do you a favor by making F-16C accelerate through a bigger speed regime, at higher altitude, yet it still much faster than Mig-23ML.

you are cheating, of course because you are using different altitudes to the ones in the MiG-23ML chart

why? easy Mach 1.2 has different speeds at 1km than at 3 km thus you cheat.

You claim is the same to say 2 pounds are the same to 2 kilos, yes both are two, you say look both are two, they weigh the same.

Thus you are cheating, you are cheating and in order to be fair you need to be at the same altitude , then Mach 0.45 and Mach 1.2 will be the same speed.


I do not care you claim, bring a Chart where F-16 flies at 1 km or MiG-23ML flies at sea level.


If you say 5km is the same to 3km, then you are cheating, you might like it or not but you are cheating, fair balances and same measures.

MiG-23ML chart is in metric system and at different altitudes.
F-16 uses american system of feet and miles and different altitudes

 

[StealthFlanker]

you are cheating, of course because you are using different altitudes to the ones in the MiG-23ML chart
why? easy Mach 1.2 has different speeds at 1km than at 3 km thus you cheat.
You claim is the same to say 2 pounds are the same to 2 kilos, yes both are two, you say look both are two, they weigh the same.
Thus you are cheating, you are cheating and in order to be fair you need to be at the same altitude , then Mach 0.45 and Mach 1.2 will be the same speed.
I do not care you claim, bring a Chart where F-16 flies at 1 km or MiG-23ML flies at sea level.
If you say 5km is the same to 3km, then you are cheating, you might like it or not but you are cheating, fair balances and same measures.
MiG-23ML chart is in metric system and at different altitudes.
F-16 uses american system of feet and miles and different altitudes

Firstly, no I didn't cheat, cheating is skewing the conditions so that the result will change into my favor. However, I actually skew the conditions to Mig-23ML favor, yet F-16C still turn out to be much faster.

Secondly, there is no 1 km chart for F-16, because American uses the imperial system while Soviet uses the metric system, so American chart are at 10.000 feet, 20.000 ft and 30.000 ft while Soviet chart are at 1 km, 5 km and 10 km. They always choose round numbers for the sake of simplification. But that doesn't mean their chart can't be compared. Unit can be converted. Your argument is basically that if American given F-16 length in feet and Soviet given Mig-23 then there would be no way to compare their length.

Thirdly, I am aware that Mach speed are not the same at all altitude, that why I already converted them into km/h for you. And I am aware that higher altitude will reduce acceleration rate, so I even do the courtesy of comparing Mig-23ML to an F-16C at higher altitude.
Mig-23ML armed with 2 R-23 at 1 km - 3.280 feet altitude, in max afterburner will take 35 seconds to accelerate from 620 km/h to 1345 km/h
Speed of sound at 10,000 feet is 1,182 km/h
F-16C armed with 2 AIM-120, at 10.000 feet altitude, in max afterburner, will take 27 seconds to accelerate from 531 km/h, to 1347.5 km/h
F-16C armed with 6 AIM-120 and 1 external centerline fuel tank, at 10.000 feet altitude, in max afterburner, will take 31 seconds to accelerate from 531 km/h, to 1347.5 km/h

Next up,
Mig-23ML armed with 2 R-23 at 10 km (32.808 feet) altitude , in max afterburner , will take 120 seconds to accelerate from 600 km/h to 1345 km/h
Speed of sound at 10 km (32.808 feet) is 1078.2 km/h
Speed of sound at 30.000 feet is 1091 km/h
So the difference in speed of sound between the two altitudes is only 1.18%
F-16C armed with 2 AIM-120, at 30.000 feet altitude, in max afterburner, will take 59 seconds to accelerate from 589 km/h, to 1363.7 km/h
F-16C armed with 6 AIM-120 and 1 centerline external fuel tank, at 30.000 feet altitude, in max afterburner, will take 68 seconds to accelerate from 589 km/h, to 1363.7 km/h

To be Frank, it is quite obvious that F-16C accelerate significantly faster than Mig-23ML

 

[MiG-29SMT]

*sigh* No, I do not cheat
Of course if the altitude is very close, it won't matter much, however because you said it skew the number in favor of F-16, so I gave you the 10k feet acceleration chart. Now if the acceleration rate of F-16C at 10,000 feet is still greater than Mig-23ML acceleration rate at 3280 feet, what does that tell you when they are at the same altitude?.

.

Here you have what the manual says it takes 30 seconds from 600 km/h to 1300 km/h at 1000 meters of altitude so it is not like you say 35 sec but 30 sec.

The manual also says 12 sec from 600 km/h to 900 km/h

F-16 empty weight
Weight: 19,700 pounds without fuel (8,936 kilograms)

F-16 Fighting Falcon

The F-16 Fighting Falcon is a compact, multi-role fighter aircraft. It is highly maneuverable and has proven itself in air-to-air combat and air-to-surface attack. It provides a relatively low-cost,

www.af.mil

now you use a very funny weight 24000 pounds means the F-16 only is carrying 4300 pounds in fuel and weapons. 4300 lb equals= 1950kg

your weapons if you take AIM-120 are 6=900kg so you only are carrying 1000 kg but you are not counting pilots and bullets for the gun, so you are saying your F-16 flies with less than 800 kg of fuel which amounts to less than 800 liters of fuel nice way of cheating now let us see density of fuel

you might get 1000 liters of fuel if you get a density of 0.840gm/l

https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=905925

So you are cheating

in fact 1950 kg=4300 pounds would be only fuel not armed F-16, so yes you are cheating


Your F-16 is not carrying the same amount of fuel or weapons like the MiG-23

 

[MiG-29SMT]

Firstly, no I didn't cheat, cheating is skewing the conditions so that the result will change into my favor. However, I actually skew the conditions to Mig-23ML favor, yet F-16C still turn out to be much faster.

Secondly, there is no 1 km chart for F-16, because American uses the imperial system while Soviet uses the metric system, so American chart are at 10.000 feet, 20.000 ft and 30.000 ft while Soviet chart are at 1 km, 5 km and 10 km. They always choose round numbers for the sake of simplification. But that doesn't mean their chart can't be compared. Unit can be converted. Your argument is basically that if American given F-16 length in feet and Soviet given Mig-23 then there would be no way to compare their length.

Thirdly, I am aware that Mach speed are not the same at all altitude, that why I already converted them into km/h for you. And I am aware that higher altitude will reduce acceleration rate, so I even do the courtesy of comparing Mig-23ML to an F-16C at higher altitude.
Mig-23ML armed with 2 R-23 at 1 km - 3.280 feet altitude, in max afterburner will take 35 seconds to accelerate from 620 km/h to 1345 km/h
Speed of sound at 10,000 feet is 1,182 km/h
F-16C armed with 2 AIM-120, at 10.000 feet altitude, in max afterburner, will take 27 seconds to accelerate from 531 km/h, to 1347.5 km/h
F-16C armed with 6 AIM-120 and 1 external centerline fuel tank, at 10.000 feet altitude, in max afterburner, will take 31 seconds to accelerate from 531 km/h, to 1347.5 km/h

Next up,
Mig-23ML armed with 2 R-23 at 10 km (32.808 feet) altitude , in max afterburner , will take 120 seconds to accelerate from 600 km/h to 1345 km/h
Speed of sound at 10 km (32.808 feet) is 1078.2 km/h
Speed of sound at 30.000 feet is 1091 km/h
So the difference in speed of sound between the two altitudes is only 1.18%
F-16C armed with 2 AIM-120, at 30.000 feet altitude, in max afterburner, will take 59 seconds to accelerate from 589 km/h, to 1363.7 km/h
F-16C armed with 6 AIM-120 and 1 centerline external fuel tank, at 30.000 feet altitude, in max afterburner, will take 68 seconds to accelerate from 589 km/h, to 1363.7 km/h

To be Frank, it is quite obvious that F-16C accelerate significantly faster than Mig-23ML

of course will accelerate better if it only carries 1950 kg in fuel and arms, remember officially according to the USAF website an F-16 weights 19700 lb empty weight and 24000lb are just 4700 lb in warload and fuel.


the MiG-23 is carrying 2000 liters and 500kg in weapons plus pilot and bullets.


Now rest 300 kg in AIM-9L/AIM-120 gun shells and pilot.
so you might get 1950kg-300kg-150 pilot shells and still you are neither carrying the weight of 2 R-24 and 2000 liters of fuel.

So yes you are cheating

The manual also says 12 sec from 600 km/h to 900 km/h

 

[StealthFlanker]

View attachment 47445

Here you have what the manual says it takes 30 seconds from 600 km/h to 1300 km/h at 1000 meters of altitude so it is not like you say 35 sec but 30 sec.

The manual also says 12 sec from 600 km/h to 900 km/h

I can not believe that I actually have to explain this
Pay attention to the number.
In the paragraph part of the manual, they given the acceleration time between 600 km/h to 1300 km/h

But in the chart part of the manual, they didn't stop at 1300 km/h as maximum speed. Look at these squares on the horizontal line, between 500 km/h and 600 km/h there are 2 squares, between 600 km/h and 700 km/h there are 2 squares, and so on... and so on. So each square unit represents 50 km/h. So when you reach the end of the chart, it is actually 1350 km/h rather than 1300 km/h. If you look back up my previous posts, I said the acceleration time between 600 km/h and 1350 km/h instead of 600 km/h and 1300 km/h, that where the 5 extra seconds come from. Now you gonna ask: "why don't you use the 600 km/h to 1300 km/h instead?". The problem is that, the current acceleration time of F-16C is given between 589 km/h, to 1363.7 km/h and 531 km/h, to 1347.5 km/h, so if I use the 600 km/h -1300 km/h mark for Mig-23ML, then it would be extremely unfair for F-16 as it will have to accelerate another 116 km/h which is 16% speed range.

F-16 empty weight
Weight: 19,700 pounds without fuel (8,936 kilograms)

F-16 Fighting Falcon

The F-16 Fighting Falcon is a compact, multi-role fighter aircraft. It is highly maneuverable and has proven itself in air-to-air combat and air-to-surface attack. It provides a relatively low-cost,

www.af.mil

now you use a very funny weight 24000 pounds means the F-16 only is carrying 4300 pounds in fuel and weapons. 4300 lb equals= 1950kg
your weapons if you take AIM-120 are 6=900kg so you only are carrying 1000 kg but you are not counting pilots and bullets for the gun, so you are saying your F-16 flies with less than 800 kg of fuel which amounts to less than 800 liters of fuel nice way of cheating now let us see density of fuel
you might get 1000 liters of fuel if you get a density of 0.840gm/l

https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=905925

So you are cheating
in fact 1950 kg=4300 pounds would be only fuel not armed F-16, so yes you are cheating
Your F-16 is not carrying the same amount of fuel or weapons like the MiG-23
of course will accelerate better if it only carries 1950 kg in fuel and arms, remember officially according to the USAF website an F-16 weights 19700 lb empty weight and 24000lb are just 4700 lb in warload and fuel.
the MiG-23 is carrying 2000 liters and 500kg in weapons plus pilot and bullets.
Now rest 300 kg in AIM-9L/AIM-120 gun shells and pilot.
so you might get 1950kg-300kg-150 pilot shells and still you are neither carrying the weight of 2 R-24 and 2000 liters of fuel.
So yes you are cheating

No, I'm not cheating, yes F-16 with 6 AIM-120 and 2000L of fuel will be heavier than 24.000 lbs, however,
F-16 with 6 AIM-120 doesn't have drag index =50. Their drag index is 16 while the acceleration figure in the charts is for F-16 with drag index of 50. In other words, they are heavier but also less draggy.

And no, F-16 didn't accelerate faster than Mig-23ML because it was carrying less fuel. I will show you why:
Quick recap
Mig-23ML armed with 2 R-23 and loaded with 2000 liter of fuel, flying at 1 km - 3.280 feet altitude, in max afterburner, will take 35 seconds to accelerate from 620 km/h to 1345 km/h
Mig-23ML armed with 2 R-23 and loaded with 2000 liter of fuel, flying at 10 km (32.808 feet) altitude, in max afterburner, will take 120 seconds to accelerate from 600 km/h to 1345 km/h

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-16 with pilot, 2000 liter of fuel, and 2 AIM-120 will weight 23,787 - 24,073 lbs, and wing tip AIM-120 has drag index =0.

So
F-16C armed with 2 AIM-120 and loaded with 2000 liter of fuel, flying at 10.000 feet altitude, in max afterburner, will take 27 seconds to accelerate from 531 km/h, to 1347.5 km/h
F-16C armed with 2 AIM-120 and loaded with 2000 liter of fuel, flying at 30.000 feet altitude, in max afterburner, will take 52 seconds to accelerate from 589 km/h, to 1363.7 km/h

In short, while both aircraft carrying 2000 liter of fuel and 2 BVR AAM, F-16C at 10,000 feet will still accelerate 1.29 times faster than Mig-23ML at 3.280 feet, eventhough being 6,720 feet lower should benefit Mig-23ML acceleration rate significantly
While both aircraft carrying 2000 liter of fuel and 2 BVR AAM, F-16C at 30,000 feet will accelerate 2.27 times faster than Mig-23ML.
While they are in the same condition, there is simply no contest.

Now, I know what you are thinking, F-16C only accelerate better than Mig-23ML because AIM-120 is lighter than R-23, how about F-16C with 6 AIM-120 and a centerline fuel tank?
2000 liter of fuel weight 3417- 3703 lbs
AIM-120 weight 335 lbs so 6 of them weight 2010 lbs
Centerline fuel tank weight 392 lbs when it is empty

So F-16C with 2000 liter of fuel, 6 AIM-120 and an empty centerline fuel tank will weight 25,805 lbs, while there is no 25,805 lbs mark in the acceleration chart, we do have the data for F-16C with DI =50 and 28,000 lbs weight

F-16C armed with 6 AIM-120 and 1 centerline fuel tank and loaded with 2000 liter of fuel, flying at 10.000 feet altitude, in max afterburner, will take less than 36 seconds to accelerate from 531 km/h, to 1347.5 km/h
F-16C armed with 6 AIM-120 and 1 centerline fuel tank and loaded with 2000 liter of fuel, flying at 30.000 feet altitude, in max afterburner, will take less than 71 seconds to accelerate from 589 km/h, to 1363.7 km/h
(I used the words "less than" because our aircraft is actually lighter than the reference configuration given in the chart)

In short, F-16C with 6 AIM-120, 2000 liter of fuel and a centerline fuel tank, flying at 10,000 ft will have the same acceleration rate as Mig-23ML with 2 R-23 and 2000 liter of fuel flying at 3.280 feet
. While with the same 6 AIM-120 + 1 centerline tank load, F-16 at 30.000 ft will accelerate 1.69 times faster than Mig-23ML equipped with merely 2 R-23.

 

[MiG-29SMT]

I can not believe that I actually have to explain this
Pay attention to the number.
In the paragraph part of the manual, they given the acceleration time between 600 km/h to 1300 km/h


But in the chart part of the manual, they didn't stop at 1300 km/h as maximum speed. Look at these squares on the horizontal line, between 500 km/h and 600 km/h there are 2 squares, between 600 km/h and 700 km/h there are 2 squares, and so on... and so on. So each square unit represents 50 km/h. So when you reach the end of the chart, it is actually 1350 km/h rather than 1300 km/h. If you look back up my previous posts, I said the acceleration time between 600 km/h and 1350 km/h instead of 600 km/h and 1300 km/h, that where the 5 extra seconds come from. Now you gonna ask: "why don't you use the 600 km/h to 1300 km/h instead?". The problem is that, the current acceleration time of F-16C is given between 589 km/h, to 1363.7 km/h and 531 km/h, to 1347.5 km/h, so if I use the 600 km/h -1300 km/h mark for Mig-23ML, then it would be extremely unfair for F-16 as it will have to accelerate another 116 km/h which is 16% speed range.




No, I'm not cheating, yes F-16 with 6 AIM-120 and 2000L of fuel will be heavier than 24.000 lbs, however,
F-16 with 6 AIM-120 doesn't have drag index =50. Their drag index is 16 while the acceleration figure in the charts is for F-16 with drag index of 50. In other words, they are heavier but also less draggy


And no, F-16 didn't accelerate faster than Mig-23ML because it was carrying less fuel. I will show you why:
Quick recap
Mig-23ML armed with 2 R-23 and loaded with 2000 liter of fuel, flying at 1 km - 3.280 feet altitude, in max afterburner, will take 35 seconds to accelerate from 620 km/h to 1345 km/h
Mig-23ML armed with 2 R-23 and loaded with 2000 liter of fuel, flying at 10 km (32.808 feet) altitude, in max afterburner, will take 120 seconds to accelerate from 600 km/h to 1345 km/h

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-16 with pilot, 2000 liter of fuel, and 2 AIM-120 will weight 23,787 - 24,073 lbs, and wing tip AIM-120 has drag index =0.
View attachment 47497




In short, F-16C with 6 AIM-120, 2000 liter of fuel and a centerline fuel tank, flying at 10,000 ft will have the same acceleration rate as Mig-23ML with 2 R-23 and 2000 liter of fuel flying at 3.280 feet
. While with the same 6 AIM-120 + 1 centerline tank load, F-16 at 30.000 ft will accelerate 1.69 times faster than Mig-23ML equipped with merely 2 R-23.

You make several false assumptions.
Air density is the same at all altitudes at 1km the MiG-23ML has the same air density than a F-16 at 3km


First lower the altitude higher the drag, there is more air density.

Proof easy at sea level most aircraft barely reach Mach 1, Mach 1.4 is truly a feat since density is to high.


second false assumption

Speed of sound is the same at different altitudes


No Mach 1.14 at 3 km is 1348 km/h but at 1 km is 1388 km/h considering a speed of sound close to 1215 km/h since at sea level it is 1225 km/h and 1.5km it is 1204km/h


third false assumption

From 1348 km/h to 1380 or 1390km the F-16 will take few seconds

this is one of the most false statements

If you look at th graph at 5 km the MiG-23ML has a steeper slope

means it takes more time to get to the same speed in time

Now the F-16 to get to 1388km/h means Mach 1.17 it will take around 40+ sec

For the MiG-23ML 1350km around is Mach 1.1 takes around 35 sec the manual does not say 35 that is an assumption F-16 to go to a similar speed that is something between Mach 1.06 and Mach 1.14 around 38 sec


Now a detail you did not see Israel tested the MiG-23ML stolen by Syrian defector pilot an they got impressed by its acceleration saying it was better than F-16


Now get these all what are we doing is not 100% accurate, you will only do it in real life conditions and Israel did it and they said MiG-23 has excellent acceleration better than F-16 in some conditions

 

[MiG-29SMT]

I can not believe that I actually have to explain this
Pay attention to the number.
In the paragraph part of the manual, they given the acceleration time between 600 km/h to 1300 km/h
View attachment 47492

But in the chart part of the manual, they didn't stop at 1300 km/h as maximum speed. Look at these squares on the horizontal line, between 500 km/h and 600 km/h there are 2 squares, between 600 km/h and 700 km/h there are 2 squares, and so on... and so on. So each square unit represents 50 km/h. So when you reach the end of the chart, it is actually 1350 km/h rather than 1300 km/h. If you look back up my previous posts, I said the acceleration time between 600 km/h and 1350 km/h instead of 600 km/h and 1300 km/h, that where the 5 extra seconds come from. Now you gonna ask: "why don't you use the 600 km/h to 1300 km/h instead?". The problem is that, the current acceleration time of F-16C is given between 589 km/h, to 1363.7 km/h and 531 km/h, to 1347.5 km/h, so if I use the 600 km/h -1300 km/h mark for Mig-23ML, then it would be extremely unfair for F-16 as it will have to accelerate another 116 km/h which is 16% speed range.
View attachment 47493



No, I'm not cheating, yes F-16 with 6 AIM-120 and 2000L of fuel will be heavier than 24.000 lbs, however,
F-16 with 6 AIM-120 doesn't have drag index =50. Their drag index is 16 while the acceleration figure in the charts is for F-16 with drag index of 50. In other words, they are heavier but also less draggy.
View attachment 47494
View attachment 47495


And no, F-16 didn't accelerate faster than Mig-23ML because it was carrying less fuel. I will show you why:
Quick recap
Mig-23ML armed with 2 R-23 and loaded with 2000 liter of fuel, flying at 1 km - 3.280 feet altitude, in max afterburner, will take 35 seconds to accelerate from 620 km/h to 1345 km/h
Mig-23ML armed with 2 R-23 and loaded with 2000 liter of fuel, flying at 10 km (32.808 feet) altitude, in max afterburner, will take 120 seconds to accelerate from 600 km/h to 1345 km/h

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-16 with pilot, 2000 liter of fuel, and 2 AIM-120 will weight 23,787 - 24,073 lbs, and wing tip AIM-120 has drag index =0.
View attachment 47497
View attachment 47498

So
F-16C armed with 2 AIM-120 and loaded with 2000 liter of fuel, flying at 10.000 feet altitude, in max afterburner, will take 27 seconds to accelerate from 531 km/h, to 1347.5 km/h
F-16C armed with 2 AIM-120 and loaded with 2000 liter of fuel, flying at 30.000 feet altitude, in max afterburner, will take 52 seconds to accelerate from 589 km/h, to 1363.7 km/h

In short, while both aircraft carrying 2000 liter of fuel and 2 BVR AAM, F-16C at 10,000 feet will still accelerate 1.29 times faster than Mig-23ML at 3.280 feet, eventhough being 6,720 feet lower should benefit Mig-23ML acceleration rate significantly
While both aircraft carrying 2000 liter of fuel and 2 BVR AAM, F-16C at 30,000 feet will accelerate 2.27 times faster than Mig-23ML.
While they are in the same condition, there is simply no contest.

Now, I know what you are thinking, F-16C only accelerate better than Mig-23ML because AIM-120 is lighter than R-23, how about F-16C with 6 AIM-120 and a centerline fuel tank?
2000 liter of fuel weight 3417- 3703 lbs
AIM-120 weight 335 lbs so 6 of them weight 2010 lbs
Centerline fuel tank weight 392 lbs when it is empty
View attachment 47499

So F-16C with 2000 liter of fuel, 6 AIM-120 and an empty centerline fuel tank will weight 25,805 lbs, while there is no 25,805 lbs mark in the acceleration chart, we do have the data for F-16C with DI =50 and 28,000 lbs weight
View attachment 47501
View attachment 47500

F-16C armed with 6 AIM-120 and 1 centerline fuel tank and loaded with 2000 liter of fuel, flying at 10.000 feet altitude, in max afterburner, will take less than 36 seconds to accelerate from 531 km/h, to 1347.5 km/h
F-16C armed with 6 AIM-120 and 1 centerline fuel tank and loaded with 2000 liter of fuel, flying at 30.000 feet altitude, in max afterburner, will take less than 71 seconds to accelerate from 589 km/h, to 1363.7 km/h
(I used the words "less than" because our aircraft is actually lighter than the reference configuration given in the chart)

In short, F-16C with 6 AIM-120, 2000 liter of fuel and a centerline fuel tank, flying at 10,000 ft will have the same acceleration rate as Mig-23ML with 2 R-23 and 2000 liter of fuel flying at 3.280 feet
. While with the same 6 AIM-120 + 1 centerline tank load, F-16 at 30.000 ft will accelerate 1.69 times faster than Mig-23ML equipped with merely 2 R-23.

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".

A new engine model, the R-35F-300, now provided a maximum dry thrust of 84 kN (18,800 lbf), and 127 kN (28,700 lb) with afterburner. This led to a considerable improvement in maneuverability and thrust-to-weight ratio. The avionics set was considerably improved as well. The S-23ML standard included Sapfir-23ML radar and TP-23ML IRST.[88] The new radar was more reliable and a had maximum detection range of about 65 km against a fighter-sized target (25 km in look-down mode). The navigation suite received a new, much improved autopilot. New radio and datalink systems were also installed. The prototype of this variant first flew in 1976 and production began 1978.

Hatzerim AFM, Israel - Part 01.

Former 144 sqn. Kfir C7 '529' at the IAF museum gate- Hatzerim, in March 2019.

www.oldjets.net

read

How the defection to Israel of a Syrian Air Force MiG-23-pilot embarrassed the IAF - The Aviation Geek Club

How the defection to Israel of a Syrian Air Force MiG-23-pilot embarrassed the IAF

theaviationgeekclub.com

 

[MiG-29SMT]

I can not believe that I actually have to explain this
Pay attention to the number.
In the paragraph part of the manual, they given the acceleration time between 600 km/h to 1300 km/h






In short, F-16C with 6 AIM-120, 2000 liter of fuel and a centerline fuel tank, flying at 10,000 ft will have the same acceleration rate as Mig-23ML with 2 R-23 and 2000 liter of fuel flying at 3.280 feet
. While with the same 6 AIM-120 + 1 centerline tank load, F-16 at 30.000 ft will accelerate 1.69 times faster than Mig-23ML equipped with merely 2 R-23.

Further more the F-16 at sea level will take 33 seconds to get to Mach 1.13 and at 3 km around 40 seconds to get to Mach 1.17.


So you can see the Mig-23 has not bad acceleration and corresponds to what Israel said, MiG-23ML has under some conditions better acceleration than F-16

 

[MiG-29SMT]

Sorry I made a Mistake of calculation for the MiG-23ML 1350 is Mach 1.1

This is also an assumption because i do not know the exact speed at at 1 km of the speed of sound 1 km of altitude but Mach 1.1 at the speed of 1182 km per hour is 1300km/h at 3 km of altitude



So the real comparasion is what time it takes at the same starting point and same en point
we do not have that

But our asumption is if MiG-23 starts at 600km and end point is 1300 km/h

F-16 should start at the same speed and end at the same speed


The MiG-23ML from 600km/h to 1300 km/h takes 30 seconds


F-16 at any altitude should go from 600 km/h to 1300km/h


Mach 0.5 is 600 km/h at 3 km and Mach 1.1 is 1300 so it is 30.5 sec for an F-16 to go from 600km/h to 1300 at 3km starting from second 7 and ending in 37.5 since the table start at 0.45 mach and it gets to Mach 1.4.
Speed of sound 1182 km/h

Now at sea level to go from 600 km/h to 1300km/h
speed of sound 1225 km/h
600=0.489 1300=1.06 Mach

starting from second 7 and finishing at second 31 that is 24 seconds


So pretty much both aircraft are almost the same since you can calculate a 27 sec acceleration at best for F-16.

So while you are right at subsonic speeds, and we do not have the complete range of speeds, and the F-16 has a pitot tube style intake and the MiG-23ML has a variable geometry i would consider the MiG-23Ml has better acceleration at speeds beyond Mach 1.4