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

[MiG-29SMT]

I can not believe that I actually have to explain this
Pay attention to the number.


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 Israeli test pilot said he was impressed by the MiG’s rate of climb. He said that after taking off with the American made F-15 and F-16, the MiG shot upward in a stiff climb “and left them standing.”

Syrian Who Defected to Israel Teaches Israelis to Fly Mig Jet - Jewish Telegraphic Agency

A Syrian air force officer who defected to Israel in October has been teaching Israel air force pilots how to fly the Soviet-built MiG-23 jet he arrived in. Maj. Mohammed Bassem Adel streaked into Israel airspace undetected on Oct. 11 and landed at a small airfield in the North used by...

www.jta.org

 

[MiG-29SMT]

A comprehensive test program revealed the performance of the airplane and its systems, as well as its vulnerabilities. Trials included air combat drills against IAF frontline fighters. The Israelis were impressed with the excess thrust and acceleration of the MiG-23. The jet was simple and the avionics easy to use

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

 

[StealthFlanker]

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.

Firstly, I did not said air density is the same at all altitude, in fact, I have said very clearly that air density will reduce as altitude increase. And I even went as far as explaining to you why the acceleration rate reduces when altitude goes up even though the drag is lower. Just scroll back to my previous posts and read it carefully

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

Again, I have never said that speed of sound is the same at different altitude
And I even go as far as showing the speed of sound at different altitudes and also convert them into km/h. So I don't understand why you pretend like I made that assumption?

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

View attachment 47511

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

View attachment 47512



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

What?, I don't make any assumption, I made the exact calculation.
And you don't have to care about the steepness of the slope in Mig-23ML chart, you can just look at the number in the horizontal line (pay attention to the yellow circle and line that I draw)
At 5 km (16,404 ft) altitude, Mig-23ML armed with 2 R-23 and 2000 liter of fuel, in full afterburner will take 63 seconds to accelerate from 620 km/h to 1350 km/h

At 10,000 ft, speed of sound is 1182 km/h so Mach 0.45 is 531.9 km/h, while Mach 1.14 is 1347 km/h
F-16 with 6 AIM-120, 1 centerline fuel tank and 2000 liter of fuel, in full afterburner will take (41-5) = 36 seconds to accelerate from 531.9 km/h to 1347 km/h

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
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

No offense, but I think you are mistaken on how F-16 chart is meant to be read.
Firstly, don't convert to Mach, convert to km/h. The chart given for Mig-23ML is in km/h so it is easier to convert Mach at altitude to km/h because that a constant value.
Secondly, at sea level, speed of sound is 1225 km/h, so Mach F-16 doesn't take 33 seconds to accelerate from Mach 0.53 (649 km/h) to Mach 1.13 (1384 km/h), notice why I put 2 red rectangles in there? You have to take 33-8 = 25 seconds.
from Mach 0.45 ( 551 km/h) to Mach 1.06 (1298.5 km/h) will take 27-5 = 22 seconds.
For comparison, Mig-23ML takes 30 seconds to accelerate from 600 km/h to 1300 km/h
So F-16 is about 26% faster at low altitude.

But at common operating altitude such as 30.000 feet.

Mig-23ML armed with 2 R-23, 2000 liter of fuel, at 10 km (32.808 feet) altitude , in max afterburner , will take 120 seconds to accelerate from 600 km/h to 1350 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 Mach 0.54 is 589 km/h and Mach 1.25 is 1363 km/h
Difference in speed of sound between the two altitudes is only 1.18%

F-16C armed with 2 AIM-120, 2000 liter of fuel, at 30.000 feet altitude, in max afterburner, will take 52 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 71 seconds to accelerate from 589 km/h, to 1363.7 km/h
So F-16 is about twice as fast even when it is much more heavily armed.

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
The Israeli test pilot said he was impressed by the MiG’s rate of climb. He said that after taking off with the American made F-15 and F-16, the MiG shot upward in a stiff climb “and left them standing.”
A comprehensive test program revealed the performance of the airplane and its systems, as well as its vulnerabilities. Trials included air combat drills against IAF frontline fighters. The Israelis were impressed with the excess thrust and acceleration of the MiG-23. The jet was simple and the avionics easy to use
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

There are some glaring problems with that story though:
Firstly, which F-16 version did they test the Mig-23ML with? Did they use F-16A or F-16B? In many versions of that story I heard, they actually use F-16B, which have worse acceleration than A version and certainly won't reach the C version.
Secondly, in that photo, F-16 clearly carries a centerline fuel tank and possibly 2 wing tip missiles whereas Mig-23ML is empty and in clean configuration. If they use F-16B with a centerline tank then it is quite a big difference from F-16C having the same configuration with Mig-23. And we also didn't know what speed regime did they test those aircraft?

 

[MiG-29SMT]

There are some glaring problems with that story though:
Firstly, which F-16 version did they test the Mig-23ML with? Did they use F-16A or F-16B? In many versions of that story I heard, they actually use F-16B, which have worse acceleration than A version and certainly won't reach the C version.
Secondly, in that photo, F-16 clearly carries a centerline fuel tank and possibly 2 wing tip missiles whereas Mig-23ML is empty and in clean configuration. If they use F-16B with a centerline tank then it is quite a big difference from F-16C having the same configuration with Mig-23. And we also didn't know what speed regime did they test those aircraft?
View attachment 47591

The source is israeli there is no reason to lie, one is american, and while you focus on the charts the charts do not go to Mach 2 in the sea levelplus you do not have similar charts and the numbers are no so different you are implying the Israeli lie which is not the case just simple aerodynamics see

The pitot intake loses before Mach 1.3 goes down very quickly while F-14 nd F-15 will do better, thus i do not belive the F-16 will do better than MiG-23 at high altitudes and speeds thus I believe the Israelis

 

[MiG-29SMT]

Firstly, I did not said air density is the same at all altitude, in fact, I have said very clearly that air density will reduce as altitude increase. And I even went as far as explaining to you why the acceleration rate reduces when altitude goes up even though the drag is lower. Just scroll back to my previous posts and read it carefully









There are some glaring problems with that story though:
Firstly, which F-16 version did they test the Mig-23ML with? Did they use F-16A or F-16B? In many versions of that story I heard, they actually use F-16B, which have worse acceleration than A version and certainly won't reach the C version.
Secondly, in that photo, F-16 clearly carries a centerline fuel tank and possibly 2 wing tip missiles whereas Mig-23ML is empty and in clean configuration. If they use F-16B with a centerline tank then it is quite a big difference from F-16C having the same configuration with Mig-23. And we also didn't know what speed regime did they test those aircraft?
View attachment 47591

Look at this and I will prove you that it has better acceleration it was all along

the Chart says it will take 160 seconds to mach 2 from Mach 1 at an altitude of 10-12 km

Look at the chart at 30000 feet that is 9.12 km That chart does not say it is Mach 2 to be honest but i doubt it why look at the increase from Mach 1.62 to Mach 1.75 it takes it from sec 114 to 156 seconds and so it is an increase of 42 seconds the next number is 198 seconds and i think it is Mach 1.8 so If i consider from mach 1 to mach 1.8 at least is 153 seconds so at higher altitude; so to be honest the MiG-23 will surpass the F-16 easily since at higher altitudes of 11 km, the F-16 will perform worst at 10 km than at 9 km

 

[MiG-29SMT]

look at the intakes and it is easy to see F-16 generates less shocks thus at Mach 1.6 it takes longer to Mach 1.7 than at Mach 0.4 to Mach 0.5

Thus the MiG has better performance at higher altitudes and speeds thus the Israelis and dutch pilots are not lying

 

[StealthFlanker]

Look at this and I will prove you that it has better acceleration it was all along




View attachment 47595

the Chart says it will take 160 seconds to mach 2 from Mach 1 at an altitude of 10-12 km

View attachment 47596

Look at the chart at 30000 feet that is 9.12 km That chart does not say it is Mach 2 to be honest but i doubt it why look at the increase from Mach 1.62 to Mach 1.75 it takes it from sec 114 to 156 seconds and so it is an increase of 42 seconds the next number is 198 seconds and i think it is Mach 1.8 so If i consider from mach 1 to mach 1.8 at least is 153 seconds so at higher altitude; so to be honest the MiG-23 will surpass the F-16 easily since at higher altitudes of 11 km, the F-16 will perform worst at 10 km than at 9 km

No, with the same load out F-16C will always out accelerate Mig-23ML until it reaches its top speed limit.
Mig-23ML armed with 2 R-24 and 2000 liter of fuel, at altitude of 12 km can accelerate from Mach 1 to Mach 2 in 160 seconds

F-16C armed with 2 AIM-120 and 2000 liter of fuel, at altitude of 40,000 ft ( 12.192 km) can accelerate from Mach 0.97 to Mach 2 in (177-39)= 138 seconds

 

[StealthFlanker]

The source is israeli there is no reason to lie, one is american, and while you focus on the charts the charts do not go to Mach 2 in the sea levelplus you do not have similar charts and the numbers are no so different you are implying the Israeli lie which is not the case just simple aerodynamics see

View attachment 47594


The pitot intake loses before Mach 1.3 goes down very quickly while F-14 nd F-15 will do better, thus i do not belive the F-16 will do better than MiG-23 at high altitudes and speeds thus I believe the Israelis

I believe the flight manual over the Israel story not because the flight manual is american, I believe the flight manual because manual data are flight test data in exact condition , whereas in the Israel F-16 story, we don't even know which version of F-16 they used, and from the photo, that F-16 also carry a centerline tank while the Mig-23ML flying in clean configuration. Yes, a variable inlet such as one on Mig-23ML will be more efficient than F-16's pitot inlet, but F-16 design is insanely low drag

 

[scatterStorm]

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

View attachment 47511

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

View attachment 47512



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

He seems to forget atmospheric drag at different levels, ask him why would PAF F16 would fire Aim120c at higher altitudes exceeding 30K Feets. And then ask him why an F16 couldn't do that at sea level for the same MKI. F18s weren't designed for low speeds on a whim you see.

Sealevel ⇏ 1km in altitude. That's called analysis paralysis. This discussion is over

 

[MiG-29SMT]

No, with the same load out F-16C will always out accelerate Mig-23ML until it reaches its top speed limit
Mig-23ML armed with 2 R-24 and 2000 liter of fuel, at altitude of 12 km can accelerate from Mach 1 to Mach 2 in 160 seconds
View attachment 47609

F-16C armed with 2 AIM-120 and 2000 liter of fuel, at altitude of 40,000 ft ( 12.192 km) can accelerate from Mach 0.97 to Mach 2 in (177-39)= 138 seconds
View attachment 47606

you are cheating 24000 lb, it is easy to see it
the F-16 weights 19700 lb empty

ok

4300lb is 1950 kg ok


2000 liters will be considering a fuel density of .80l 1600kg, now you cheat because now you now 2 AIM-120 weigh 300 kg, not 500 kgs, no pilot and no shells and more important you compare it to MiG-23 carrying R-23 not Aa-11 so that is call cheating

so you at least eliminate 300 kg and you compare it to an aircraft weighing more

 

[StealthFlanker]

He seems to forget atmospheric drag at different levels, ask him why would PAF F16 would fire Aim120c at higher altitudes exceeding 30K Feets. And then ask him why an F16 couldn't do that at sea level. F18s weren't designed for low speeds you see.

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 higher altitude is lower than at low altitude

 

[MiG-29SMT]

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 higher altitude is lower than at low altitude

you are cheating first because you are resting 200 kg and no gun shells and no pilot against an aircraft carrying more weigh and without quoting the performance of a MiG-23 with adders or similar missiles so yes you are cheating because you know at higher weigh it will have a 170 seconds at least so you cheat.
at lower weight the MiG-23ML will be lower than 160 seconds

 

[scatterStorm]

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 higher altitude is lower than at low altitude

But you can fire off an AIM120c to a much lower target say at 10K feet and it would simply use Gravity to increase its KE and range. Why jets zoom climb to have better advantage in terms of fuel efficiency or having tactical advantage, because it can be negated.
Nevertheless the whole argument collapses because the premise for equivalent parameters aren't met.

 

[StealthFlanker]

you are cheating 24000 lb, it is easy to see it
the F-16 weights 19700 lb empty
ok
4300lb is 1950 kg ok
2000 liters will be considering a fuel density of .80l 1600kg, now you cheat because now you now 2 AIM-120 weigh 300 kg, not 500 kgs, no pilot and no shells and more important you compare it to MiG-23 carrying R-23 not Aa-11 so that is call cheating
so you at least eliminate 300 kg and you compare it to an aircraft weighing more

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 has drag index =0. A pilot weight 55 kg so you can add another 114 lbs
In the end, F-16 weight 23,901- 24,187 lbs
At 24,000 lbs F-16 accelerate 22 seconds faster than Mig-23ML, if you seriously think just 0.4% increase in weight gonna make Mig-23ML accelerate faster than F-16C then you are lying to yourself.
And yes, AIM-120 is lighter than R-23, but then it is both faster and longer range than R-23 and just like R-23 is the main BVR weapon of Mig-23, AIM-120 is the main BVR weapon of F-16. It isn't really my fault that F-16 got a superior weapon

you are cheating first because you are resting 200 kg and no gun shells and no pilot against an aircraft carrying more weigh and without quoting the performance of a MiG-23 with adders or similar missiles so yes you are cheating because you know at higher weigh it will have a 170 seconds at least so you cheat.
at lower weight the MiG-23ML will be lower than 160 seconds

Nope, even at 28000 lbs, which mean I have to add 4000 lbs F-16 still only need 171 seconds to accelerate from Mach 1 to Mach 2

But you can fire off an AIM120c to a much lower target say at 10K feet and it would simply use Gravity to increase its KE and range. Why jets zoom climb to have better advantage in terms of fuel efficiency or having tactical advantage, because it can be negated.
Nevertheless the whole argument collapses because the premise for equivalent parameters aren't met.

My lord, air to air missile are not air breathing machine (except for Meteor) so their acceleration normally increases with altitude. And zoom climb is done so that you can take advantage of aircraft speed in a climb rather than just lift, itis not because aircraft accelerate better at high altitude

 

[MiG-29SMT]

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 has drag index =0. A pilot weight 55 kg so you can add another 114 lbs
In the end, F-16 weight 23,901- 24,187 lbs
At 24,000 lbs F-16 accelerate 22 seconds faster than Mig-23ML, if you seriously think just 0.4% increase in weight gonna make Mig-23ML accelerate faster than F-16C then you are lying to yourself.
And yes, AIM-120 is lighter than R-23, but then it is both faster and longer range than R-23 and just like R-23 is the main BVR weapon of Mig-23, AIM-120 is the main BVR weapon of F-16

see

F-16 20mm Gun System Specifications

Weight (total) Gun Feed System Ammunition (full)

832 pounds (377 kg) 248 pounds (112.5 kg) 258 pounds (117 kg) 325 pounds (147 kg)

F-16 20mm Gun System M61A1 Six-barrel Gatling Gun and Feed System

M61A1 Six-barrel Gatling Gun and Feed System. The weapon system features the M61A1 six-barrel Gatling gun and a linkless ammunition feed system.

www.gd-ots.com

missiles and pilots and some added weigh, so basically you are cheating
because in order to be at same level you eliminate 200kg of missiles and did not count at least 200kg of shells and pilot

So the F-16 so even at 1550kg add 200 of pilot and shells that is 1750 ok?

add 2 AIM-120 what you went to more pounds 2050 kg! wow you did not consider it eh? now you F-16 is not flying with 2 AIM-120 but one and you lightened your F-16 for at least 200 kg wow and that is not cheating yeah you are cheating and even lie to your self

 

[StealthFlanker]

see

F-16 20mm Gun System Specifications

Weight (total) Gun Feed System Ammunition (full)

832 pounds (377 kg) 248 pounds (112.5 kg) 258 pounds (117 kg) 325 pounds (147 kg)

F-16 20mm Gun System M61A1 Six-barrel Gatling Gun and Feed System

M61A1 Six-barrel Gatling Gun and Feed System. The weapon system features the M61A1 six-barrel Gatling gun and a linkless ammunition feed system.

www.gd-ots.com

missiles and pilots and some added weigh, so basically you are cheating
because in order to be at same level you eliminate 200kg of missiles and did not count at least 200kg of shells and pilot

So the F-16 so even at 1550kg add 200 of pilot and shells that is 1750 ok?

add 2 AIM-120 what you went to more pounds 2050 kg wow you did not considered eh? now you F-16 is not flying with 2 AIM-120 but one and you lightened your F-16 for at least 200 kg wow and that is not cheating yeah you are cheating and even lie to your self

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 24000 lbs F-16C takes 138 seconds to accelerate from Mach 0.97 to Mach 2
At 28000 lbs, F-16C takes 171 seconds to accelerate from Mach 0.97 to Mach 2
So approximately every 1000 lbs add about 8 seconds
For comparison, Mig-23ML armed with 2 R-23 takes and 2000 liters of fuel will takes 160 seconds to accelerate from Mach 1 to Mach 2

 

[MiG-29SMT]

What the ..f.. make you think an empty F-16 mean they take out the M61 cannon ?????
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
View attachment 47615

you are cheating of course because 20000lb performance is not the same to 21000lb and a MiG-23ML with lower weight will have better numbers so basically you are cheating

Since you do not do you have the chart for 21000lb? no you do not

In fact all this conversation is foolish simply because we are doing assumptions.

You need a Chart where both aircraft carry the same amount of shell ammunition, plus your aim-120 weigh 356 lb or 160 kg

AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile

Mission: Medium Range Air-to-Air Attack

www.military.com

For starters you need same weight in missiles so you will need 3 AIM-120, same amount of shells weight or at least combat weight.


also you are cheating you are using lower density fuel, but okay each country should use 2000 liters of fuel

Do you have the chart for MiG-23-98 with only adders? no you do not so you are cheating

 

[StealthFlanker]

you are cheating of course because 20000lb performance is not the same to 21000lb and a MiG-23ML with lower weight will have better numbers so basically you are cheating
Since you do not do you have the chart for 21000lb? no you do not
In fact all this conversation is foolish simply because we are doing assumptions.
You need a Chart where both aircraft carry the same amount of shell ammunition, plus your aim-120 weight 356 lb of 160kg

AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile

Mission: Medium Range Air-to-Air Attack

www.military.com

For starters you need same weight in missiles so you will need 3 AIM-120, same amount of shells weight or at least combat weight.
also you are cheating you are using lower density fuel, but okay each country should use 2000 liters of fuel
View attachment 47616
Do you have the chart for MiG-23-98 with only adders? no you do not so you are cheating

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 AIM-120 weight?.

Firstly, I already showed you that at 30,000 feet, from 600-1350 km/h (or Mach 0.53- Mach 1.25) F-16C accelerates nearly twice as fast as Mig-23ML even with much heavier load of 6 AIM-120 and a centerline tank.

Secondly, at regime from Mach 1 to Mach 2,
At 24000 lbs F-16C takes 138 seconds to accelerate from Mach 0.97 to Mach 2
At 28000 lbs, F-16C takes 171 seconds to accelerate from Mach 0.97 to Mach 2
So approximately every 1000 lbs add about 8 seconds, even if I added all your nitpick for a total of 1000 lbs increase in weight from 24000 lbs. F-16 still only needs 146 seconds to accelerate from Mach 0.97 to Mach 2 compared to Mig-23ML which needs 160 seconds to accelerate from Mach 1 to Mach 2. So F-16C still accelerates much faster regardless

Thirdly, I didn't use lower fuel density, I use the standard fuel used on F-16 which is JP-8. And we don't need the same weight in missiles, we need the same number. And too bad but AIM-120 is both lighter and longer range, but it is how it is.

In fact all this conversation is foolish simply because we are doing assumptions.

And still a thousand time more productive than whatever you can learned from the Israel story given that you don't even know the exact version of F-16 that they used, it hardly fair to compare a clean Mig-23 ML to an F-16B with centerline tank does it?

 

[MiG-29SMT]

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 AIM-120 weight?.

Firstly, I already showed you that at 30,000 feet, from 600-1350 km/h (or Mach 0.53- Mach 1.25) F-16C accelerates nearly twice as fast as Mig-23ML even with much heavier load of 6 AIM-120 and a centerline tank.


Secondly, at regime from Mach 1 to Mach 2,
At 24000 lbs F-16C takes 138 seconds to accelerate from Mach 0.97 to Mach 2
At 28000 lbs, F-16C takes 171 seconds to accelerate from Mach 0.97 to Mach 2
So approximately every 1000 lbs add about 8 seconds, even if I added all your nitpick for a total of 1000 lbs increase in weight from 24000 lbs. F-16 still only needs 146 seconds to accelerate from Mach 0.97 to Mach 2 compared to Mig-23ML which needs 160 seconds to accelerate from Mach 1 to Mach 2. So F-16C still accelerates much faster regardless


Thirdly, I didn't use lower fuel density, I use the standard fuel used on F-16 which is JP-8. And we don't need the same weight in missiles, we need the same number. And too bad but AIM-120 is both lighter and longer range, but it is how it is.


And still a thousand time more productive than whatever you can learned from the Israel story given that you don't even know the exact version of F-16 that they used, it hardly fair to compare a clean Mig-23 ML to an F-16B with centerline tank does it?

Look I am not cheating I admitted that at lower mach numbers the F-16 has better acceleration simply and i know it should be because it has better TWR or Thrust to weight ratio, ok? you got it that is simple physics

Now at higher speeds F-16 has different type of intake so the TWR goes down because the engine can not give 100% thrust even at full afterburner

You are uisng the weight you think is best of course lighter but that lighter means at 20000lbs your F-16 flies with a single AIM-120 hahahah that was ridiculous and you wanted to present it as representative of the F-16.


two missiles you ask do you have the chart of MiG-23ML with two R-60? with 2 R-73? or 2 R-77?

No you do not, so you are cheating.

at 21000 LB internal fuel of course and two AIM-120 minimum you need a chart of Mig-23-98 with only two AA-12 adders.


Now Russian sources say Israeli F-16 did not deliver what General Dynamics claimed.

why? because in order to be more advanced Israel modified the F-16s, yes they were smarter but fatter.
SO you cheat using charts like if you knew all the MiG-23ML all features, Israel tested the MiG-23 with a F-15 too, so do not say it was a F-16B only it was a F-15.

In reality despite you think the charts say everything, they say not everything they might give you an Idea, but in order to know each aircraft you have to test it and Israel did it without bias, you are bias just to win a internet argument and you are cheating and picking the data that helps you in your quest in a bias way

 

[StealthFlanker]

Look I am not cheating I admitted that at lower mach numbers the F-16 has better acceleration simply and i know it should be because it has better TWR or Thrust to weight ratio, ok? you got it that is simple physics

View attachment 47620

Now at higher speeds F-16 has different type of intake so the TWR goes down because the engine can not give 100% thrust even at full afterburner

What the point of repeating something that I already said?
I have never said F-16 engine thurst is the same at all speed.

You are uisng the weight you think is best of course lighter but that lighter means at 20000lbs your F-16 flies with a single AIM-120 hahahah that was ridiculous and you wanted to present it as representative of the F-16.


two missiles you ask do you have the chart of MiG-23ML with two R-60? with 2 R-73? or 2 R-77?
View attachment 47621
No you do not, so you are cheating.

at 21000 LB internal fuel of course and two AIM-120 minimum you need a chart of Mig-23-98 with only two AA-12 adders.


Now Russian sources say Israeli F-16 did not deliver what General Dynamics claimed.

why? because in order to be more advanced Israel modified the F-16s, yes they were smarter but fatter.
SO you cheat using charts like if you knew all the MiG-23ML all features, Israel tested the MiG-23 with a F-15 too, so do not say it was a F-16B only it was a F-15.

In reality despite you think the charts say everything, they say not everything they might give you an Idea, but in order to know each aircraft you have to test it and Israel did it without bias, you are bias just to win a internet argument and you are cheating and picking the data that helps you in your quest in a bias way

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 that an F-16C with pilot, 2 AIM-120, full load of cannon round and 2000 liter of JP-8 will be 24,417 - 24,703 lbs.

Secondly, your claim was that Mig-23ML has better acceleration characteristic than F-16C.
Mig-23ML didn't have the ability to carry R-77 so it is irrelevant, beside, R-73 is a LOBL short range weapon, which can't really be considered the same as a LOAL BVR missile like AIM-120. So the closest comparison would be between Mig-23ML with R-23 and F-16C with AIM-120, at the very least, they are BVR weapon.

Thirdly, Mig-23-98 never went into production, there was no interest in the market for it and it was not what Israel tested, so bring it here is also quite irrelevant

Lastly, flight manual data are test data and unlike an advertising brochure, there is no motivation for the manufacturer and user to increase the number in the manual because they are meant to help pilot use their planes. And with a manual, you could at least know the condition where and when the fighter can achieve a certain ability, they offer far more information and details than any generic story about a test which you don't even know the type they used or the condition.

Israel tested the MiG-23 with a F-15 too, so do not say it was a F-16B only it was a F-15.

But then again, does the F-15 have CFT installed? what weapon did it carry?
F-16 here at least have the centerline tank and some photo even indicate it to be the twin seat version.
And we both know the twin seat version is slower, just like how Mig-23UB is slower than Mig-23ML