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

[MiG-29SMT]

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.

The MiG-23ML manual does not mention all the altitudes and speeds the MiG-23 can achieve. it only gives you and Idea of what the aircraft can do at its lightest configuration and only at 1 km 5km and 10km from 1 to 1350 km per hour.

Same is the F-16 it gives you a more detailed chart but still it is some specific altitudes.


You are not the IDF that tested the MiG-23MLD in the early 1990s and late 1980s.

Do you think when they say 10 to 12 Km it will always have 160 seconds? no of course not, for starters 160 seconds is a generalization, why? because 160 seconds is an average at lower altitude 10km will be less than 160 seconds and at 12km more than 160 seconds.

At lower altitudes will do better a higher altitudes worse
Same is the F-16 it gives your several weights 20000, 24000 and 28000lbs but tell me what abour 22000 or 27000lb


That you do not have it

.

So you are cheating because you only consider a single chart not all the ranges of speeds, altitudes and weights and let us it be honest the difference between both jets for example at subsonic speeds is 2-3 seconds, it is a distance an Air to Air missile will reach quickly so there is no real advantage for the F-16, so it is a moot point.


A R-24 will reach the F-16 regardless of that 2-3 seconds advantage because at subsonic speeds a second of difference is around 320 m/s, so at the most it is 1km of difference but for a R-24 flying at 1 km a sec there is no difference it will down the F-16 because the F-16 will not go at subsonic speeds faster than 320m/s

 

[MiG-29SMT]

MiG-23MLD versus F-15; a former Syrian MiG-23 being tested in Israel

This is photo is certainly worth a share! “Israel ca. 1990: Ex SyAAF MiG-23MLD and Israeli Air Force (now IASF) F-15A/C Baz. The Syrian MiG-23MLD defected to Israel in 1989.”

@aircrew_interview Instagram post (photo) This is photo is certainly worth a share! “Israel ca. 1990: Ex SyAAF MiG-23MLD 🇸🇾 and Israeli Air Force (now IASF) F-15A/C Baz. 🇮🇱 The Syrian MiG-23MLD defected to Israel in 1989.” Twitter @StefanKnippsch3 #f15 #f15eagle #f15a #f15c # #mig23 #mig23flogger #dogfight #afterburner #afterburners #airforce #avgeek #aviation #aviationphotography #aviationlovers #aviationdaily #aircrewinterview #pilot #aircrew - Gramho.com

Instagram post added by aircrew_interview This is photo is certainly worth a share! “Israel ca. 1990: Ex SyAAF MiG-23MLD 🇸🇾 and Israeli Air Force (now IASF) F-15A/C Baz. 🇮🇱 The Syrian MiG-23MLD defected to Israel in 1989.” Twitter @StefanKnippsch3 #f15 #f15eagle #f15a #f15c # #mig23...

gramho.com

 

[panzerfeist1]

The purpose of national interest is just to have shit-post war clickbait titles(they shit on U.S. or Russian military equipment) with the purpose of drawing huge attention from a big audience and somehow it works all the time. This also the reason why Obama was infuriated that Trump was getting a lot of attention from the media even if it was all bad publicity.

 

[StealthFlanker]

The MiG-23ML manual does not mention all the altitudes and speeds the MiG-23 can achieve. it only gives you and Idea of what the aircraft can do at its lightest configuration and only at 1 km 5km and 10km from 1 to 1350 km per hour.

Same is the F-16 it gives you a more detailed chart but still it is some specific altitudes.

You are not the IDF that tested the MiG-23MLD in the early 1990s and late 1980s.

Do you think when they say 10 to 12 Km it will always have 160 seconds? no of course not, for starters 160 seconds is a generalization, why? because 160 seconds is an average at lower altitude 10km will be less than 160 seconds and at 12km more than 160 seconds.
At lower altitudes will do better a higher altitudes worse
Same is the F-16 it gives your several weights 20000, 24000 and 28000lbs but tell me what abour 22000 or 27000lb
That you do not have it
So you are cheating because you only consider a single chart not all the ranges of speeds, altitudes and weights and let us it be honest the difference between both jets for example at subsonic speeds is 2-3 seconds, it is a distance an Air to Air missile will reach quickly so there is no real advantage for the F-16, so it is a moot point.

A R-24 will reach the F-16 regardless of that 2-3 seconds advantage because at subsonic speeds a second of difference is around 320 m/s, so at the most it is 1km of difference but for a R-24 flying at 1 km a sec there is no difference it will down the F-16 because the F-16 will not go at subsonic speeds faster than 320m/s

That quite a terrible logical fallacy argument you are trying to pull there
If the simple fact that the manual data doesn't mention all speed and altitude means it can't be used, then by that logic no charts can ever be used since they never be able to show every single condition of the aircraft. It is simply impossible to list every single plausible configuration and speed, what we can have are some notable conditions that can be used to extrapolate to a general trend.
And yes, I am not one of the person in IDF who tested the Mig-23ML in 1980s, but neither are you. Do you know which F-16 version they used? what was the weapon configuration of both aircraft in the test? what speed regime did they test the two aircraft at? What was the acceleration time? What was the altitude? the answer to all of that is "you DON'T HAVE ANY DATA" that the problem. Sure, I can't bring data points for every possible condition, but I can at least provide several exact numbers in some notable conditions to support my case, while you only based your argument on a generic story in which you have very little details.
And for someone who has just repeatedly accused me of cheating because I forgot to add 50-60 kg pilot weight into 9.5 tons aircraft, you don't really set a high standard for your own posts. The difference in acceleration time between F-16C and Mig-23ML in subsonic-transonic region is not 2-3 seconds, it is much greater and give F-16C big advantage in BVR combat.
Let say they are both cruising at Mach 0.8 - 30,000 ft, then they suddenly detect an enemy, pilots accelerate to Mach 1.25 to give their missiles better range
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
F-16C armed with 2 AIM-120, 2000 liter of fuel, at 30.000 feet altitude, in max afterburner, will take 31 seconds to accelerate from 861 km/h (Mach 0.79) to 1363.7 km/h (Mach 1.25)
F-16C armed with 6 AIM-120 and 1 centerline external fuel tank, at 30.000 feet altitude, in max afterburner, will take 44 seconds to accelerate from 861 km/h (Mach 0.79) to 1363.7 km/h (Mach 1.25)

For comparison, Mig-23ML armed with 2 R-23, 2000 liter of fuel, at 10 km (32.808 feet) altitude , in max afterburner, will take 70 seconds to accelerate from 862 km/h (Mach 0.8) to 1350 km/h (Mach 1.25)

So F-16 with the same number of BVR missiles will accelerate and reach the required speed 39 seconds faster than Mig-23ML, while F-16 with 4 more missiles and a centerline tank will accelerate and reach the required speed 26 seconds faster than Mig-23ML. Those are not small numbers, for a Mach 4 missile, in 39 seconds it could fly 46.7 km. Missiles doesn't have constant speed like that, but this is a simplified example to give you an idea.

 

[MiG-29SMT]

That quite a terrible logical fallacy argument you are trying to pull there
If the simple fact that the manual data doesn't mention all speed and altitude means it can't be used, then by that logic no charts can ever be used since they never be able to show every single condition of the aircraft. It is simply impossible to list every single plausible configuration and speed, what we can have are some notable conditions that can be used to extrapolate to a general trend.
And yes, I am not one of the person in IDF who tested the Mig-23ML in 1980s, but neither are you. Do you know which F-16 version they used? what was the weapon configuration of both aircraft in the test? what speed regime did they test the two aircraft at? What was the acceleration time? What was the altitude? the answer to all of that is "you DON'T HAVE ANY DATA" that the problem. Sure, I can't bring data points for every possible condition, but I can at least provide several exact numbers in some notable conditions to support my case, while you only based your argument on a generic story in which you have very little details.
And for someone who has just repeatedly accused me of cheating because I forgot to add 50-60 kg pilot weight into 9.5 tons aircraft, you don't really set a high standard for your own posts. The difference in acceleration time between F-16C and Mig-23ML in subsonic-transonic region is not 2-3 seconds, it is much greater and give F-16C big advantage in BVR combat.





So F-16 with the same number of BVR missiles will accelerate and reach the required speed 39 seconds faster than Mig-23ML, while F-16 with 4 more missiles and a centerline tank will accelerate and reach the required speed 26 seconds faster than Mig-23ML. Those are not small numbers, for a Mach 4 missile, in 39 seconds it could fly 46.7 km. Missiles doesn't have constant speed like that, but this is a simplified example to give you an idea.

you are using and abusing the charts.

Example your 20000lb quotation forgot not the human but a missile, since by adding a single missile is 162kg, gun shells 142kg, pilots 70-80 kg even a weight of 1550 kg in fuel remember you forgot oil already is 1950kg or 4300lb.


So then you correct yourself since it was stupid to say the F-16 will take off with a single missile.


Then you change your point and say 21000lb weight, but what happens then?

Do you have the Chart? no you do not know so you need now the 24000lb chart.

So you enter in the part of expeculation.


later you use the MiG-23ML chart with R-24s and with a range of 2km which is around 6571 feet, and claim there is no going to be a difference between 10km and 12km, the Russian chart only gives you an approximation, however you are using it creating your own calculation and abusing it.


I am not the Israeli air force true, but they already tested the MiG-23ML and as you can see they dog fought the MiG-23MLD with an F-15 without conformal fuel tanks and you claim according to you the F-16 was F-16B.

Now you are cheating even with time period.

in the 1980s when the F-16 fought the MiG-23 it was only armed with AIM-9ls which only fly at low speeds of Mach 2.5 versus the R-24 of Mach 3 and 40km of range.


the F-16 that flew and fought thea MiG-23 in the 1980s needed to get close in the range of 18km at the most in a head on engagement, the MiG doubles that distance so tell me who is cheating?


using AA-11 and the MiG-23 used it in Europe in the late 1980s and 1990s the missile has also 30km of range.

So you are fantasizing

By 1999 the MiG-23 has AA-12 Adders

So you change the subject as you wish.


A clear chart should have a MiG-23MLD with R-77 versus and F-16 with AIM-120. with same fuel since the adder is 170kg almost as heavy as a AIM-120

Or accept the more realistic 1980s scenario of AIM-9Ls versus R-24Ts.

So stop fantasizing and choosing charts abusing them.


Israel paid for MiG-23MLD or do you think the syrian defector could not have flown to Iraq? of course the MiG-23MLD was a good aircraft in the 1990s.

You just want to win an internet fight using charts in a horrible manner without consider the manual only has 1 single chart for acceleration time relation in the MiG-23ML and you extrapolate data according to your wishing and filling it with your expeculation at will that is intellectual dishonesty.

The Syrian air force by 1995 was flying already MiG-29s so then you have to consider it for comparassions or use charts for MiG-23-98 with equivalent weapons and avionics, do not be dishonest

 

[MiG-29SMT]

That quite a terrible logical fallacy argument you are trying to pull there
If the simple fact that the manual data doesn't mention all speed and altitude means it can't be used, then by that logic no charts can ever be used since they never be able to show every single condition of the aircraft. It is simply impossible to list every single plausible configuration and speed, what we can have are some notable conditions that can be used to extrapolate to a general trend.
And yes, I am not one of the person in IDF who tested the Mig-23ML in 1980s, but neither are you. Do you know which F-16 version they used? what was the weapon configuration of both aircraft in the test? what speed regime did they test the two aircraft at? What was the acceleration time? What was the altitude?

So F-16 with the same number of BVR missiles will accelerate and reach the required speed 39 seconds faster than Mig-23ML, while F-16 with 4 more missiles and a centerline tank will accelerate and reach the required speed 26 seconds faster than Mig-23ML. Those are not small numbers, for a Mach 4 missile, in 39 seconds it could fly 46.7 km. Missiles doesn't have constant speed like that, but this is a simplified example to give you an idea.

Also you are here fantasizing a F-16 to reach 1.7 mach means to fly high so the radar of the MiG-23 will pick it up and in the 1980s engagement of Pakistan versus Soviet MiG-23 meant the MiG-23 could use its IRST and radar with more effectiveness. and there is no 30 seconds advantage, that is your fantasy, at Mach 1.8 or Mach 2 at same altitudes the aircraft will have no more than 15 seconds difference that for a missile of mach 3 is only 5 seconds or 5 km even in your fantazy of 39 seconds difference a missile flying at 1000 m/s and fired by a MiG-23MLD flying at Mach 1.7 and stop saying stupid things the F-16 has only 2000 liters so in full afterburner it will spend them in minutes basically leaving your F-16 with no fuel to reach the target very short range or no fuel to come back so that is stupid

The F-15 can burn through an amazing amount of fuel in a short amount of time. In the dense air at sea level with maximum afterburner selected and at high speed, the total fuel flow can be more than 23,000 gallons per hour, or 385 gallons per minute. At this rate you would burn through your entire internal fuel load in about 6 minutes. At higher altitudes the fuel burn is not as extreme but you can easily find yourself below normal recovery fuel if you are not careful.

Fly like a fighter: Minimum fuel

The F-15 can burn through an amazing amount of fuel in a short amount of time. In the dense air at sea level with maximum afterburner selected and at high speed, the total fuel flow can be more than 23,000 gallons per hour, or 385 gallons per minute.

www.aopa.org

385 gallos is 1457 liters a minute remember to get from mach 1 to Mach 2 it is at least 2 minutes fly of F-16

tell me how far your F-16 will fly? plus the R-24 will have an easier pray a non maneuverable F-16 much easier to down

 

[StealthFlanker]

you are using and abusing the charts.

Firstly, I remember you were very much supporting the use of manual at the start of this thread

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

The Mig-23 could not outperform F-4 especially the D and E versions in a dogfight. Mig-21 is actually better than Mig-23. Mig-23 simply was an overcomplicated design that was mostly manually operated. Mig-23's lackluster performance was further compounded by the fact the almost immediately...

defenceforumindia.com

Secondly, as I said previously, yes, I use manual data a lot, but that because they are test data, there is no motivation to increase or reduce the number in the manual from the real recorded value. And manual data can give you the exact capability of an aircraft in exact conditions. The accuracy and details of manual data can't be argued against. By contrast, anecdotal evidence such as a generic test story doesn't give you any of that, there could be a million unknown variable in a generic story that you don't know and you can't know, all of which can affect the end result.

Example your 20000lb quotation forgot not the human but a missile, since by adding a single missile is 162kg, gun shells 142kg, pilots 70-80 kg even a weight of 1550 kg in fuel remember you forgot oil already is 1950kg or 4300lb.
So then you correct yourself since it was stupid to say the F-16 will take off with a single missile.
Then you change your point and say 21000lb weight, but what happens then?
Do you have the Chart? no you do not know so you need now the 24000lb chart.
So you enter in the part of expeculation.

Now you are lying again
I didn't reference the 20,000 lbs column at any point in this discussion. In my first post about F-16 acceleration, I already used the 24,000 lbs column and later the 28,000 lbs column as well.
My original reasoning was that
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
But with added data from the flight manual we then know 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

later you use the MiG-23ML chart with R-24s and with a range of 2km which is around 6571 feet, and claim there is no going to be a difference between 10km and 12km, the Russian chart only gives you an approximation, however you are using it creating your own calculation and abusing it.

Firstly, I am not the one who wanted to do the Mach 1 to Mach 2 acceleration comparison, I didn't do it originally because I thought it is pointless given that with the radar range on Mig-23, it will never have the chance to accelerate to Mach 2 before launching missiles at the enemy fighter.
You were the one who wanted to do the Mach 1-Mach 2 acceleration because you thought that Mig-23ML will accelerate faster there.
https://defenceforumindia.com/threa...ry-fighter-aircraft.82173/page-4#post-1671675
But then the result of the comparison isn't what you wanted, you backpedal saying the number is just approximation and blamed that on me? Isn't that a bit hypocrite?

Secondly, I didn't say there is no difference between 10-12 km, logically speaking, acceleration at 12 km is lower than at 10 km and 160 seconds would be the average. But then that just means the Mig-23ML acceleration time at 12 km height is longer than 160 seconds, so it is even slower and the result of my previous comparison won't change.

I am not the Israeli air force true, but they already tested the MiG-23ML and as you can see they dog fought the MiG-23MLD with an F-15 without conformal fuel tanks and you claim according to you the F-16 was F-16B.

That the problem, a F-16B or F-16D, especially with centerline fuel tank isn't the same as F-16C
and while we see they apparently tested F-15, there stills many unknow factor, for example: how was the fuel load? did the load both aircraft with an equal amount of fuel or both are fully loaded?, at which regime did Mig-23 has better acceleration? just after take off to 500 km/h ? or very high Mach?

Now you are cheating even with time period.
in the 1980s when the F-16 fought the MiG-23 it was only armed with AIM-9ls which only fly at low speeds of Mach 2.5 versus the R-24 of Mach 3 and 40km of range.
the F-16 that flew and fought thea MiG-23 in the 1980s needed to get close in the range of 18km at the most in a head on engagement, the MiG doubles that distance so tell me who is cheating?
using AA-11 and the MiG-23 used it in Europe in the late 1980s and 1990s the missile has also 30km of range.

So you are fantasizing

View attachment 47675

View attachment 47676


By 1999 the MiG-23 has AA-12 Adders

View attachment 47677



So you change the subject as you wish.


A clear chart should have a MiG-23MLD with R-77 versus and F-16 with AIM-120. with same fuel since the adder is 170kg almost as heavy as a AIM-120

Or accept the more realistic 1980s scenario of AIM-9Ls versus R-24Ts.

So stop fantasizing and choosing charts abusing them.


Israel paid for MiG-23MLD or do you think the syrian defector could not have flown to Iraq? of course the MiG-23MLD was a good aircraft in the 1990s.

Firstly, I didn't compare F-16A and Mig-23ML, you brought up the claim that Mig-23ML accelerate faster than F-16C and only showed that it doesn't according to real test data.

Secondly, IAF got the Mig-23ML and tested it in 1989-1995, while F-16 get the ability to launch AIM-120 in 1992, so it hardly unreasonable to include it in the discussion.

Thirdly, Mig-23ML and Mig-23MLD don't have ability to use R-77 so it is irrelevant. R-77 was a part of
Mig-23-93 upgrade package, unfortunately, no one wanted or purchase these package so Mig-23 never have the ability to use R-77. Now before you said, Mig-23MLD did carry R-77 in trial, therefore it should be included in the comparison. Guess what, F-16A did launch AIM-7 in trial too, doesn't mean I gonna included it here.

You just want to win an internet fight using charts in a horrible manner without consider the manual only has 1 single chart for acceleration time relation in the MiG-23ML and you extrapolate data according to your wishing and filling it with your expeculation at will that is intellectual dishonesty.

At the very least, I extrapolate data for comparison from real numbers recorded in real tests. What is the base of your argument? a generic story that you have almost no details about.

 

[StealthFlanker]

Also you are here fantasizing a F-16 to reach 1.7 mach means to fly high so the radar of the MiG-23 will pick it up and in the 1980s engagement of Pakistan versus Soviet MiG-23 meant the MiG-23 could use its IRST and radar with more effectiveness. and there is no 30 seconds advantage, that is your fantasy, at Mach 1.8 or Mach 2 at same altitudes the aircraft will have no more than 15 seconds difference that for a missile of mach 3 is only 5 seconds or 5 km even in your fantazy of 39 seconds difference a missile flying at 1000 m/s and fired by a MiG-23MLD flying at Mach 1.7 and stop saying stupid things the F-16 has only 2000 liters so in full afterburner it will spend them in minutes basically leaving your F-16 with no fuel to reach the target very short range or no fuel to come back so that is stupid

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

Secondly, F-16C radar is much more powerful than Mig-23 radar, F-16 also have lower RCS than Mig-23, and F-16C has an internal jammer while Mig-23 doesn't. So not only F-16 can accelerate faster than Mig-23, it will start the acceleration first, and the much better speed will give its missile more energy-range.

Thirdly, I only used the 2000 liters fuel mark because that is also what given in Mig-23ML manual, and for a fair comparison, they must carry an equal amount of fuel. However, if you notice, even at 28,000 lbs, F-16C still only need 37 seconds to accelerate from 861 km/h to 1363.7 km/h while Mig-23ML need 70 seconds.
At 28,000 lbs F-16 will carry about 4096 liters of fuel, which is twice as much fuel as the Mig-23ML used in our comparison

The F-15 can burn through an amazing amount of fuel in a short amount of time. In the dense air at sea level with maximum afterburner selected and at high speed, the total fuel flow can be more than 23,000 gallons per hour, or 385 gallons per minute. At this rate you would burn through your entire internal fuel load in about 6 minutes. At higher altitudes the fuel burn is not as extreme but you can easily find yourself below normal recovery fuel if you are not careful.

Fly like a fighter: Minimum fuel

The F-15 can burn through an amazing amount of fuel in a short amount of time. In the dense air at sea level with maximum afterburner selected and at high speed, the total fuel flow can be more than 23,000 gallons per hour, or 385 gallons per minute.

www.aopa.org

385 gallos is 1457 liters a minute remember to get from mach 1 to Mach 2 it is at least 2 minutes fly of F-16
tell me how far your F-16 will fly? plus the R-24 will have an easier pray a non maneuverable F-16 much easier to down

For someone who repeatedly accused others of cheating, you don't try to make your own comparison fair.
You think that I wouldn't notice you are comparing the fuel consumption of an F-15 in full AB sea level to F-16 at 30,000 ft? two engine in full AB should have at least double the fuel consumption of 1 engine, then at sea level where air density is high, aircraft also consume fuel much faster than at high altitude. At high altitude in subsonic cruising mode, F-16 burns about 2260-2430 lbs of JP-8 every hour, so about 40.5 lbs -23 liters every minute.

 

[MiG-29SMT]

Firstly, I remember you were very much supporting the use of manual at the start of this thread







Firstly, I am not the one who wanted to do the Mach 1 to Mach 2 acceleration comparison, I didn't do it originally because I thought it is pointless given that with the radar range on Mig-23, it will never have the chance to accelerate to Mach 2 before launching missiles at the enemy fighter.
You were the one who wanted to do the Mach 1-Mach 2 acceleration because you thought that Mig-23ML will accelerate faster there.
https://defenceforumindia.com/threa...ry-fighter-aircraft.82173/page-4#post-1671675
But then the result of the comparison isn't what you wanted, you backpedal saying the number is just approximation and blamed that on me? Isn't that a bit hypocrite?

Secondly, I didn't say there is no difference between 10-12 km, logically speaking, acceleration at 12 km is lower than at 10 km and 160 seconds would be the average. But then that just means the Mig-23ML acceleration time at 12 km height is longer than 160 seconds, so it is even slower and the result of my previous comparison won't change.












At the very least, I extrapolate data for comparison from real numbers recorded in real tests. What is the base of your argument? a generic story that you have almost no details about.

You are using the chart as it pleases to your claims



If you look at 10 km the speed of sound is lower than at 30000 feet

at 30000 it is 1091km/h source https://www.engineersedge.com/physics/speed_of_sound_13241.htm but at 10 km it is 1078km/h

So now let us see the results
299.5 x 3600 divided by 1000= 1078.2 km/h

682 km/h it is at 10.6 km it is 0.63 mach and 1350 is mach 1.25

Speed of Sound vs. Elevation, Temperature and Air Pressure

Altitude and speed of sound, temperature and pressure.

www.engineeringtoolbox.com

So you are cheating because first you will need to count from sec 10 that is between Mach 0.54 and Mach 0.67
What is the result? 61 seconds ahaha your numbers are like the MiG-23ML but your height is lower at 9 km

So the F-16 will have worse performance than the MiG-23ML

Now you will complain it is a weight of 24000, but 24000 you are flying with one single AIM-120 so let us say 25000 lb
Since the F-16 weighs 19700lb 24000lb you are missing weight so your aircraft will fly around 25000lb with similar weight to the MiG-23ML


what now you have to go from second 8 to second 50 seconds what your aircraft and it is flying at lower speeds

Consider that it is for 24000lb, flying lighter than the MiG-23ML and at lower altitude

So at the most there are 4 or 5 seconds difference R-24 will beat your aircraft simple because it flies 3 times your speed and in only 2 seconds will catch up with you only 2 kilometres

 

[StealthFlanker]

You are using the chart as it pleases to your claims



If you look at 10 km the speed of sound is lower than at 30000 feet

at 30000 it is 1091km/h source https://www.engineersedge.com/physics/speed_of_sound_13241.htm but at 10 km it is 1078km/h
View attachment 47698
So now let us see the results
299.5 x 3600 divided by 1000= 1078.2 km/h

682 km/h it is at 10.6 km it is 0.63 mach and 1350 is mach 1.25
View attachment 47697

Speed of Sound vs. Elevation, Temperature and Air Pressure

Altitude and speed of sound, temperature and pressure.

www.engineeringtoolbox.com

So you are cheating because first you will need to count from sec 10 that is between Mach 0.54 and Mach 0.67
What is the result? 61 seconds ahaha your numbers are like the MiG-23ML but your height is lower at 9 km

So the F-16 will have worse performance than the MiG-23ML

Now you will complain it is a weight of 24000, but 24000 you are flying with one single AIM-120 so let us say 25000 lb
Since the F-16 weighs 19700lb 24000lb you are missing weight so your aircraft will fly around 25000lb with similar weight to the MiG-23ML


what now you have to go from second 8 to second 50 seconds what your aircraft and it is flying at lower speeds

Consider that it is for 24000lb, flying lighter than the MiG-23ML and at lower altitude

So at the most there are 4 or 5 seconds difference R-24 will beat your aircraft simple because it flies 3 times your speed and in only 2 seconds will catch up with you only 2 kilometres

Every time you make this kind of post, it makes me think you didn't pay attention to anything that I wrote
I already told you the difference between the speed of sound at 30,000 ft and 32,800 ft in https://defenceforumindia.com/threa...ry-fighter-aircraft.82173/page-5#post-1671998 and I have done the conversion for you, but now you are acting like everything is new and you have just discovered them??

Speed of sound at 30.000 feet is 1091 km/h
So Mach 0.79 at 30.000 ft is 861 km/h and Mach 1.25 at 30,000 ft is 1363.7 km/h
Speed of sound at 10 km (32.808 feet) is 1078.2 km/h
So 861 km/h is Mach 0.799 and 1350 km/h is Mach 1.25
Now look at the chart again
F-16C armed with 2 AIM-120, 2000 liter of fuel, at 30.000 feet altitude, in max afterburner, will take 31 seconds to accelerate from 861 km/h (Mach 0.79) to 1363.7 km/h (Mach 1.25)
F-16C armed with 6 AIM-120 and 1 centerline external fuel tank, at 30.000 feet altitude, in max afterburner, will take 44 seconds to accelerate from 861 km/h (Mach 0.79) to 1363.7 km/h (Mach 1.25)

For comparison, Mig-23ML armed with 2 R-23, 2000 liter of fuel, at 10 km (32.808 feet) altitude , in max afterburner, will take 70 seconds to accelerate from 862 km/h (Mach 0.799) to 1350 km/h (Mach 1.25)

Read the number very carefully, do you see the purple circle in the Mig-23ML chart? the mark I took for acceleration is from 862 km/h - 1350 km/h, only then you can have the acceleration time of 70 seconds. If you accelerate from 682 km/h , you will need more than 100 seconds to reach 1350 km/h

 

[MiG-29SMT]

Every time you make this kind of post, it makes me think you didn't pay attention to anything that I wrote
I already told you the difference between the speed of sound at 30,000 ft and 32,800 ft in and I have done the conversion for you, but now you are acting like everything is new and you have just discovered them??

Speed of sound at 30.000 feet is 1091 km/h
So Mach 0.79 at 30.000 ft is 861 km/h and Mach 1.25 at 30,000 ft is 1363.7 km/h
Speed of sound at 10 km (32.808 feet) is 1078.2 km/h
So 861 km/h is Mach 0.799 and 1350 km/h is Mach 1.25
Now look at the chart again
F-16C armed with 2 AIM-120, 2000 liter of fuel, at 30.000 feet altitude, in max afterburner, will take 31 seconds to accelerate from 861 km/h (Mach 0.79) to 1363.7 km/h (Mach 1.25)
F-16C armed with 6 AIM-120 and 1 centerline external fuel tank, at 30.000 feet altitude, in max afterburner, will take 44 seconds to accelerate from 861 km/h (Mach 0.79) to 1363.7 km/h (Mach 1.25)


For comparison, Mig-23ML armed with 2 R-23, 2000 liter of fuel, at 10 km (32.808 feet) altitude , in max afterburner, will take 70 seconds to accelerate from 862 km/h (Mach 0.799) to 1350 km/h (Mach 1.25)


Read the number very carefully, do you see the purple circle in the Mig-23ML chart? the mark I took for acceleration is from 862 km/h - 1350 km/h, only then you can have the acceleration time of 70 seconds. If you accelerate from 682 km/h , you will need more than 100 seconds to reach 1350 km/h

you can not take a lower altitude, even If you are right it takes you are flying at lower altitude and you have not numbers.

F-16 is flying at lower altitudes in the 30000 feet 10km chart

the AIM-120 are 200 kg lighter weight thus your mark of saying an F-16 with 2 AIM-120 and 2000 liters what are you skipping? yes 200 kg in weight.

Now saying the MiG-23 has worse number but it is flying higher, what can you expect of an aircraft flying higher and heavier?

Your statement that the F-16 is better is simply ridiculous
when you mention the 40000 feet you use again a 24000 lb aircraft.
the F-16 to have similar weight it needs 500kg the weight of 2 R-23 air to air missiles, the typical weight in ammunition, pilot and oil, that will give you a weight of 25000 lb got it?

If I go to the 40000 feet weight you want to use the 24000lb, but in that configuration it does not carry 2 AIM-120 but only one and 2 AIM-120 are lighter than 2 R-24


So again you have to calculate a 25000lb aircraft.

The 40000 feet chart is the closest to the MiG-23 numbers why?

it goes from Mach 1 to Mach 2
40000 feet are 12.19 km so speed is almost the same and altitude is almost the same
Now at 28000lb it has a time of acceleration of starting from sec 47 to second 221 of what?


174 seconds 14 seconds more than a MiG-23 of 160 from Mach 1 to Mach 2

now at 24000lb it has counting from second 41 to 177
136 seconds it is 24 seconds faster than the MiG-23ML

from 24000lb to 28000lb there is a difference of 174-136 of 38 seconds

here is speculation but let us suppose that a weight of 25000lb it makes 155 seconds


Let us suppose it is a bit faster, it will be around 10-15 seconds faster, nothing for an air to air missile of Mach 3

Now let us see the other scenario the MiG-23ML flies with AA-12 Adders

is it going to be 160 seconds? definitively no

I can calculate a 140 to 135 seconds too


Now you might agree or not but that is what you are doing


To calculate you need equal conditions, same speed, same weight and same altitude


So in conclusion, the F-16 has better acceleration at lower altitudes, for at least 2 to 4 seconds.

At higher altitudes i see a very likely superiority of MiG-23ML
can i confirm it? no but since Israel was impressed i think that is the area where they quote

 

[MiG-29SMT]

Стартовая масса, кг…………………………………………………...245

AA-7 Apex weight 245 kg 2 missiles are 490kg

Авиационная ракета Р-24Р (К-24)

Р-24Р — управляемая ракета средней дальности класса «воздух-воздух» с радиолокационной головкой самонаведения. Год разработки: 1981 В российских ВВС ракеты Р-24 оставались на вооружении вплоть…

izi.travel

Масса, кг:

• Р-23Р: 222
• Р-23Т: 215

Уголок неба ¦ Р-23

R-27 weight 222kg radar version 215kg ir version




The AMRAAM has a length of 3.6m, diameter of 17.7cm and wingspan of 52.5cm. The launch weight of the missile is 150.7kg. It is capable of carrying an 18.1kg high-explosive blast fragmentation warhead to a maximum range of between 20 to 30 nautical miles (nm).

AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM)

AIM-120 advanced medium-range air-to-air missile (AMRAAM) is a new generation all-weather, missile manufactured by Raytheon.

www.airforce-technology.com

So an F-16 needs 3 AIM-120 to have equivalent weight

 

[MiG-29SMT]

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.

View attachment 47588

At subsonic speeds, the magnitude of the acceleration varies slightly in terms of the number of MAXs, not counting the range of low speeds, where the machine reaches greater angles of attack and acceleration sharply slows down. Therefore, the level of acceleration at a specific height can be largely characterized by a single digit. In particular, near the ground, the acceleration of the MiG-23 sample 71 in this configuration is about 23 km / h / s, the acceleration of the MiG-23M corresponds to about 27 km / h / s, and the acceleration of the MiG-23ML reaches 29 km / h / s. Converting this to acceleration time, we can say that on the ground at the subsound every 100 km / h the MiG-23 arr. 71 picks up in about 4.35 seconds, the MiG-23M in 3.7 seconds, and the MiG-23ML in 3.45 seconds.

Яндекс

Найдётся всё

zen.yandex.ru

Speed of sound 1225 km/h at sea level
from 612 km/h Mach 0.5 to 1102 km/h Mach 0.9
From .5 mach to mach .9 average acceleration for 3.45 sec for every 100km/h
3,45x5 equals 17.25

from Mach 0.9 to Mach 1 average acceleration 4.7 seconds considering an acceleration of 26 km/h every second

It is from 1102 km to 1225 km/h

so those 123 kilometers are 4.7 sec

from Mach 1 to Mach 1.13
average acceleration is 20.5km/sec for 160km
7.8 seconds


total seconds are 17.25 plus, 4.7 plus 7.8 equals 29.75

Now let us see how much payload the MiG-23 is carrying


empty weight 10380 kg weight loaded 12310 kg

payload of MiG-23ML is 1930kg ; equals the 1950kg of the F-16 that in pounds are 24000lb aircraft that carries 4300 lbs


In few words while under these parameters the MiG-23ML is around 4.75 seconds slower, it will not affect the ability of the MiG-23 to launch a R-23


Now see the MiG-23ml carries more fuel 1855kg it is carrying more than 2000 liters, in fact it is carrying 2409 liters considering fuel density of .77

The F-16 will carry less fue is it carries eliminating the weight of 75 shells and 300 kg of missiles around 1575 kg of fuel

So yes you are right at lower speeds the MiG-23ML has lower acceleration but it is only 4 secs and it will not impact its ability to fire R-60s of equivalent weight to AIM-9Ls or R-77 of equivalent weight to AIM-120

In BVR both fighters are equivalent, but on a 1980s engagements, the MiG-23 carried R-23s and the F-16 only AIM-9Ls

 

[StealthFlanker]

you can not take a lower altitude, even If you are right it takes you are flying at lower altitude and you have not numbers.

F-16 is flying at lower altitudes in the 30000 feet 10km chart

the AIM-120 are 200 kg lighter weight thus your mark of saying an F-16 with 2 AIM-120 and 2000 liters what are you skipping? yes 200 kg in weight.

Now saying the MiG-23 has worse number but it is flying higher, what can you expect of an aircraft flying higher and heavier?

Your statement that the F-16 is better is simply ridiculous
when you mention the 40000 feet you use again a 24000 lb aircraft.
the F-16 to have similar weight it needs 500kg the weight of 2 R-23 air to air missiles, the typical weight in ammunition, pilot and oil, that will give you a weight of 25000 lb got it

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

View attachment 47717

If I go to the 40000 feet weight you want to use the 24000lb, but in that configuration it does not carry 2 AIM-120 but only one and 2 AIM-120 are lighter than 2 R-24
So again you have to calculate a 25000lb aircraft.
The 40000 feet chart is the closest to the MiG-23 numbers why?
it goes from Mach 1 to Mach 2
40000 feet are 12.19 km so speed is almost the same and altitude is almost the same
Now at 28000lb it has a time of acceleration of starting from sec 47 to second 221 of what?
174 seconds 14 seconds more than a MiG-23 of 160 from Mach 1 to Mach 2

now at 24000lb it has counting from second 41 to 177
136 seconds it is 24 seconds faster than the MiG-23ML
View attachment 47718

from 24000lb to 28000lb there is a difference of 174-136 of 38 seconds

here is speculation but let us suppose that a weight of 25000lb it makes 155 seconds

Let us suppose it is a bit faster, it will be around 10-15 seconds faster, nothing for an air to air missile of Mach 3



To calculate you need equal conditions, same speed, same weight and same altitude
So in conclusion, the F-16 has better acceleration at lower altitudes, for at least 2 to 4 seconds.
At higher altitudes i see a very likely superiority of MiG-23ML
can i confirm it? no but since Israel was impressed i think that is the area where they quote

I am not sure how can you make a calculation mistake even when the chart is there?

At 40,000 ft (12.192 km), F-16C armed with 2 AIM-120, 2000 liter of fuel (total = 24000lbs), in max after burner will take 138 seconds to accelerate from Mach 0.97-Mach 2
F-16C armed with 2 AIM-120, 4000 liters of fuel (total = 28000lbs), in max afterburner will take 171 seconds to accelerate from Mach 0.97-Mach 2.
From 24000 lbs -28000 lbs, there is a difference of 33 seconds, so every 1000 lbs will increase acceleration time by 8.25 seconds, so at 25000 lbs, F-16 will take 146 seconds to accelerate from Mach 0.97-Mach 2
Mig-23ML armed with 2 R-23 and 2000 liter of fuel, at 12 km will take 160 seconds to accelerate from Mach 1 to Mach 2
So from Mach 1 to Mach 2, F-16 is faster than Mig-23ML by about 14 seconds, in 14 seconds, a missile at Mach 4 can fly 16.52 km. However, APG-66 can detect Mig-23 from 74 km, whereas the maximum range that N008E Sapfir23 MLA can detect a fighter size target is 52 km. But F-16C doesn't use APG-66 like F-16A, even F-16AM use APG-66v2 which have 25% range improvement over APG-66, while APG-68 on F-16C is even better than that. At least, F-16C can detect Mig-23MLD from 92.5 km while the maximum range that Mig-23MLD can detect it is 52 km. So logically, there is an extra 40 km where F-16 can start accelerate to improve the range of its missile while Mig-23ML doesn't do anything

Now let us see the other scenario the MiG-23ML flies with AA-12 Adders
is it going to be 160 seconds? definitively no
I can calculate a 140 to 135 seconds too
Now you might agree or not but that is what you are doing

Mig-23ML is not equipped with AA-12, only Mig-23-93 upgrade package has that ability, however no one purchase that upgrade, so it never went to production. And Mig-23-93 also has many upgrades that make it heavier than Mig-23ML

 

[MiG-29SMT]

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






I am not sure how can you make a calculation mistake even when the chart is there?
View attachment 47782
At 40,000 ft (12.192 km), F-16C armed with 2 AIM-120, 2000 liter of fuel (total = 24000lbs), in max after burner will take 138 seconds to accelerate from Mach 0.97-Mach 2
F-16C armed with 2 AIM-120, 4000 liters of fuel (total = 28000lbs), in max afterburner will take 171 seconds to accelerate from Mach 0.97-Mach 2.
From 24000 lbs -28000 lbs, there is a difference of 33 seconds, so every 1000 lbs will increase acceleration time by 8.25 seconds, so at 25000 lbs, F-16 will take 146 seconds to accelerate from Mach 0.97-Mach 2
Mig-23ML armed with 2 R-23 and 2000 liter of fuel, at 12 km will take 160 seconds to accelerate from Mach 1 to Mach 2
So from Mach 1 to Mach 2, F-16 is faster than Mig-23ML by about 14 seconds, in 14 seconds, a missile at Mach 4 can fly 16.52 km.





Mig-23ML is not equipped with AA-12, only Mig-23-93 upgrade package has that ability, however no one purchase that upgrade, so it never went to production. And Mig-23-93 also has many upgrades that make it heavier than Mig-23ML

24000 lb does not equal weight of MiG-23ML the Russians are saying 2000 liters in the manual but do not mention weight of fuel.

You are saying fuel density is .77 but it can go to .84.

Further more it will carry 145 kg of ammunition and aim-120 are at least 85g less weight than R-23s

In the other chart they say fuel weight is 1855kg.

Furthermore you are saying two weights 24000lb and 2800lbs


Considering equivalent weight you will need to consider the other graph where they quote a MiG-23ML of 12310 where its payload is 1930 kg similar weight to the F-16, reduce the fuel which is 2409 liters in few words same weight of fuel 1550 kg using a 0.77 density of fuel since you use it to boost your claim since at higher density numbers you carry less fuel and add two R-77 Adders.

you do not do it because you are fearful


The R-23 weight is higher at 24000 lbs F-16 is equivalent to a MiG-23ML at 12310 kg in payload using weight density of 0.77 and R-77 adders

Now at 28000lb F-16 is not faster calculating 50-211 equals 171 seconds okay it is 11 seconds after the MiG-23 so you are lying it is not faster but slower

At 24000 lb using the normal ammunition weight 140 kgs plus 304kg AIM-120 it is and the ideal .77 fuel density is 1982kg

Now let us the MiG-23 at 12310 using more fuel and less ammunition but equivalent weight the numbers almost equal F-16 at sea level.

even if the F-16 achieves 12-15 seconds faster acceleration a missiles of Mach 3 goes 1 km a second
But your F-16 from Mach 0.5 has spend more than 138 seconds that is equal to more than to minutes to get to mach 2 hahaha you forgot it has no more fuel so that is stupid what you are saying at that weight the f-16 will fight subsonic got it? and then the F-16 needs to stay low and at low speeds and low altitudes the MiG-23ML only has a difference of 4 secs got it?


4 seconds difference means a second for R-23 so basically sorry my friend there is no superiority of your F-16

 

[StealthFlanker]

At subsonic speeds, the magnitude of the acceleration varies slightly in terms of the number of MAXs, not counting the range of low speeds, where the machine reaches greater angles of attack and acceleration sharply slows down. Therefore, the level of acceleration at a specific height can be largely characterized by a single digit. In particular, near the ground, the acceleration of the MiG-23 sample 71 in this configuration is about 23 km / h / s, the acceleration of the MiG-23M corresponds to about 27 km / h / s, and the acceleration of the MiG-23ML reaches 29 km / h / s. Converting this to acceleration time, we can say that on the ground at the subsound every 100 km / h the MiG-23 arr. 71 picks up in about 4.35 seconds, the MiG-23M in 3.7 seconds, and the MiG-23ML in 3.45 seconds.

View attachment 47780

Яндекс

Найдётся всё

zen.yandex.ru

Speed of sound 1225 km/h at sea level
from 612 km/h Mach 0.5 to 1102 km/h Mach 0.9
From .5 mach to mach .9 average acceleration for 3.45 sec for every 100km/h
3,45x5 equals 17.25

from Mach 0.9 to Mach 1 average acceleration 4.7 seconds considering an acceleration of 26 km/h every second

It is from 1102 km to 1225 km/h

so those 123 kilometers are 4.7 sec

from Mach 1 to Mach 1.13
average acceleration is 20.5km/sec for 160km
7.8 seconds


total seconds are 17.25 plus, 4.7 plus 7.8 equals 29.75

Now let us see how much payload the MiG-23 is carrying


empty weight 10380 kg weight loaded 12310 kg

payload of MiG-23ML is 1930kg ; equals the 1950kg of the F-16 that in pounds are 24000lb aircraft that carries 4300 lbs


In few words while under these parameters the MiG-23ML is around 4.75 seconds slower, it will not affect the ability of the MiG-23 to launch a R-23


Now see the MiG-23ml carries more fuel 1855kg it is carrying more than 2000 liters, in fact it is carrying 2409 liters considering fuel density of .77

The F-16 will carry less fue is it carries eliminating the weight of 75 shells and 300 kg of missiles around 1575 kg of fuel

So yes you are right at lower speeds the MiG-23ML has lower acceleration but it is only 4 secs and it will not impact its ability to fire R-60s of equivalent weight to AIM-9Ls or R-77 of equivalent weight to AIM-120

In BVR both fighters are equivalent, but on a 1980s engagements, the MiG-23 carried R-23s and the F-16 only AIM-9Ls

Firstly, that chart you gave is the acceleration rate in km/h/s at different speeds and altitudes, it doesn't give you the time it takes to accelerate from Mach 0.5 to Mach 1.2. However, the acceleration rate in the chart isn't given as a fixed value but a curve with an unconstant coefficient (meaning it isn't a straight line), just between Mach 0.5 and Mach 1 at sea level, the acceleration rate varies between 22.5 km/h/s and 14.5km/h/s and not even at a constant rate of change, so it impossible for you to extrapolate the value from there to estimate how much time does it takes to accelerate from Mach 0.5 to Mach 1.2 .You can't calculate an average rate either because the acceleration rate isn't distributed equally at all acceleration values.
Secondly, no production Mig-23 have ability to launch R-77 so it is a moot point, it would be the equivalent of saying F-16 can carry ramjet missile

 

[MiG-29SMT]

Firstly, that chart you gave is the acceleration rate in km/h/s at different speeds and altitudes, it doesn't give you the time it takes to accelerate from Mach 0.5 to Mach 1.2. However, the acceleration rate in the chart isn't given as a fixed value but a curve with an unconstant coefficient (meaning it isn't a straight line), just between Mach 0.5 and Mach 1 at sea level, the acceleration rate varies between 22.5 km/h/s and 14.5km/h/s and not even at a constant rate of change, so it impossible for you to extrapolate the value from there to estimate how much time does it takes to accelerate from Mach 0.5 to Mach 1.2 .You can't calculate an average rate either because the acceleration rate isn't distributed equally at all acceleration values.
Secondly, no production Mig-23 have ability to launch R-77 so it is a moot point, it would be the equivalent of saying F-16 can carry ramjet missile

moot point is to say 2000 liters of fuel allow for more than 2 minutes to accelerate from 0.5 mach to Mach 2, so F-16 flies subsonic at low altitude 25 seconds to 35 seconds is only 3 seconds of R-23 flight time got it? your F-16 is toast, specially since it carried AIM-9L in the pakistan-soviet conflict

 

[StealthFlanker]

24000 lb does not equal weight of MiG-23ML the Russians are saying 2000 liters in the manual but do not mention weight of fuel.
You are saying fuel density is .77 but it can go to .84.
Further more it will carry 145 kg of ammunition and aim-120 are at least 85g less weight
In the other chart they say fuel weight is 1855.
Further more you are saying two weights 24000lb and 2800lbs

Considering equivalent weight you will need to consider the other graph where they quote a MiG-23ML of 12310 where its payload is 1930 kg similar weight to the F-16, reduce the fuel which is 2409 liters in few words same weight of fuel 1550 kg using a 0.77 density of fuel since you use it to boost your claim since at higher density numbers you carry less fuel and add two R-77 Adders.

you do not do it because you are fearful
The R-23 weight is higher at 24000 lbs F-16 is equivalent to a MiG-23ML at 12310 kg in payload using weight density of 0.77 and R-77 adders

Now at 28000lb F-16 is not faster calculating 50-211 equals 171 seconds okay it is 11 seconds after the MiG-23 so you are lying it is not faster but slower

At 24000 lb using the normal ammunition weight 140 kgs plus 304kg AIM-120 it is and the ideal .77 fuel density is 1982kg

Now let us the MiG-23 at 12310 using more fuel and less ammunition but equivalent weight the numbers almost equal F-16 at sea level.

Firstly, I already gave you the calculation for both density of fuel https://defenceforumindia.com/threa...ry-fighter-aircraft.82173/page-4#post-1671737
At 28000 lbs, F-16 isn't faster, but it also carries an extra 4000 lbs of fuel and fly at higher altitudes and also accelerate from Mach 0.97 - Mach 2 instead of Mach 1 to Mach 2. Never the less, at 25,000 lbs, F-16 is undoubtedly faster than Mig-23ML

Secondly, the later chart that you give for Mig-23ML can't even be used since it doesn't give time from Mach 0.5-Mach 2 but instead give you a nonconstant curve of acceleration rate which can neither be estimate or average.

Thirdly, I didn't make a calculation for Mig-23ML with R-77 because not only no Mig-23 in production have the ability to carry R-77, the first Mig-23 prototype introduced ability to carry R-77 is Mig-23-93 which will be heavier than Mig-23ML due to additional equipment as well.

even if the F-16 achieves 12-15 seconds faster acceleration a missiles of Mach 3 goes 1 km a second
But your F-16 from Mach 0.5 has spend more than 138 seconds that is equal to more than to minutes to get to mach 2 hahaha you forgot it has no more fuel so that is stupid what you are saying at that weight the f-16 will fight subsonic got it? and then the F-16 needs to stay low and at low speeds and low altitudes the MiG-23ML only has a difference of 4 secs got it?
4 seconds difference means a second for R-23 so basically sorry my friend there is no superiority of your F-16

Firstly, the advantage of F-16C isn't only in acceleration, it is also in detection range. Given that F-16C can detect Mig-23MLD from distance > 92.5 km while Mig-23MLD can at most detect F-16C from 52 km without applying the effect of F-16's jammer. F-16 can always start the acceleration and climb much earlier while Mig-23 still cruising and unaware
Secondly, The amount of fuel that F-16 carries is the same as Mig-23 in the comparison, so if it runs out of fuel, so is the Mig-23. If you increase the fuel they both carry then the result is the same. And the difference isn't 4 seconds. At 30,000 ft- Mach 0.79-1.25, the difference is about 26-39 seconds while at 40,000 ft from Mach 1-Mach 2 the difference is about 16 seconds. But that is only assuming they are controlled by CGI and start the acceleration at the same time, given that F-16 has 40 km detection range advantage even without its jamming, we can add another 10-20 seconds to the total acceleration time advantage because it can start accelerating first.

 

[StealthFlanker]

moot point is to say 2000 liters of fuel allow for more than 2 minutes to accelerate from 0.5 mach to Mach 2, so F-16 flies subsonic at low altitude 25 seconds to 35 seconds is only 3 seconds of R-23 flight time got it? your F-16 is toast, specially since it carried AIM-9L in the pakistan-soviet conflict

Well, it isn't like Mig-23ML in the chart carry more than 2000 liters of fuel. So they have the same restriction, Mig-23 won't accelerate from Mach 0.5-Mach 2 either.
If we consider them both in the pakistan-soviet conflict, then there is no F-16C at that time, F-16A without AIM-120, will use its jammer and low altitude to disable Mig-23'BVR advantage and close in the dogfight distance. Remember, I started the acceleration discussion because you said Mig-23ML has better acceleration characteristic than F-16C. From the data, it isn't.

 

[MiG-29SMT]

Firstly, I already gave you the calculation for both density of fuel









Firstly, the advantage of F-16C isn't only in acceleration, it is also in detection range. Given that F-16C can detect Mig-23MLD from distance > 92.5 km while Mig-23MLD can at most detect F-16C from 52 km without applying the effect of F-16's jammer. F-16 can always start the acceleration and climb much earlier while Mig-23 still cruising and unaware
Secondly, The amount of fuel that F-16 carries is the same as Mig-23 in the comparison, so if it runs out of fuel, so is the Mig-23. If you increase the fuel they both carry then the result is the same. And the difference isn't 4 seconds. At 30,000 ft- Mach 0.79-1.25, the difference is about 26-39 seconds while at 40,000 ft from Mach 1-Mach 2 the difference is about 16 seconds. But that is only assuming they are controlled by CGI and start the acceleration at the same time, given that F-16 has 40 km detection range advantage even without its jamming, we can add another 10-20 seconds to the total acceleration time advantage because it can start accelerating first.

Look youare trying to use different standards, comparasions are done on equal conditions okay?

You oppose to say in the 1980s F-16 carried AIM-9Ls while Mig-23ML had R-23s and MiG-23MLD R-24.
Acceleration wise i showed you from sea level charts of MiG-23 variants versions that the MiG-23ML at sea level only has at the most 4.5 seconds difference carrying more fuel no weapons and less ammunition but weighing the same in payload 1930kg for MiG-23ML and F-16 1950kg.

The charts only reflect if an F-16 has let us say 4300 lbs at mach 1.5 will have such acceleration.
The idea is remain fuel or after being refueled.


Same is for the MG-23ML

Now I have given you a chart that has equivalence sea level the difference is none.

Conditions are close.

So what has shown? well 4.5 seconds difference that is nothing.

Now at 12km conditions are close too F-16 at 28000lg increased close to 33 seconds in difference to 24000 lb MiG-23

MiG-23MLD is in 160 seconds, but you do not know weight of fuel.

you are conveniently saying 24000 lb means 2000 liters of 0.77 density, if it goes to .84 the calculations go to heavier fuel load, in fact you do not know the real weight of fuel it can be 1550kg or 1650Kg and on typical conditions the F-16 will carry ammunition.

The Russian Chart only consider fuel and ammunition, no pilot and oil.

But at least it shows not the differences you claim at 12km even if the F-16 let say has a difference of 22 seconds a missile of mach 3 flies a 1 km a second in a 1980s time frame, for the F-16 there are head on and tail chase engagements, if F-16 will need to fly away it will leave the AIM-9L without possibility of cuing, if it desires to hit the MiG-23ML needs head on; the MiG-23 has R-23R and R-23T so the thermal IR version can be fire at longer ranges and it is flying with AA-11s Archers the possibility the F-16 will lose is higher.

You conveniently chose AIM-120 weapons versus R-24 but the first versions of AIM-120 are short rangers 50 km like a R-24, and the Russians can use a R-24T with IR guidance, on a head on both fighters will have the same chances.
Add AA-12 Adder your F-16 can lose in a 1990s encounter.


after 1995 most MIG-23MLD were retired in Russia and no MiG-23-98 was taken except perhaps by Angola.

About the acceleration i do not know because I do not have the charts to all altitudes for MiG-23ML


But for what I see, there is no superiority as you claim, a few seconds here and few seconds there plus the MiG-23ML flies higher at 18km of altitude and the F-16 at lesser 15km so i do not believe the Israeli are lying simply because you think you know all the charts that you and me we do not have, specially when a lot is speculation of our part

MiG-23ML manual does not mention more altitudes than 12 km so there are possibilities that the MiG-23ML has a clear superiority at 14 km or 15 km