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

[MiG-29SMT]

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.

The point is an F-16 to clearly accelerate as a 24000lb aircraft and accelerate from 600km to mach 2 it will in reality fly at 28000lb to combat and get home so it is foolish to think a 24000lb F-16 will take of at that weight and go to mach 2 got it?

if the MiG-23 is at 2000 liters already in the air and the F-16 is going to intercept it, it will take off at 28000 lbs got it? why because a lot depends who is in the air first at at what speed

And remember Mig-23ML flies at a max ceiling of more than 18km get the charts and compare it to F-16 then you say that Israel or the Dutch pilot lie

 

[MiG-29SMT]

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)
View attachment 47671


View attachment 47672

here it is funny

At 600 km/h and speed of sound of 299m/s or 1078 km/h is Mach 0.55 make your calculations 600/1078=0.55

the 28000 lb aircraft takes 71 seconds from Mach 0.54 to Mach 1.25


remember at 10km speed of sound is 299m/s

at 24000 lb aircraft it will take 58 seconds but it is lower altitude
Now you are flying 2800 feet lower than the MiG-23 than the 70 seconds at 10 km

 

[StealthFlanker]

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.

Firstly, I compare Mig-23ML and F-16C in the same condition, similar altitude, similar speed regime, similar volume of fuel and similar number of BVR missile

Secondly, like I said before, the chart you gave isn't for acceleration time from speed x to speed y. Thechart you gave is the acceleration rate in km/h/s at different speeds and altitudes but the acceleration rate in your 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 for Mig-23 to accelerate from one speed to another .You can't calculate an average rate either because the acceleration rate isn't distributed equally on the curve. In short, it is literally impossible for you to estimate how much time does it take to accelerate from Mach 0.5-Mach 1.2 from that chart.

Thirdly, I already done calculation for both value of fuel density, why do you keep lying and say I have only done for one??? and the 21,000 lbs value for F-16 is already included the oil, 20 mm rounds and 2 AIM-120.

Finally, AIM-9L is fire and forget missile, it doesn't need cueing after launch, the advantage of F-16 isn't just acceleration but also the fact that it will detect Mig-23 earlier and can start accelerate and climb much earlier as well. And because F-16 has jammer while Mig-23 doesn't the advantage in detection range is even more in F-16 side.

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.

No, AIM-120, even in its earliest version is far superior to R-24, it is even superior to R-77 in range and because it is a LOAL fire and forget missile, AIM-120 will allow F-16 to launch missiles and disengage much sooner

No Mig-23ML or MLD in production is capable of using AA-12 Adder, and if you want to bring the 2005 upgrade of Angola Mig-23 into the equation, then by that time F-16 already got AIM-120C-5 and APG-68v9 , there would be no contest

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
And remember Mig-23ML flies at a max ceiling of more than 18km get the charts and compare it to F-16 then you say that Israel or the Dutch pilot lie

Firstly, F-16 can fly at 18 km as well so Mig-23ML isn't an exception. However, when both aircraft flying at these altitude, they have very little excess power so they can barely maneuver and also they need to keep very high speed to generate enough lift to sustain that altitude => they have to be in constant afterburner and run out of fuel quickly. There is good reason the chart in Mig-23 manual stop at 10-12 km, because that where it really operate

Secondly, the only photos of the supposed Israel test between F-16 and Mig-23ML shows a twin seat F-16 carrying a centerline fuel tank flying with Mig-23ML so at most Mig-23ML is faster than F-16B or D carrying a centerline tank, without addtional evident there is no reason to believe that they also found Mig-23 also faster than F-16C when all the test data from US and Russia manual cleary shows otherwise.
And the Dutch pilot story is clearly a hoax consider the details about the radar of the 2 aircraft in the story which contradicts both the Soviet manual and GD test data.

 

[StealthFlanker]

here it is funny

View attachment 47807
View attachment 47808

At 600 km/h and speed of sound of 299m/s or 1078 km/h is Mach 0.55 make your calculations 600/1078=0.55

the 28000 lb aircraft takes 71 seconds from Mach 0.54 to Mach 1.25


remember at 10km speed of sound is 299m/s


View attachment 47809

at 24000 lb aircraft it will take 58 seconds but it is lower altitude
Now you are flying 2800 feet lower than the MiG-23 than the 70 seconds at 10 km

I can't believe that I have to explain the same thing again.
At 28,000 lbs with DI =50, F-16 will takes 71 seconds to accelerate from Mach 0.54- Mach 1.25
DI =50 is about 6 AIM-120 and 1 centerline tank worth of drag.
When you only carry wing tip missiles, the DI =0 and F-16 with 28000 lbs weight will take 63 seconds

Mig-23ML with 2 R-24 and 2000 liters of fuel will takes 120 seconds to accelerate from Mach 0.55-1.25 (600-1350 km/h). Do you notice they have 2 scales for time on the left side? the outside time scale is for height = 1 km and height - 5 km while the inner time scale is for height = 10 km

 

[MiG-29SMT]

Firstly, I compare Mig-23ML and F-16C in the same condition, similar altitude, similar speed regime, similar volume of fuel and similar number of BVR missile

Secondly, like I said before, the chart you gave isn't for acceleration time from speed x to speed y. Thechart you gave is the acceleration rate in km/h/s at different speeds and altitudes but the acceleration rate in your 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 for Mig-23 to accelerate from one speed to another .You can't calculate an average rate either because the acceleration rate isn't distributed equally on the curve. In short, it is literally impossible for you to estimate how much time does it take to accelerate from Mach 0.5-Mach 1.2 from that chart.

Thirdly, I already done calculation for both value of fuel density, why do you keep lying and say I have only done for one??? and the 21,000 lbs value for F-16 is already included the oil, 20 mm rounds and 2 AIM-120.

Finally, AIM-9L is fire and forget missile, it doesn't need cueing after launch, the advantage of F-16 isn't just acceleration but also the fact that it will detect Mig-23 earlier and can start accelerate and climb much earlier as well. And because F-16 has jammer while Mig-23 doesn't the advantage in detection range is even more in F-16 side.




No, AIM-120, even in its earliest version is far superior to R-24, it is even superior to R-77 in range and because it is a LOAL fire and forget missile, AIM-120 will allow F-16 to launch missiles and disengage much sooner
View attachment 47811
View attachment 47812

No Mig-23ML or MLD in production is capable of using AA-12 Adder, and if you want to bring the 2005 upgrade of Angola Mig-23 into the equation, then by that time F-16 already got AIM-120C-5 and APG-68v9 , there would be no contest





Firstly, F-16 can fly at 18 km as well so Mig-23ML isn't an exception. However, when both aircraft flying at these altitude, they have very little excess power so they can barely maneuver and also they need to keep very high speed to generate enough lift to sustain that altitude => they have to be in constant afterburner and run out of fuel quickly. There is good reason the chart in Mig-23 manual stop at 10-12 km, because that where it really operate
View attachment 47810

Secondly, the only photos of the supposed Israel test between F-16 and Mig-23ML shows a twin seat F-16 carrying a centerline fuel tank flying with Mig-23ML so at most Mig-23ML is faster than F-16B or D carrying a centerline tank, without addtional evident there is no reason to believe that they also found Mig-23 also faster than F-16C when all the test data from US and Russia manual cleary shows otherwise.
And the Dutch pilot story is clearly a hoax consider the details about the radar of the 2 aircraft in the story which contradicts both the Soviet manual and GD test data.

Do you understand targets are moving?
МАкс. дальность пуска,
Р-24Р 50
Р-24Т 35
http://www.airwar.ru/weapon/avv/k24.html


on a head on dirrection you can fire the R-24R from 50km, but of course the target can turn around so you say 50km but in reality is 35 or 22 if the target is within a range head on got it?
Same is your early AIM-120

Now the calculation given by the second chart says some speeds are 20km/h are gained as rate of acceleration per second, basically it is a derivative ok


it is obvious that from 600km/h to 1100 km/h the rate is 3.45 seconds per increase of every 100km/h gain, so it is not difficult it is the same as your chart of F-16. You do not like it because at sea level you claimed MiG-23 was doing 35 seconds to the same speeds.
Now that you see it is barely 4.5 seconds difference you get angry at the chart.

Both aircraft are carrying the same payload, the MiG-23 is carrying 1855 kg in fuel

but in terms of payload both are the same.


you are claiming 24000 lb weight means 2000 liters based upon the idea is .77kg/l okay it might be it might not be that is a supposition.


So no the difference is small 4.5 seconds, that in a real fighter at 2000 lb of fuel will not fly supersonic since an engine gulps around 700 kg of fuel a minute F-15 gulps 1000kg of fuel or 1381 liters a minute



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.

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

So you know it will fly at full afterburner few seconds not enough to show its acceleration unless F-16 flies at 28000lb and there it will be clumsier and slower.

Got it why the F-16 was not as great against the Soviets flown by the Pakistanis. despite claims it was superduper?

 

[MiG-29SMT]

I can't believe that I have to explain the same thing again.
At 28,000 lbs with DI =50, F-16 will takes 71 seconds to accelerate from Mach 0.54- Mach 1.25
DI =50 is about 6 AIM-120 and 1 centerline tank worth of drag.
When you only carry wing tip missiles, the DI =0 and F-16 with 28000 lbs weight will take 63 seconds



Mig-23ML with 2 R-24 and 2000 liters of fuel will takes 120 seconds to accelerate from Mach 0.55-1.25 (600-1350 km/h). Do you notice they have 2 scales for time on the left side? the outside time scale is for height = 1 km and height - 5 km while the inner time scale is for height = 10 km

did you considered the MiG-23ML is flying 2800 feet higher? so you claim that 71 seconds are steady if they fly higher they will not change, you claim MiG-23ML flies at the same altitude then you are cheating

 

[MiG-29SMT]

Primary function: multirole fighter
Contractor: Lockheed Martin Corp.
Power plant: F-16C/D: one Pratt and Whitney F100-PW-200/220/229 or General Electric F110-GE-100/129
Thrust: F-16C/D, 27,000 pounds
Wingspan: 32 feet, 8 inches (9.8 meters)
Length: 49 feet, 5 inches (14.8 meters)
Height: 16 feet (4.8 meters)
Weight: 19,700 pounds without fuel (8,936 kilograms)
Maximum takeoff weight: 37,500 pounds (16,875 kilograms)
Fuel capacity: 7,000 pounds internal (3,175 kilograms); typical capacity, 12,000 pounds with two external tanks (5443 kilograms)
Payload: two 2,000-pound bombs, two AIM-9, two AIM-120 and two 2400-pound external fuel tanks
Speed: 1,500 mph (Mach 2 at altitude)
Range: more than 2,002 miles ferry range (1,740 nautical miles)
Ceiling: above 50,000 feet (15 kilometers)

F-16 Fighting Falcon

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

www.af.mil

ambiguity is typical but they do not say 16 km nor 18km
But remember MiG-23MLD generates more thrust so it reaches mach 2.35 in an operational service not ambiguous of 17700

The 15km is because its pitot tube intake loses pressure recovery so of course at the 17.7 km altitude the F-16 will be inferior and ambiguous because near mach 1.5 at high altitudes MiG-23ML uses a variable geometry intake so delivers more static thrust but F-16 delivers less and less thrust because more boundary layer enters the engine plus needs to bleed air because too much air flow, So F-16 tops at Mach 2

 

[StealthFlanker]

Do you understand targets are moving?
МАкс. дальность пуска,
Р-24Р 50
Р-24Т 35
http://www.airwar.ru/weapon/avv/k24.html
on a head on dirrection you can fire the R-24R from 50km, but of course the target can turn around so you say 50km but in reality is 35 or 22 if the target is within a range head on got it?
Same is your early AIM-120

Yes, I understand target are moving and yes, I head on shot have longer range than tail chase shot. That is obvious. But that doesn't mean R-24 has the same range as AIM-120
R-24 max range for forward quarter shot is 11 km at low altitude and 35 km at high altitude
R-24 max range for rear quarter shot is 4 km at low altitude and 20 km at high altitude

AIM-120A/B max range for forward quarter shot is 20 km at low altitude and 110 km at high altitude
AIM-120A/B max range for rear quarter shot is 7 km at low altitude and 40 km at high altitude

Now the calculation given by the second chart says some speeds are 20km/h are gained as rate of acceleration per second, basically it is a derivative ok
it is obvious that from 600km/h to 1100 km/h the rate is 3.45 seconds per increase of every 100km/h gain, so it is not difficult it is the same as your chart of F-16. You do not like it because at sea level you claimed MiG-23 was doing 35 seconds to the same speeds.
Now that you see it is barely 4.5 seconds difference you get angry at the chart.

Both aircraft are carrying the same payload, the MiG-23 is carrying 1855 kg in fuel

but in terms of payload both are the same.

You say your chart is a derivative? ok write down the function and coefficient of that derivative then? You can't, so how can you estimate an average? given the acceleration rate between 600 km/h and 1100 km/h is so clearly not a constant value and it isn't linear
And no, I'm not angry at the chart, I'm angry that while you repeatedly say I can't extrapolate simple linear acceleration time chart, you are doing the same thing to a derivative chart which you don't even know the function and coefficient of the curve.
But guess what, for the sake of argument, let say your guesstimate of acceleration rate from that chart is accurate
Speed of sound 1225 km/h at sea level, Mig-23ML need 3.45 seconds to accelerate 100 km/h, so it will need 17.25 seconds to accelerate from 600 km/h -1100 km/h, from the chart Mig-23ML is empty without weapons
For comparison, at sea level, F-16 at 24,000 lbs weight, will take 13 seconds to accelerate from 551 km/h to 1114 km/h
F-16 at 28,000 lbs weight, will take 15 seconds to accelerate from 551 km/h to 1114 km/h
So once again, F-16 is still faster, even at 28000 lbs mark, it is still faster. Now you gonna say: "but it only faster by 4.25 seconds so it doesn't matter". Well, this 4.25 seconds is equal to 23% quicker acceleration rate, the only reason the number seems small is because you cherry pick the sea level altitude where the max acceleration time is small. But fighter dont just fight at sea level, as altitude go up the number get bigger and bigger.

you are claiming 24000 lb weight means 2000 liters based upon the idea is .77kg/l okay it might be it might not be that is a supposition.
So no the difference is small 4.5 seconds, that in a real fighter at 2000 lb of fuel will not fly supersonic since an engine gulps around 700 kg of fuel a minute F-15 gulps 1000kg of fuel or 1381 liters a minute
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.

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

So you know it will fly at full afterburner few seconds not enough to show its acceleration unless F-16 flies at 28000lb and there it will be clumsier and slower.

Got it why the F-16 was not as great against the Soviets flown by the Pakistanis. despite claims it was superduper?

Firstly, I didn't only calculate fuel weight with .77kg/l density, I did both
Secondly, the difference of 4.5 seconds is only true if you keep the altitude at sea level, as you increase altitude, the different also go up, at 30,000 ft, it is around 49-57 seconds
Thirdly, let not pretend an F-15 with 2 engines in full afterburner will consume the same amount of fuel as the single engine F-16 at 30,000-40,000 ft. I already gave you the fuel flow at altitude

did you considered the MiG-23ML is flying 2800 feet higher? so you claim that 71 seconds are steady if they fly higher they will not change, you claim MiG-23ML flies at the same altitude then you are cheating

So it isn't cheating when you pretend an F-15 at sea level consume the same amount of fuel as F-16 at 30.000 ft, but it is cheating when I compare Mig-23ML at 32,000ft to F-16 at 30,000ft?
Anyways, I did compare Mig-23 at 39,370 ft to F-16 at 40,000 ft and yet F-16 is still faster by 14 seconds.

Primary function: multirole fighter
Contractor: Lockheed Martin Corp.
Power plant: F-16C/D: one Pratt and Whitney F100-PW-200/220/229 or General Electric F110-GE-100/129
Thrust: F-16C/D, 27,000 pounds
Wingspan: 32 feet, 8 inches (9.8 meters)
Length: 49 feet, 5 inches (14.8 meters)
Height: 16 feet (4.8 meters)
Weight: 19,700 pounds without fuel (8,936 kilograms)
Maximum takeoff weight: 37,500 pounds (16,875 kilograms)
Fuel capacity: 7,000 pounds internal (3,175 kilograms); typical capacity, 12,000 pounds with two external tanks (5443 kilograms)
Payload: two 2,000-pound bombs, two AIM-9, two AIM-120 and two 2400-pound external fuel tanks
Speed: 1,500 mph (Mach 2 at altitude)
Range: more than 2,002 miles ferry range (1,740 nautical miles)
Ceiling: above 50,000 feet (15 kilometers)

F-16 Fighting Falcon

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

www.af.mil

ambiguity is typical but they do not say 16 km nor 18km

Are you seriously pretending that some number from some random internet site is more accurate than flight manual actual test data? F-16 can fly at 60,000 ft - 18.288 km, there is no ambiguity or discussion, it is a fact.

 

[StealthFlanker]

But remember MiG-23MLD generates more thrust so it reaches mach 2.35 in an operational service not ambiguous of 17700
View attachment 47820
The 15km is because its pitot tube intake loses pressure recovery so of course at the 17.7 km altitude the F-16 will be inferior and ambiguous because near mach 1.5 at high altitudes MiG-23ML uses a variable geometry intake so delivers more static thrust but F-16 delivers less and less thrust because more boundary layer enters the engine plus needs to bleed air because too much air flow, So F-16 tops at Mach 2

Mig-23MLD will only reach Mach 2.35 in test or if left to fly in straight line for very long time, in operational service, it almost never has the chance to reach that speed. The maximum distance that Sapfir23 MLA can detect a fighter is 52 km, at 12 km height speed of sound is 1062.36 km/h, so if both aircraft cruising at Mach 0.8 then the closure rate is 1700 km/h. So even if both continue to cruise at Mach 0.8, it will take both fighter only 110 seconds until they reach the merge, and because both sides will accelerate when they detect enemy this time is even shorter, but, a very lightly loaded Mig-23 still needs 160 seconds just to accelerate from Mach 1 to Mach 2, so it will never have the chance to accelerate to Mach 2.23 before launching missiles.
And Mig-23 has a variable inlet is irrelevant, the key problem at very high altitude is air density, because air density is too low, you need to keep your speed very high so that you can generate enough lift, but high speed will consume more fuel. And because the air is too thin, you do not have excess lift to perform hard maneuver, you will be barely able to fly level at 60,000 ft. Do you know what else has a variable inlet like Mig-23 ? F-15 and it will barely fly level at 60.000 ft even in clean configuration.

 

[MiG-29SMT]

Yes, I understand target are moving and yes, I head on shot have longer range than tail chase shot. That is obvious. But that doesn't mean R-24 has the same range as AIM-120
R-24 max range for forward quarter shot is 11 km at low altitude and 35 km at high altitude
R-24 max range for rear quarter shot is 4 km at low altitude and 20 km at high altitude

View attachment 47823

AIM-120A/B max range for forward quarter shot is 20 km at low altitude and 110 km at high altitude
AIM-120A/B max range for rear quarter shot is 7 km at low altitude and 40 km at high altitude

View attachment 47824



You say your chart is a derivative? ok write down the function and coefficient of that derivative then? You can't, so how can you estimate an average? given the acceleration rate between 600 km/h and 1100 km/h is so clearly not a constant value and it isn't linear
And no, I'm not angry at the chart, I'm angry that while you repeatedly say I can't extrapolate simple linear acceleration time chart, you are doing the same thing to a derivative chart which you don't even know the function and coefficient of the curve.
But guess what, for the sake of argument, let say your guesstimate of acceleration rate from that chart is accurate
Speed of sound 1225 km/h at sea level, Mig-23ML need 3.45 seconds to accelerate 100 km/h, so it will need 17.25 seconds to accelerate from 600 km/h -1100 km/h, from the chart Mig-23ML is empty without weapons
For comparison, at sea level, F-16 at 24,000 lbs weight, will take 13 seconds to accelerate from 551 km/h to 1114 km/h
F-16 at 28,000 lbs weight, will take 15 seconds to accelerate from 551 km/h to 1114 km/h
So once again, F-16 is still faster, even at 28000 lbs mark, it is still faster. Now you gonna say: "but it only faster by 4.25 seconds so it doesn't matter". Well, this 4.25 seconds is equal to 23% quicker acceleration rate, the only reason the number seems small is because you cherry pick the sea level altitude where the max acceleration time is small. But fighter dont just fight at sea level, as altitude go up the number get bigger and bigger.




Firstly, I didn't only calculate fuel weight with .77kg/l density, I did both
Secondly, the difference of 4.5 seconds is only true if you keep the altitude at sea level, as you increase altitude, the different also go up, at 30,000 ft, it is around 49-57 seconds
Thirdly, let not pretend an F-15 with 2 engines in full afterburner will consume the same amount of fuel as the single engine F-16 at 30,000-40,000 ft. I already gave you the fuel flow at altitude


So it isn't cheating when you pretend an F-15 at sea level consume the same amount of fuel as F-16 at 30.000 ft, but it is cheating when I compare Mig-23ML at 32,000ft to F-16 at 30,000ft?
Anyways, I did compare Mig-23 at 39,370 ft to F-16 at 40,000 ft and yet F-16 is still faster by 14 seconds.



Are you seriously pretending that some number from some random internet site is more accurate than flight manual actual test data? F-16 can fly at 60,000 ft - 18.288 km, there is no ambiguity or discussion, it is a fact.

what cherry picking you are now manipulating the charts like you have always done

For starters the dutch pilot mentioned F-16A, got it? it had an engine F100 got it of less thrust.

You came first with the wrong manual chart


The former Dutch Air Force pilot, Mr. Leon van Maurer. According to the retired pilot (total flying time - more than 3,000 hours, of which 1,200 hours on the F-16) claimed that the MiG-23MLD had "overwhelming superiority over the F-16A on the verticals and in no way inferior to this aircraft in turns. "


Got it? F-16A early ones like F-15 had a different engine got it?

The two YF-16s and the eight FSD F-16A's were immediately followed by the first operational F-16s, designated Block 1. The first F-16A Block 1, #78-0001, made its maiden flight in August 1978, and was delivered to the USAF in that same month. It was assigned to the 388th Tactical Fighter Wing at Hill AFB, Utah. A total of 94 Block 1 aircraft rolled off the production line at the Fort Worth facility; they were all delivered to the USAF and the 4 initial European customers (Belgium, Denmark, The Netherlands and Norway). Block 1 F-16s (and the FSD aircraft) can be distinguished from all subsequent Fighting Falcons by a black radome.

Fort Worth built 67 F-16A's for Israel, 39 for Egypt, 28 for Pakistan, plus a second batch of 11 which have not yet been delivered, 18 for Venezuela, 8 for Thailand, 4 for Singapore, 8 for Indonesia and 12 for Singapore. Fort Worth also built 8 F-16B's for Israel, 9 for Egypt, 12 for Pakistan (including four built by Fokker), 6 for Venezuela, 4 for Singapore, 4 for Thailand and 4 for Indonesia.

Specifications
Engine: One Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-200 turbofan, rated at 12,240 lb.s.t. dry, 14,670 lb.s.t. full military, and 23,830 lb.s.t. with afterburning.

Maximum speed: Mach 2.05 at 40,000 feet. Service ceiling 55,000 feet. Maximum range 2400 miles. Initial climb rate 62,000 feet per minute.

F-16.net - The ultimate F-16, F-35 and F-22 reference

www.f-16.net

Got it? you have wrong manual

So for starters you came just to claim the F-16 was better without even seen what version thus you got different Manual.


Thus this whole conversation was totally out of context.
History
The Block 50/52 is the current production version of the F-16 Fighting Falcon. It features the Improved Performance Engines, either the F110-GE-129 for the block 50 or the F100-PW-229 for the block 52. The F100-PW-229 is lighter and more powerful than earlier F100s, and had been flying at Edwards AFB since mid-1990 in test ship #81-0816. Both engines are rated at 29,000lbs of thrust (129kN).

F-16.net - The ultimate F-16, F-35 and F-22 reference

www.f-16.net

So to put it in context you just came with a non historial version since in Bekka 1982, 1985, and Afghanistan 1979-1989 there were no F-16Cs and remember last MiG-23MLD was built 10 years earlier in 1984


Now even with the F-16C with different and more powerful engine at sea level the MiG-23MLD only has 4.7 seconds with F-16 difference from 600 km/h to 1382 km/h that was your original benchmark.


No missile R-24, R-23 or R-77 will have problems with F-16C at sea level

 

[MiG-29SMT]

Mig-23MLD will only reach Mach 2.35 in test or if left to fly in straight line for very long time, in operational service, it almost never has the chance to reach that speed. The maximum distance that Sapfir23 MLA can detect a fighter is 52 km, at 12 km height speed of sound is 1062.36 km/h, so if both aircraft cruising at Mach 0.8 then the closure rate is 1700 km/h. So even if both continue to cruise at Mach 0.8, it will take both fighter only 110 seconds until they reach the merge, and because both sides will accelerate when they detect enemy this time is even shorter, but, a very lightly loaded Mig-23 still needs 160 seconds just to accelerate from Mach 1 to Mach 2, so it will never have the chance to accelerate to Mach 2.23 before launching missiles.
And Mig-23 has a variable inlet is irrelevant, the key problem at very high altitude is air density, because air density is too low, you need to keep your speed very high so that you can generate enough lift, but high speed will consume more fuel. And because the air is too thin, you do not have excess lift to perform hard maneuver, you will be barely able to fly level at 60,000 ft. Do you know what else has a variable inlet like Mig-23 ? F-15 and it will barely fly level at 60.000 ft even in clean configuration.

get it, a 24000 lb F-16 will not fly supersonic has not enough fuel, you like it or not the F-15 will with 2 engines spend in 2 minutes what an F-16 in one but F-16 is not F-22 it can not supercruise get it? operational F-16 fly like MiG-23 subsonic most of the time, but MiG-23 has variable geometry intakes, the MiG-23 will reach higher altitude and will flies faster, in fact Mach 2.35 at 17700 meters.


That is operational fighters.

F-16 only will fly 1 or 2 minutes at supersonic speeds at 28000 lb but then it will be fat got it?

and Since F-16C is more a striker that extra thrust is to carry more the F-16 is more of a attack aircraft, by 1995 Russia got MiG-29s. so the MiG-23 was not fitted with new engines but it had a more powerful engine in 1988 than F-16A.


the F-16C will not dodge R-77 or R-24s and the difference in thrust does not give it superiority and even at high altitude and new R-77 of Mach 4, the F-16 will beat not MiG-23-98.

But since you say MiG-23 was never built to production well F-16C was never operational during the cold war with the Soviet Union

 

[StealthFlanker]

what cherry picking you are now manipulating the charts like you have always done
For starters the dutch pilot mentioned F-16A, got it? it had an engine F100 got it of less thrust.
You came first with the wrong manual chart
The former Dutch Air Force pilot, Mr. Leon van Maurer. According to the retired pilot (total flying time - more than 3,000 hours, of which 1,200 hours on the F-16) claimed that the MiG-23MLD had "overwhelming superiority over the F-16A on the verticals and in no way inferior to this aircraft in turns. "

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

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

They certainly didn't have any issue when admitting F-18 got shot down by Mig-25 or when F-16 got shot down by SA-3. And friendly fire aren't an exactly rare occurrences on the battlefield, for example: AH-64 did destroy a friendly APC, F-16 did launch HARM at a PAC-2 site, India did shot down...

defenceforumindia.com

Thirdly, Mig-23 good acceleration come from the very low drag coefficient when it fully sweeps the wing back at 72 degrees. But when you do that lift coefficient will reduce remarkably so you don't really turn anymore so his comment about overwhelming superiority in the vertical then make no sense because you supposed to turn even in vertical fight.

Now even with the F-16C with different and more powerful engine at sea level the MiG-23MLD only has 4.7 seconds with F-16 difference from 600 km/h to 1382 km/h that was your original benchmark.
No missile R-24, R-23 or R-77 will have problems with F-16C at sea level

4.7 seconds different at sea level from 551 km/h -1114 km/h, but as altitude increases this difference also increases, at 30,000 ft, it is around 49-57 seconds.
And you have to define what is having a problem? if they hit they can destroy the aircraft no problem but with superior acceleration, longer detection range and longer range missile then AIM-120 will hit first.

get it, a 24000 lb F-16 will not fly supersonic has not enough fuel, you like it or not the F-15 will with 2 engines spend in 2 minutes what an F-16 in one but F-16 is not F-22 it can not supercruise get it? operational F-16 fly like MiG-23 subsonic most of the time, but MiG-23 has variable geometry intakes, the MiG-23 will reach higher altitude and will flies faster, in fact Mach 2.35 at 17700 meters.
That is operational fighters.
F-16 only will fly 1 or 2 minutes at supersonic speeds at 28000 lb but then it will be fat got it

No I didn't "got it" because it is wrong. F-16 even at 36,000 lbs can reach Mach 2.

Now before you say a heavier F-16 will accelerate slower, the same thing will also happen to Mig-23 but worse because when Mig-23 fold back its wing the lift coefficient will reduce, the higher the sweep, the less steep the CL-AoA curve will be so Mig-23 will need higher AoA which make it draggier, it will suffer worse than F-16 when you put more weight on it.
Mig-23 can reach Mach 2.35 when fly on straight line for a long time is irrelevant fact, because Mig-23 radar detection range only gives the pilot 110 seconds to accelerate but even a very lightly loaded Mig-23 will need 160 seconds to accelerate from Mach 1 to Mach 2. Yes, Mig-23 can eventually reach higher top speed than F-16 in theory, but it can't use that ability in combat.
Secondly, for your education, fuel flow between F-15 at sea level and F-16 at 40,000-50,000 ft isn't 2 to 1, when you go up, air density is lower, so you will consume a lot less fuel. F-16 at sea level will consume a lot more fuel than F-16 at high altitude.

 

[StealthFlanker]

and Since F-16C is more a striker that extra thrust is to carry more the F-16 is more of a attack aircraft, by 1995 Russia got MiG-29s. so the MiG-23 was not fitted with new engines but it had a more powerful engine in 1988 than F-16A.
the F-16C will not dodge R-77 or R-24s and the difference in thrust does not give it superiority and even at high altitude and new R-77 of Mach 4, the F-16 will beat not MiG-23-98.
But since you say MiG-23 was never built to production well F-16C was never operational during the cold war with the Soviet Union

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

 

[MiG-29SMT]

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

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

They certainly didn't have any issue when admitting F-18 got shot down by Mig-25 or when F-16 got shot down by SA-3. And friendly fire aren't an exactly rare occurrences on the battlefield, for example: AH-64 did destroy a friendly APC, F-16 did launch HARM at a PAC-2 site, India did shot down...

defenceforumindia.com

Thirdly, Mig-23 good acceleration come from the very low drag coefficient when it fully sweeps the wing back at 72 degrees. But when you do that lift coefficient will reduce remarkably so you don't really turn anymore so his comment about overwhelming superiority in the vertical then make no sense because you supposed to turn even in vertical fight.




4.7 seconds different at sea level from 551 km/h -1114 km/h, but as altitude increases this difference also increases, at 30,000 ft, it is around 49-57 seconds.
And you have to define what is having a problem? if they hit they can destroy the aircraft no problem but with superior acceleration, longer detection range and longer range missile then AIM-120 will hit first.



No I didn't "got it" because it is wrong. F-16 even at 36,000 lbs can reach Mach 2.


Now before you say a heavier F-16 will accelerate slower, the same thing will also happen to Mig-23 but worse because when Mig-23 fold back its wing the lift coefficient will reduce, the higher the sweep, the less steep the CL-AoA curve will be so Mig-23 will need higher AoA which make it draggier, it will suffer worse than F-16 when you put more weight on it.
Mig-23 can reach Mach 2.35 when fly on straight line for a long time is irrelevant fact, because Mig-23 radar detection range only gives the pilot 110 seconds to accelerate but even a very lightly loaded Mig-23 will need 160 seconds to accelerate from Mach 1 to Mach 2. Yes, Mig-23 can eventually reach higher top speed than F-16 in theory, but it can't use that ability in combat.
Secondly, for your education, fuel flow between F-15 at sea level and F-16 at 40,000-50,000 ft isn't 2 to 1, when you go up, air density is lower, so you will consume a lot less fuel. F-16 at sea level will consume a lot more fuel than F-16 at high altitude.

This you problem you do not have equivalent altitudes so you use a 9.1km chart versus a 10km chart and you claim F-16 is faster.

If you use the 12km chart versus the F-16 12.1 chart you see the F-16 is not as quick.
In fact at 28000 lb is slower than the MiG-23 and at 24000 lb is 147 seconds so even it is quicker than the MiG-23 is barely 13 seconds quicker.


As I told you the F-16C was flown in mid 1990s, is like you adapt a 117S engine to the MiG-23ML now it is a moot point since MiG-23s were retired from Russia in 1998 and they rely on MiG-29s that are better than F-16s.


in the 1980s with F-100 the F-16A was inferior to the MiG-23MLD, it was reported by the dutch Pilot and Israel.

You do not want to learn just win a conversation.

I have conclude the MiG-23ML had superiority to the F-16A in the 1980s, after the MiG-23ML had some inferiority with the F-16C, some slight advantage but not that determined the outcome as you claim.

At sea level 4.5 seconds better, at 12 km 13 seconds, considering more or less similar weight,


MiG-23 finished production after more than 6000 MiG-23/MiG-27s were built from 1970 to 1984.

F-16 only achieved similar numbers after more than 40 years of production.

 

[MiG-29SMT]

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

Relax is not a macho contest you are not F-16 nor me MiG-23ML.

Some realities exist, one is MiG-23 has a variable geometry intake with ramps that create several shocks.
If Russia would offer better engines to Mig-23 like AL-31 or 117 of course it can regain the superiority it once had over F-16A but of course now is the time for MiG-29 and soon Pakfa, so to some degree F-16C won some superiority in the 1990s over an aircraft that was retired

 

[MiG-29SMT]

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

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

They certainly didn't have any issue when admitting F-18 got shot down by Mig-25 or when F-16 got shot down by SA-3. And friendly fire aren't an exactly rare occurrences on the battlefield, for example: AH-64 did destroy a friendly APC, F-16 did launch HARM at a PAC-2 site, India did shot down...

defenceforumindia.com

Thirdly, Mig-23 good acceleration come from the very low drag coefficient when it fully sweeps the wing back at 72 degrees. But when you do that lift coefficient will reduce remarkably so you don't really turn anymore so his comment about overwhelming superiority in the vertical then make no sense because you supposed to turn even in vertical fight.




4.7 seconds different at sea level from 551 km/h -1114 km/h, but as altitude increases this difference also increases, at 30,000 ft, it is around 49-57 seconds.
And you have to define what is having a problem? if they hit they can destroy the aircraft no problem but with superior acceleration, longer detection range and longer range missile then AIM-120 will hit first.



No I didn't "got it" because it is wrong. F-16 even at 36,000 lbs can reach Mach 2.

Now before you say a heavier F-16 will accelerate slower, the same thing will also happen to Mig-23 but worse because when Mig-23 fold back its wing the lift coefficient will reduce, the higher the sweep, the less steep the CL-AoA curve will be so Mig-23 will need higher AoA which make it draggier, it will suffer worse than F-16 when you put more weight on it.
Mig-23 can reach Mach 2.35 when fly on straight line for a long time is irrelevant fact, because Mig-23 radar detection range only gives the pilot 110 seconds to accelerate but even a very lightly loaded Mig-23 will need 160 seconds to accelerate from Mach 1 to Mach 2. Yes, Mig-23 can eventually reach higher top speed than F-16 in theory, but it can't use that ability in combat.
Secondly, for your education, fuel flow between F-15 at sea level and F-16 at 40,000-50,000 ft isn't 2 to 1, when you go up, air density is lower, so you will consume a lot less fuel. F-16 at sea level will consume a lot more fuel than F-16 at high altitude.

Pay attention to the fact the manual says fuel density is 0.83 so now i can calculate the 2000 liters weight, the MiG-23ML is carrying 1660kg fuel

Add the R-23 and you get 435kg, if you look it says crew weight 120kg, and if you see that you will see 120 kg includes survival kit and parachute.

The other graph says 77 kg in ammunition.


So the MiG-23 is flying with a payload of around 2292kg that is much more than 4300 lb, in fact it is 5052 lbs.

Now you are using all the time lower altitude, lower weight, and and never consider the fuel density can vary from 0.77 to 0.85 kg/l, thus you also do some speculation.

If I am honest the MiG-23ML could be slower than F-16C, however that is not really proven by the graphs and charts because both manuals use some different conditions, that only leave you with some guessing.

In my personal opinion if the MiG-23ML is slower the difference is honestly small since at sea level is 4.5 seconds and at 12 km the 24000 pound aircraft is only 13 or 15 seconds quicker and the 28000lb aircraft is lower than the MiG-23ML by another 14-16 seconds.

 

[StealthFlanker]

This you problem you do not have equivalent altitudes so you use a 9.1km chart versus a 10km chart and you claim F-16 is faster.

If you use the 12km chart versus the F-16 12.1 chart you see the F-16 is not as quick.
In fact at 28000 lb is slower than the MiG-23 and at 24000 lb is 147 seconds so even it is quicker than the MiG-23 is barely 13 seconds quicker.

Firstly, as you mentioned yourself, 160 seconds data for Mig-23 is the average between 10-12 km, with acceleration time at 10km is lower and acceleration time at 12 km is higher, so the calculation is in favor of Mig-23. If I instead take the F-16 acceleration data at 35,000 ft -10.668 km then it only takes 108 seconds to accelerate from Mach 1-Mach 1.95

Secondly, at 24000 lbs, 40,000 ft the acceleration time for F-16 is 138 seconds so it is faster than Mig-23 by 22 seconds if we consider that weight

and they rely on MiG-29s that are better than F-16s.

Which version of Mig-29 and F-16 we are comparing? Mig-29M?, Mig-29K? F-16C? F-16E?

in the 1980s with F-100 the F-16A was inferior to the MiG-23MLD, it was reported by the dutch Pilot and Israel.

There was no Dutch pilot, that whole story about Leon van Maurer is nothing more than a hoax. He was wrong about the performer of 2 radars and he was wrong about vertical fight, then it also doesn't make sense that he can know how good Mig-23MLD radar is when they also said Angola Mig-23 has broken non-operatable radar.

I have conclude the MiG-23ML had superiority to the F-16A in the 1980s, after the MiG-23ML had some inferiority with the F-16C, some slight advantage but not that determined the outcome as you claim.

At sea level 4.5 seconds better, at 12 km 13 seconds, considering more or less similar weight,
so to some degree F-16C won some superiority in the 1990s over an aircraft that was retired

Mig-23ML vs F-16A
F-16A has the advantage in STR, ITR, Radar detection range, RCS, Jammer, subsonic acceleration, visibility
Mig-23ML has the advantage in supersonic acceleration, top speed, longer missile range

Mig-23MLD vs F-16C
F-16C has the advantage in STR, ITR, Radar detection range, missile range, acceleration, RCS, Jammer, cruise decoys, towed decoys, subsonic acceleration, visibility
Mig-23MLD has the advantage in top speed

In my personal opinion of the MiG-23ML is slower the difference is honestly small since at sea level is 4.5 seconds and at 12 km the 24000 pound aircraft is only 13 or 15 seconds quicker and the 28000lb aircraft is lower by another 72-74 seconds than MiG-23ML

Mig-23ML takes 160 seconds to accelerate from Mach 1 to Mach 2
F-16C at 24000 lbs take 138 seconds to accelerate from Mach 0.97-Mach 2
F-16C at 28000 lbs take 171 seconds to accelerate from Mach 0.97-Mach 2
There is no point where F-16C is 72 seconds slower than Mig-23ML

 

[MiG-29SMT]

Firstly, as you mentioned yourself, 160 seconds data for Mig-23 is the average between 10-12 km, with acceleration time at 10km is lower and acceleration time at 12 km is higher, so the calculation is in favor of Mig-23. If I instead take the F-16 acceleration data at 35,000 ft -10.668 km then it only takes 108 seconds to accelerate from Mach 1-Mach 1.95
View attachment 47933

Secondly, at 24000 lbs, 40,000 ft the acceleration time for F-16 is 138 seconds so it is faster than Mig-23 by 22 seconds if we consider that weight




Which version of Mig-29 and F-16 we are comparing? Mig-29M?, Mig-29K? F-16C? F-16E?




There was no Dutch pilot, that whole story about Leon van Maurer is nothing more than a hoax. He was wrong about the performer of 2 radars and he was wrong about vertical fight, then it also doesn't make sense that he can know how good Mig-23MLD radar is when they also said Angola Mig-23 has broken non-operatable radar.




Mig-23ML vs F-16A
F-16A has the advantage in STR, ITR, Radar detection range, RCS, Jammer, subsonic acceleration, visibility
Mig-23ML has the advantage in supersonic acceleration, top speed, longer missile range

Mig-23MLD vs F-16C
F-16C has the advantage in STR, ITR, Radar detection range, missile range, acceleration, RCS, Jammer, cruise decoys, towed decoys, subsonic acceleration, visibility
Mig-23MLD has the advantage in top speed



Mig-23ML takes 160 seconds to accelerate from Mach 1 to Mach 2
F-16C at 24000 lbs take 138 seconds to accelerate from Mach 0.97-Mach 2
F-16C at 28000 lbs take 171 seconds to accelerate from Mach 0.97-Mach 2
There is no point where F-16C is 72 seconds slower than Mig-23ML

We are getting more less to an agreement which is good in a conversation.

as I told you, the payload of the MiG-23ML in the manual chart is near 2292 kg that is 5050lb, okay?

you are speculating what are you speculating?

Show me the fuel weight at 24000 lb combat ready F-16C as i did it for the MiG-23ML since the manual shows it.

you are using a 2000lb as your benchmark. claiming a 1550 kg fuel weight
300kg AIM-120 load but remember it carries ammunition, a pilot.
you are using 1550 kg fuel, that is 110kg lighter than MiG-23ML that is your speculation
those 4300lb does not specify ammunition weigh if the pilot weight is include and you are missing 130kg of the AIM-120-R-23 differences in weight.

I can assure you know the MiG-23 is carrying 2292 kg using fuel, R-23 and pilot and ammunition weight.

Now let us suppose you are right.



and MiG-23ML is chasing the F-16C, let us suppose you are right, 22 seconds difference.

Since F-16C is a mid 1990s aircraft we include R-77 AA-12 adder to MiG-23.

22 sec at Mach both fighters are not going to fly long.


22 seconds at mach 2 is around 1100km/h or 295 m/s
R-77 flies at Mach 4 twice the speed of F-16.

Tell me 22 seconds means F-16 will escape? no of course not

Both fighters need to fire on a head on trajectory.

Since F-16C is not F-16A, and MiG-23MLD fought in 1985 over lebanon and in the 1980s over afghanistan F-16As and Israel tested F-16A and the Dutch have F-16As well you have a moot point here.


Like you said MiG-23 only big advantage in 1980s over F-16A was sheer speed, acceleration and rate of climb

F-16 only used AIM-9Ls in the 1980s and Gulf war I, so yes MiG-23ML was the better interceptor, F-16 the better dogfighter, but a MiG-23MLD armed with AA-11 was much better dogfighter.

Conclusion Israel does not lie, F-16A has an engine of 23000 lb MiG-23ML one of 29000 lb
F-16 reversed that in 1995 with F110 of 29000 lbs.

 

[MiG-29SMT]

The manual's authors claim that in comparison with the F-4E (though whether they mean the slatted or non-slatted sub-version of the Phantom is not clear), the MiG-23MLD has superior sustained turn performance throughout the entire envelope, excluding the range between 377 and 540kts (700 and 1,000km/h) below 21,000ft (6,400m). It also has the edge over the Phantom II in zoom climb performance at all altitudes and speeds, excluding the true airspeed range between 485 and 647kts (900 and 1,200km/h) above 18,000ft (6,000m).
Compared with the F-15A, the MiG-23MLD's only notable advantage is in zoom climb performance at speeds above 620kts (1,150km/h). However, the manual asserts that compared with the F-16A, the Soviet swing-wing fighter produces a somewhat better sustained turn performance above 15,000ft (5,000m), at speeds close to the maximum, as well as better zoom climb performance at true airspeeds exceeding 590kts (1,100km/h). However, as comparative tests have shown, using the Syrian MiG-23MLD(Export) which defected to Israel in October 1989, the swing-wing fighter demonstrated, somewhat surprisingly, that it had better acceleration than the escorting F-16s. This would seem to indicate that in 'real world' conditions the MiG-23MLD would have a slight edge over the early F-16s in acceleration and energy maneuverability at true airspeeds above 485kts (900km/h).

MiG-23MLD Flogger-K

A typical scene from the heyday of Flogger operations in East Germany, showing a squadron line-up of MiG-23MLDs at Altes Lager, with...

soviethammer.blogspot.com