MiG-23 vs F-14A

**HistoricalDavid** · 21 Aug 06,, 14:48

Originally Posted by Captain Drunk

Let me tell you the F-18 is the most useless, hopeless, lousy fighter in all aviation history.

...No evidence.

Forget about engaging, in a drag chase an F-18 won’t even get close to a Mig-23.

In a drag chase, that means the MiG-23 is running away. In other words, it poses no threat until it turns around. And don't give me crap about rearward firing missiles - if you thought SAMs suffered from an energy stanpoint because they had 0 airspeed...

It neither has the speed, range nor the BVR capability to compete with modern day fighters.

Got any evidence for that?

With a low frontal RCS, upcoming APG-79, and AMRAAM, I should think it's capable of taking on most modern-day fighters. Give me a reason otherwise.

Further the Mig-23MLD is considered on par with an F-4E, which by all means is more superior than the F-18.

Considering you don't seem bothered to make the distinction between F/A-18C/D and E/F...

You don’t have to assign US fighter ‘generation’ standards to Tomcats, Foxhounds, Fulcrums and Flankers because with assets like Phoenixes, Mach 2.8 speeds, R-172 AAMLs, etc. they’re simply in a class of their own.

My God.

The R-172 AAML is
a) not in service
b) probably waaaay outranges most radars capable of detecting a E/F model Super Hornet.
c) Is ridiculously heavy at 750kg/1,600lb, even compared to the 1,000lb Phoenix or the 330lb AMRAAM, and considering that America tends to put a lot of aircraft in theatre at any one time... The heavy weight won't work well to intercept fighters like the Super Hornet, especially with a 110lb warhead - lighter than a Phoenix at 135lb.
d) Is extremely wide at 21 inches, even compared to the 15in Phoenix or the 7in AMRAAM, severely impacting on speed and range performance of its carrier... so much for your amazingly fast and long-ranged MiGs and Sukhois.
e) If you really want to talk about such non-existent missiles, how about we talk about the ramjet AMRAAM, which first conducted a flight test back in 1998, or the MBDA Meteor?

By the way, the Fulcrum has an embarassing combat history. I respect the Flanker and the Foxhound, but the Fulcrum is just embarassing.

And even if you do consider ‘generation standards’ the F-18 is ousted even by 3rd gen. Migs in terms of speed and range and the latest Mig-23 MLDs have everything - RWR, Zhuk ME radars and were also slated to carry R-172s.

RWR = I wonder how that will stack up against LPI AESA such as the APG-79?

Zhuk ME = oh well, APG-79. Russia won't have AESA until 2012 according to a certain aerospace engineer on this board.

"Slated to carry R-172s." Right, it's slated to carry a missile not yet in service.

Add to this the far greater numbers which can be typically fielded by the USN of Super Hornet... and you turn out to be just someone salivating over big, fast machines with little regard to their pilot quality, avionics, logistics or any other such more 'boring' considerations.

**~~Captain Drunk~~** · 21 Aug 06,, 15:16

Originally Posted by HistoricalDavid

In a drag chase, that means the MiG-23 is running away. In other words, it poses no threat until it turns around.

It will most certainly Foxbat-style

while an F-18 even if tries to chase a Mig-23 won't come close, it'll run out of gas.

Originally Posted by HistoricalDavid

With a low frontal RCS, upcoming APG-79, and AMRAAM, I should think it's capable of taking on most modern-day fighters. Give me a reason otherwise.

Thats total bull.....an F-5 or F-4 in actual practise would have a lower RCS than any F-18, Super Hornet included.

Originally Posted by HistoricalDavid

By the way, the Fulcrum has an embarassing combat history. I respect the Flanker and the Foxhound, but the Fulcrum is just embarassing.

Because it hasn't fought yet. The West said the nose-intake Mig-21 was "going nowhere and doing nothing" but it managed to get F-15s in their sights, an F-18 "SlowBug" with or without AWACS support won't be able to pin an F-15.

Originally Posted by HistoricalDavid

"Slated to carry R-172s." Right, it's slated to carry a missile not yet in service.

Its been developed, tried and tested so there.

**The_Burning_Kid** · 21 Aug 06,, 15:36

Originally Posted by Captain Drunk

Do you know who Admiral Paul Gillcrist is? He is a major Tomcat supporter and he believes the Super Hornet is a big mistake. But what’s more he’s a retired Test pilot and has flown just about every modern American Fighter (F-14, F-15, F-18, etc.).

Then the USN claims that the Super Hornet is, “a most deadly foe in both beyond-visual-range and close-in engagements,” but RADM John Nathman, Naval Aviation News, March-April 2000 to put it plainly - that’s the biggest load of ******** I’ve ever heard.

Let me tell you the F-18 is the most useless, hopeless, lousy fighter in all aviation history. Forget about engaging, in a drag chase an F-18 won’t even get close to a Mig-23. It neither has the speed, range nor the BVR capability to compete with modern day fighters. Further the Mig-23MLD is considered on par with an F-4E, which by all means is more superior than the F-18. You don’t have to assign US fighter ‘generation’ standards to Tomcats, Foxhounds, Fulcrums and Flankers because with assets like Phoenixes, Mach 2.8 speeds, R-172 AAMLs, etc. they’re simply in a class of their own.

And even if you do consider ‘generation standards’ the F-18 is ousted even by 3rd gen. Migs in terms of speed and range and the latest Mig-23 MLDs have everything - RWR, Zhuk ME radars and were also slated to carry R-172s.

Uh, have you actually talked to SH pilots? From what I've heard, many of them like the SH very much (some more than their Tomcats). I know one Super Hornet pilot (he's on another board) that loves the SH and wouldn't take any fighter over it. I trust him far more than you who's known to have rubbish claims.

The MiG-23 is a lousy fighter compared to all our fighters. It is basically meat for the Super Hornet to eat. With its AESA radar and AIM-120D, the SH would literally eat alive the Flogger and spit it out for the Russians to cry over. And believe me, long-range armament can be easily avoided by tactical aircrafts. These long-ranged missiles are designed to be used against AWACS and bombers, not fighters. And just for the note, speed isn't everything and with buddy tankers, the F/A-18E/F can have ranges superior to its predecessor.

Thats total bull.....an F-5 or F-4 in actual practise would have a lower RCS than any F-18, Super Hornet included.

That's the stupidest remark I've ever heard. The Super Hornet has a far smaller RCS than the F-5 or the F-4 ever did. I think I remember seeing that the F-4 had an RCS around 25m2. Compare that to 0.1m2 for the SH. Or do I need to explain that further?

Because it hasn't fought yet. The West said the nose-intake Mig-21 was "going nowhere and doing nothing" but it managed to get F-15s in their sights, an F-18 "SlowBug" with or without AWACS support won't be able to pin an F-15.

That shows how much knowledge you have. You lack basic understanding of air excercises and should be outright banned from using them in an argument. You have shown that you are incapable of understanding them.

Its been developed, tried and tested so there.

Where? And if it has, I want to see where it has been able to successfully destroy a tactical sized aircraft. If you can't, then your claims are rubbish and your so-called "Super Missile" is nothing more than a oversized missile used to kill bombers and AWACS and other large aircrafts.

**HistoricalDavid** · 21 Aug 06,, 17:19

Originally Posted by Captain Drunk

It will most certainly Foxbat-style

...Clarify?

while an F-18 even if tries to chase a Mig-23 won't come close, it'll run out of gas.

In other words, the MiG-23 will pose no threat.

Assuming the MiG-23 is defending - and let's face it, it will be - then its job is obviously completely unachieved if it's running away from the Super Hornet.

Thats total bull.....an F-5 or F-4 in actual practise would have a lower RCS than any F-18, Super Hornet included.

An F-5 is a very light, very cheap fighter with a 24,000lb MTOW and can't really be compared to the 66,000lb Super Hornet.

The F-4, in the list of America's enemies, is used only by Iran.

I'm not sure you realise just how ridiculous your statement sounds. One of the major features of the Super Hornet is its low frontal RCS, and I scarcely see how 60s-era fighters can match it, especially the large, high-performance F-4, and especially when you haven't provided a shred of even unsubstantiated evidence for it.

Because it hasn't fought yet. The West said the nose-intake Mig-21 was "going nowhere and doing nothing" but it managed to get F-15s in their sights,

The Fulcrum hasn't fought, yet? Hello, Gulf War I, Yugoslavia, Ethiopia-Eritrea?

And are you going to talk about Cope India despite the fact that it's been refuted multiple times on this forum?

an F-18 "SlowBug" with or without AWACS support won't be able to pin an F-15.

Lack of AWACS is not the only bias in the Cope India.

Its been developed, tried and tested so there.

'So there'?

You do understand what 'in service' means?

AAML = something you should shut up about.

At least you have no answer to my other points... I'm relieved! Russian equipment isn't the amazing godlike immaturely-described array of 1337ness you describe it to be... Phew!

**~~Captain Drunk~~** · 22 Aug 06,, 02:23

Originally Posted by The_Burning_Kid

Uh, have you actually talked to SH pilots? From what I've heard, many of them like the SH very much (some more than their Tomcats). I know one Super Hornet pilot (he's on another board) that loves the SH and wouldn't take any fighter over it. I trust him far more than you who's known to have rubbish claims.

The MiG-23 is a lousy fighter compared to all our fighters. It is basically meat for the Super Hornet to eat. With its AESA radar and AIM-120D, the SH would literally eat alive the Flogger and spit it out for the Russians to cry over. And believe me, long-range armament can be easily avoided by tactical aircrafts. These long-ranged missiles are designed to be used against AWACS and bombers, not fighters. And just for the note, speed isn't everything and with buddy tankers, the F/A-18E/F can have ranges superior to its predecessor.

That's the stupidest remark I've ever heard. The Super Hornet has a far smaller RCS than the F-5 or the F-4 ever did. I think I remember seeing that the F-4 had an RCS around 25m2. Compare that to 0.1m2 for the SH. Or do I need to explain that further?

Now I think we could take Admiral Paul Gillcrist's verdict about the Super Hornet being a "big mistake" as the Bible truth on this whole Hornet analogy - he's an Admiral and a Test Pilot ranking higher than any other SH pilot. Judging his point of view, I think the Hornet's all crap.....

Secondly like the F-4Es, advanced MLDs fitted with Zhuk MEs and AA-12 Adder / HMS combo would have all the punch to take on any F-18. I'm still not counting the R-172, with that Floggers would make Russian salad out of any Hornet.

O btw my mistake, I didn't mean the F-4, I meant the F-5 and F-104 Starfighter.

**The_Burning_Kid** · 22 Aug 06,, 03:53

Originally Posted by Captain Drunk

Now I think we could take Admiral Paul Gillcrist's verdict about the Super Hornet being a "big mistake" as the Bible truth on this whole Hornet analogy - he's an Admiral and a Test Pilot ranking higher than any other SH pilot. Judging his point of view, I think the Hornet's all crap.....

Secondly like the F-4Es, advanced MLDs fitted with Zhuk MEs and AA-12 Adder / HMS combo would have all the punch to take on any F-18. I'm still not counting the R-172, with that Floggers would make Russian salad out of any Hornet.

O btw my mistake, I didn't mean the F-4, I meant the F-5 and F-104 Starfighter.

Uh, he's not the one flying the thing today, is he? No. The real people that actually count are what the drivers say and according to at least one SH pilot, he would rather fly it than any other bird out there. And by the way, I think your Russian missile is all crap....

Secondly, a souped up F-4E Phantom would get eaten alive by the new SH Block 2 and 3s. No competition there. It would literally be a game of how long the Phantom would survive. Or in your case, the Flogger. Eventually it would come to the same conclusion: both of them running straight into the ground.

**HistoricalDavid** · 22 Aug 06,, 12:08

Originally Posted by Captain Drunk

Now I think we could take Admiral Paul Gillcrist's verdict about the Super Hornet being a "big mistake" as the Bible truth on this whole Hornet analogy - he's an Admiral and a Test Pilot ranking higher than any other SH pilot. Judging his point of view, I think the Hornet's all crap.....

...What, and he's the only voice in the US Navy or what?

And remember - what's crap in the US Navy might be pretty good elsewhere...!

Secondly like the F-4Es, advanced MLDs fitted with Zhuk MEs and AA-12 Adder / HMS combo would have all the punch to take on any F-18. I'm still not counting the R-172, with that Floggers would make Russian salad out of any Hornet.

Since you've not answered previous points... I won't bother answering this one.

O btw my mistake, I didn't mean the F-4, I meant the F-5 and F-104 Starfighter.

Not much difference. Not only was the F-104 embarrassingly dangerous, there's no reason to say this cheap '60s interceptor would have a lower RCS than the Super Hornet, nor anywhere near it.

**leib10** · 22 Aug 06,, 18:54

You should see the accident/failure record for the F-104, especially in foreign hands. That plane might've been better off never going into service.

**Shadowsided** · 22 Aug 06,, 21:07

Originally Posted by Captain Drunk

Now I think we could take Admiral Paul Gillcrist's verdict about the Super Hornet being a "big mistake" as the Bible truth on this whole Hornet analogy - he's an Admiral and a Test Pilot ranking higher than any other SH pilot. Judging his point of view, I think the Hornet's all crap.....

Secondly like the F-4Es, advanced MLDs fitted with Zhuk MEs and AA-12 Adder / HMS combo would have all the punch to take on any F-18. I'm still not counting the R-172, with that Floggers would make Russian salad out of any Hornet.

O btw my mistake, I didn't mean the F-4, I meant the F-5 and F-104 Starfighter.

How many times do we have to explain it toyou a Superhornet with an AMRAAM/AESA combo would make A Big Mac out of that Flanker.

**The_Burning_Kid** · 22 Aug 06,, 22:05

Originally Posted by leibstandarte10

You should see the accident/failure record for the F-104, especially in foreign hands. That plane might've been better off never going into service.

Not one of Kelly Johnson's better designs. :(

**~~Captain Drunk~~** · 26 Aug 06,, 06:46

Originally Posted by The_Burning_Kid

Secondly, a souped up F-4E Phantom would get eaten alive by the new SH Block 2 and 3s. No competition there. It would literally be a game of how long the Phantom would survive. Or in your case, the Flogger. Eventually it would come to the same conclusion: both of them running straight into the ground.

“Generation” standards mean nothing, its all about upgraded fighter specs. Do you have any idea how potent a Luftwaffe’s F-4F/ICE would be? It was an upgraded F-4G "Advanced Wild Weasel," further advanced, with the F-18C’s original APG-65 radar, Litton RWRs, belly-mounted AIM-120s, etc. – the whole works. You think a Superhornet would be as dedicated as an F-4F in SEAD? No way. Pitted against an F-4F, an F-18 would not have the ability to chase toward or egress away from the Phantom. The F-4F would be circling it from afar and beating it up left, right and centre..........Foxbat-style

Originally Posted by HistoricalDavid

And remember - what's crap in the US Navy might be pretty good elsewhere...!

Perhaps, but your sluggish F-18 would be crap even if it were in the US Army

**The_Burning_Kid** · 26 Aug 06,, 15:31

Originally Posted by Captain Drunk

“Generation” standards mean nothing, its all about upgraded fighter specs. Do you have any idea how potent a Luftwaffe’s F-4F/ICE would be? It was an upgraded F-4G "Advanced Wild Weasel," further advanced, with the F-18C’s original APG-65 radar, Litton RWRs, belly-mounted AIM-120s, etc. – the whole works. You think a Superhornet would be as dedicated as an F-4F in SEAD? No way. Pitted against an F-4F, an F-18 would not have the ability to chase toward or egress away from the Phantom. The F-4F would be circling it from afar and beating it up left, right and centre..........Foxbat-style

Perhaps, but your sluggish F-18 would be crap even if it were in the US Army

Generation means a lot. A whole lot. And those F-4s are nothing compared to the F/A-18E/F who can merely track from far away and nail them with a couple of AIM-120Ds before they even notice. Those F-4s are Hornet meat, for all I care. And the F/A-18E/F, for the note, is superior to the F-4F considerings its superior avionics and radar. In the end, like I said: its going straight into the ground.

**GGTharos** · 04 Jan 07,, 23:36

Originally Posted by Captain Drunk

“Generation” standards mean nothing, its all about upgraded fighter specs. Do you have any idea how potent a Luftwaffe’s F-4F/ICE would be? It was an upgraded F-4G "Advanced Wild Weasel," further advanced, with the F-18C’s original APG-65 radar, Litton RWRs, belly-mounted AIM-120s, etc. – the whole works. You think a Superhornet would be as dedicated as an F-4F in SEAD? No way. Pitted against an F-4F, an F-18 would not have the ability to chase toward or egress away from the Phantom. The F-4F would be circling it from afar and beating it up left, right and centre..........Foxbat-style

Okay, well, I think you missed a few clues. Let me educate you, because you need it:

1. No incarnation of the F-4 actually has the endurance or speed to do anything resembling 'beating up the F-18 forxbat style'. Yes, it has a nice top speed. Top speed means little. I suggest you make an effort to understand fighter ranges and fuel consumption in various aspects of the fight or an egress before you become inclined to make such an uninformed statement again.
2. No incarnation of the F-4 will outdetect the F-18E/F. It is a low observable aircraft, and *will* see the F-4 before the F-4 sees it, and it -will- get the first shot.
3. The F/A-18 already had good built-in SEAD capability. The F/A-18E/F expands upon that capability where the F-4F needs upgrades to keep up.
4. The F/A-18E/F features so much system integration that employing weapons is much like playing a simulator in arcade mode. Does the F-4? (no)
5. The F/A-18E/F features built in ECM equipment and towed decoys that are actually pretty tough to match in quality and effectiveness. It is probably one of the few fighters where I haven't actually heard /any/ complains about the EW system.
6. An F-4's pilot who's trained for SEAD has little hope against an F/A-18 pilot trained in A2A. Yeah, seriously, it really, really, REALLY counts.
7. Get of the crack. No, really.

Perhaps, but your sluggish F-18 would be crap even if it were in the US Army

The F-18 is much more maneuverable than people give it credit for.

**SRB** · 05 Jan 07,, 00:07

Let talk in diferent direction, what would be if Mig-23 meet F-18 face to face in just gun duel? Starting range 10miles. Who would be the killer?
I want only facts.
P.S. I dont think Mig-23 would kill F-18 in modern war. Mig-23 isnt major export fighter in nowdays everybody wants MKI's, so ruskies dont want to upgrade Mig's electrics and engine it is major problem.

**wabpilot** · 05 Jan 07,, 01:12

Originally Posted by SRB

Let talk in diferent direction, what would be if Mig-23 meet F-18 face to face in just gun duel? Starting range 10miles. Who would be the killer?
I want only facts.

That used to be the standard ACM set up, only we would be turned inbound at 30 miles separation. The first to call Sparrow lock for ten seconds would win the engagement. If you change the rules to not allow a Sparrow lock, the first to radar gun lock would probably win. The caveat being that I do not think the MiG-23 has a radar mode that would allow a head on gun shot. Thus, every engagement would go to the F-18. Now, if you don't allow head shots of any variety, the win should go to the aircraft that carries the most energy through the engagement. The F-18 wins out because it has the higher corner speed. With no practical limit on AOA the F-18 will hold more energy throughout the engagement. The real challenge for an F-18 is some of the experimental Russian/late Soviet designs. They actually have a respectable corner speed.