Fixing the Fighter Gap

[FLYBOYJ]

Constant Peg

"That does not mean they could be written off. Far from it. "They performed very well for the state of technology they had," said Manclark."

Those were evaluators who flew the aircraft and after coming out of an F-15 or 16 and jumping into a MiG-23, I'd be scared of it as well!

 

[The Basket]

The convair 880 was a passenger plane.
.

You said US aviation industry

Interesting quote...I read that before about the Flogger being 3 different airplanes...

But he keeps it in the numbers...he isn't pushing...and that is where it goes...

The Constant peg drivers flew the Fishbed and Fresco with no big issues...

 

[FLYBOYJ]

You said US aviation industry

And it was obvious we were talking fighters, so I'll limit my comments as such. BTW, the 880 did well, technology got the jump on it however, but it was a decent aircraft, drank too much fuel, was a bit complicated and did not carry a lot of pasengers....

The Constant peg drivers flew the Fishbed and Fresco with no big issues...

As far as the article covered.

 

[Glider]

This thread will also be of interest. Ampng its participants are pilots who flew the Mig 23 in the USA as part of Consant Peg and a russian pilot who trained on it with Iraqi pilots
MiG-23MS - Performance Characteristics?

The long and the short of it was that the BN version was an excellent GA aircraft but no good as a dog fighter but later versions were a lot better. All versions had excellent acceleration and were easy to maintain with quick turn around times.

May I remind everyone that in combat it lost out to the F15 and F16 which is only to be expected but when it entered service it was mainly up against F104, F100, Mirage III and F5A in Nato. Against these aircraft the Mig 23 was a very real threat.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

This thread will also be of interest. Ampng its participants are pilots who flew the Mig 23 in the USA as part of Consant Peg and a russian pilot who trained on it with Iraqi pilots
MiG-23MS - Performance Characteristics?

The long and the short of it was that the BN version was an excellent GA aircraft but no good as a dog fighter but later versions were a lot better. All versions had excellent acceleration and were easy to maintain with quick turn around times.

May I remind everyone that in combat it lost out to the F15 and F16 which is only to be expected but when it entered service it was mainly up against F104, F100, Mirage III and F5A in Nato. Against these aircraft the Mig 23 was a very real threat.

Agree 100%

And great article!

 

[The Basket]

Disagree.

The Flogger was ten years late and when they finally got it to work it was obsolete.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Disagree.

The Flogger was ten years late and when they finally got it to work it was obsolete.

The first one flew in 1967, the MiG-23S entered service in 1970 and were still basically prototypes, the 23M came on line around 1972 and 1300 of those models were built and like many other Soviet fighters of the period, it was constantly modified, so when in the production do you get this "ten years late?"

 

[The Basket]

The F-4 phantom first flew in 1958.

And started to go operational 1960.

1967....for a prototype flight very late for a 3rd gen machine.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The F-4 phantom first flew in 1958.

And started to go operational 1960.

1967....for a prototype flight very late for a 3rd gen machine.

It depends on how much emphasis the operator (in that case the Soviet Union) was putting into the program. The MiG-21 was still being built and modified. The MiG-25 was also being produced along with other Soviet fighters. For example the Su-15 first flew in 1962 and didn't enter service until 1967. During that period, I don't see a 3 year development period unreasonable, especially when the MiG bureau departed from a basic design philosophy.

There was a lot of money and support behind the F-4 and early successes during testing accelerated its production, especially when two operators (The USAF and USN) wanted the aircraft.

 

[The Basket]

The Soviets may have not needed the Flogger operational in the same time frame as the F-4...

But the Egyptians and Vietnamese could have done nicely...

Another 1970s operational swing winger was the F-14 and it could eat any Flogger and flew only 3 years later.

All the jets Glider mentioned are all 1950s so difficult to compare.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The Soviets may have not needed the Flogger operational in the same time frame as the F-4...

Possibly, so that's more schedule induced than developmental

But the Egyptians and Vietnamese could have done nicely...

Agree, especially since the MiG-23 was more of an interceptor than dogfighter.

Another 1970s operational swing winger was the F-14 and it could eat any Flogger and flew only 3 years later.

True, but at the same time the F-14 has its developmental roots from the original TFX program, later VFX. Grumman had all kinds of developmental information and data that went back to 1967 at their Calverton LI facility. They (Grumman) knew the F-111B program was in trouble and eventually severed themselves from GD, although they built sub-assemblies for the F-111A

All the jets Glider mentioned are all 1950s so difficult to compare.

Points taken, but they were still at the "tip of the spear" and probably would have encountered MiG-23s if things heated up in the late 70s or early 80s. The last F-104s were built in 1979.

 

[Glider]

The Soviets may have not needed the Flogger operational in the same time frame as the F-4...

But the Egyptians and Vietnamese could have done nicely...

Another 1970s operational swing winger was the F-14 and it could eat any Flogger and flew only 3 years later.

All the jets Glider mentioned are all 1950s so difficult to compare.

All the Jets I mentioned were front line aircraft in Nato facing the Mig 23. Yes the later F4's in service when the Mig 23 arived were better than the Mig BUT MOST OF NATO DIDN'T FLY THE F4. Those that did tended to have a small number of F4 and a lot of F104/F5a/Mirage III.

The 1970's were a very dangerous period for Nato when the qualative gap between NATO and the Soviet Pact was close and they had the numbers. Until the F16 arrived in quantity around 1980, the Mig 23 was a major threat to NATO and could well have tipped the difference.

However the Mig 23 was not the dangerous aircraft to fly that you stated, neither was it ineffective or a sitting duck.

 

[The Basket]

The Flogger would depart from controlled flight very easily and had to be flown by the numbers.

Ask the Isrealis if the Flogger is a sitting duck.

The Warsaw pact Floggers were not the same as Soviet Floggers...they were downgrades.

A number NATO countries flew the Phantom...not forgetting our own Lightning.

I will have to do some reading when the 23 was available in numbers and the time frames.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The Flogger would depart from controlled flight very easily and had to be flown by the numbers.

That goes for a number of fighters including the F-104

Ask the Isrealis if the Flogger is a sitting duck.

As stated, the MiG-23 was more of an interceptor with some air-to-air capability. The MiG-23s that came up against the IAF were decimated (mainly from Syria) not only because of this, but they were up against better trained and better equipped foe who were flying F-15s.

The Warsaw pact Floggers were not the same as Soviet Floggers...they were downgrades.

Not by much - the Flogger B had different IFF, slightly weaker radar systems and no ECM. Aside from the electronics they were the same as the main Soviet models, the MiG-23M

 

[Glider]

The Flogger would depart from controlled flight very easily and had to be flown by the numbers.

As mentioned by FJ not unique in the West either.

Ask the Isrealis if the Flogger is a sitting duck.

Against an F15 or F16 it is, no one ever denied that. I suggest you ask the IAF how many they shot down with the Mirage or Dagger

The Warsaw pact Floggers were not the same as Soviet Floggers...they were downgrades.

Not by much, dont get them mixed up with the ones sent to the Middle East

A number NATO countries flew the Phantom...not forgetting our own Lightning.

As I said those that did had a small number of F4 and a lot of other types. During the 1970's
Greece 30 F4 which arrives with Mirage F1C in mid 70's. These replaced the F102 and the rest of the Air Force was F5/F104/RF84
Germany Unarmed RF4 and F104
Turkey 40 x F4E the rest of the airforce was F104
So the total Non US/UK NATO F4 excluding recce was 70 against 1,100 F104G, 172 F5A, 110 Mirage excluding France, approx 300 F100 [/QUOTE]

 

[parsifal]

An extremely intersting debate. I cant add much to the knowledge you guys are throwing around, but if I may I would just add my two cents worth.

My wife is Rusian, and has an uncle who served in the Soviet Frontal Aviation forces as a full colonel based in East Germany in the 1970s.

He says that the Soviets were keenly aware of the qualitative inferiority they wewre labouring under, but thought that the numbers advantages they enjoyed, coupled with the advantages of being on the attack, and the first strike advantage would give them at least a temporay superiority in any conflict. Soviet strategy was to strike hard and move quickly.

Interestingly, Soviet forces feared rotary wing formations, the American gunships in particular. They felt that they could neutralize and suppress most of the NATO airbases quite early but that the rotary formations could be very hard to suppress.

In a long term engagement, drawn out over a period of more than 30 days, the Warsaw Pact was not confident of victory.

All the NATO forces had to do was to hang in there and shoot down as many WP planes as possible.

Maybe none of this true, but I thought it might be interesting what the "other side of the hill" was thinking at the time you guys are discussing

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Great Info!

 

[Glider]

Parsifal
Interesting comment and with a lot of logic in it. The airbases were almost certain to get clobbered in the first hours and nearly all the 1970's aircraft needed a lot of tarmac to get off the ground.

 

[gjs238]

So with hindsight, perhaps the Army/Air Force bickering that resulted in the Army developing strong rotary wing formations helped prevent a Soviet invasion (?)

If the Air Force had concentrated more on tactical support as the Army wished (more like the WWII Luftwaffe), the Army would not have developed rotary wing formations as much as it had.

 

[parsifal]

Perhaps....thats all anyone could say.....one of the achilles heels for the NATO force structures was the relative immobilty of its fixed wing assets. Modern aircraft (of the seventies) were often tied to just a few airbases, because of differeing maintenance and spares issues. It would have been diffifult for example to move Italian F-104s to northern or central Germany in a hurry. I understand NATO did a lot of work on this commonality issue in the '80s and 90's. Australia has certainly given a lot of thought to the issue of mobility and commonality with our chief allies (which is really just the US now) to try and avoid this issue of not being able to redeploy quickly.

The US has also put a lot of effort into increasing the mobility and portability of its ground support echelons