Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 78

Thread: MiG-23MS and Mirage III/5

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    402

    MiG-23MS and Mirage III/5

    How do the 2 types compare ?
    they are both contemporaries and have similar weight/thrust and missile armaments

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    ShangHai
    Posts
    559
    MiG-23 series significantly heavier than Mirage III/5/50 even Mirage IIIF and Mirage IIING. MiG-23 also powered over 10 ton thrust compare to Mirage III series never beyond 8 ton until some Mirage IIIF retrofitted by RD-33.
    Only armaments their are similar.
    The truth usually between two extremes, the key is when and where.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    173
    Quote Originally Posted by emile View Post
    MiG-23 series significantly heavier than Mirage III/5/50 even Mirage IIIF and Mirage IIING. MiG-23 also powered over 10 ton thrust compare to Mirage III series never beyond 8 ton until some Mirage IIIF retrofitted by RD-33.
    Only armaments their are similar.
    What is a "Mirage IIIF ?...

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    4,919
    F for fantasy. Emile gets caught up in those websites that makeup stuff and confuses it for reality.
    Go Huskers!

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,636
    I think it is perhaps a stretch to call the Mirage III and Mig 23 contemporaries.

    Operational dates:
    Mirage III - 1961
    Mirage IIIE - 1964
    Mirage 5 - 1967

    Mig 23 - 1970
    Mig 23MS - 1973

    The Mig 23MS was only operational from 1974 in the Middle East.

    That's basically a decades difference, in a time when aviation was forging ahead in leaps and bounds rapidly.

    The Mirage is far closer in date and is far more analogous with the Mig-21.

    The fact that the Mirage III platform is still gainfully employed almost 60 years from it's introduction (including in vastly reworked, rebuilt, and updated form) speaks volumes about how Marcel Dassault got that design neatly balanced and just right.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    ShangHai
    Posts
    559
    Mirage F-1 also called Mirage IIIF.
    The truth usually between two extremes, the key is when and where.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,636
    Quote Originally Posted by emile View Post
    Mirage F-1 also called Mirage IIIF.

    That is the first I've ever heard that.

    Are you sure?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    173
    Quote Originally Posted by emile View Post
    Mirage F-1 also called Mirage IIIF.
    Mirage IIIF was the designation for the P&W TF-106 powered swept wing two-seater project. Indeed just one was build, Mirage F-2 01
    (flew with TF-30) was at first sometime called IIIF-2.

    But never heard of the Mirage F-1 being called IIIF .
    Anyway the original question was about Mirage III/5. Different birds.
    Yes MiG-23MS had more power and was from a generation later. But the MS was first export version, still had the old Jay-Bird radar and only R-13s missiles i think... so so.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    622
    Sorry, I was just doing simple answer, and without any interesting for presentation of deep story.
    Je pense, donc je suis.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    4,919
    Franc = Nastle? The last comment seems to imply it.
    Go Huskers!

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    622
    Actually I posted a long story about the history of Mirage F series, however I erased all of them remained only single sentence. If we do it simple, then the Mirage F series is a branch of original Mirarage III. It's not quite exactly but roughly right.
    Je pense, donc je suis.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    402
    Quote Originally Posted by emile View Post
    MiG-23 series significantly heavier than Mirage III/5/50 even Mirage IIIF and Mirage IIING. MiG-23 also powered over 10 ton thrust compare to Mirage III series never beyond 8 ton until some Mirage IIIF retrofitted by RD-33.
    Only armaments their are similar.
    How do they compare in
    speed
    range
    manoverabiliy and weapon options

    I think they are vey comparable and in pilots of equal combat capability quite similar

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    340
    Quote Originally Posted by nastle View Post
    How do they compare in
    speed
    range
    manoverabiliy and weapon options

    I think they are vey comparable and in pilots of equal combat capability quite similar
    The flaw in reading performance characteristics is that they only tell part of the story. I think you will find that although the performance figures of these two aircraft are quite similiar, the actual capabilty of the MIII/V is likely better in most regards. The 23 has blinding acceleration and max speed, but more limited dogfighting maneuverability. The edge in avionics goes to the Mirage. Max speed is important, but not as decisive as some think.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Limousin France
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by sandiego89 View Post
    The flaw in reading performance characteristics is that they only tell part of the story. I think you will find that although the performance figures of these two aircraft are quite similiar, the actual capabilty of the MIII/V is likely better in most regards. The 23 has blinding acceleration and max speed, but more limited dogfighting maneuverability. The edge in avionics goes to the Mirage. Max speed is important, but not as decisive as some think.
    as proven in the Falklands when Mirage 111 & 5 lost out to Sea-Harriers However Mirage 111 DNA is still very much around today in Kfir Blk60 which proves what a good design it was
    Last edited by Tempest414; 29th January 2014 at 11:59.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    San Francisco, USA
    Posts
    864
    Cuban MiG-23 pilots did alright against South African Mirages.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    340
    Quote Originally Posted by Multirole View Post
    Cuban MiG-23 pilots did alright against South African Mirages.
    Well, not so sure doing "alright" is saying much. The claims by both sides are likely exagerated. Seems the SAAF was not overly concerned about the MiG 23 and even put their F1 out there.

    A good analysis of the conflicts, and specifics of the MiG 23's and the MIII and F1 is here: http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_184.shtml

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    8,273
    Yeah Mirage IIIF......never heard of that one.

    The comparison of MiG-23MS and Mirage III is only slightly valid due to the limited nature of the avionics and missile armament on the MS (I.e. Jay Bird & R-13). Outside of that they are in different leagues. This is not to say that later Mirage IIIE's with Magic missiles couldn't pose a threat to the Flogger, but the comparison that makes more sense is MiG-21/Mirage III & MiG-23/Mirage F-1...
    Fox-4!

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    San Francisco, USA
    Posts
    864
    From what I understand the South African F-1s were inferior to the MiG-23 in radar and missiles due to the arms embargo against South Africa. F-1 also had inferior acceleration which reflected the lack of success the Iraqis had using it against Iranian F-14 compared to the MiG-23. The F-1 should be a better air superiority fighter with the right avionics and weapons, but with half the thrust it could not be the rough field capable pure interceptor the MiG was designed to be.
    pb::

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    8,273
    with half the thrust it could not be the rough field capable pure interceptor the MiG was designed to be.

    Based on that comment I have to ask.......have you ever flown off of a rough surface in an airplane?

    (In case I'm not clear, the fact that the MiG has far more power doesn't have anything to do with it being designed for operation from rough surfaces.)
    Fox-4!

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    San Francisco, USA
    Posts
    864
    Quote Originally Posted by PhantomII View Post
    with half the thrust it could not be the rough field capable pure interceptor the MiG was designed to be.

    Based on that comment I have to ask.......have you ever flown off of a rough surface in an airplane?

    (In case I'm not clear, the fact that the MiG has far more power doesn't have anything to do with it being designed for operation from rough surfaces.)
    No I have not. What I meant was the Flogger is a fast accelerating interceptor with a lot of thrust, and it's not optimized for maneuvering. But unlike previous Soviet interceptors the MiG-23 has rough field capability with it's VG wings and very robust landing gears.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    538
    Quote Originally Posted by Multirole View Post
    Cuban MiG-23 pilots did alright against South African Mirages.
    Cuban MiGs were more advanced variants. MiG-23MS was pretty terrible fighter. It was MiG-21 avionics in 2 times more expensive and much more complicated airframe.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    303
    Quote Originally Posted by Tempest414 View Post
    as proven in the Falklands when Mirage 111 & 5 lost out to Sea-Harriers However Mirage 111 DNA is still very much around today in Kfir Blk60 which proves what a good design it was
    When exactly did they loose against the Sea Harrier ? As i remember it, the British fleet was placed out of their effective range (probably for a reason)

    Is there something i don't know ?

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Limousin France
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by pegon View Post
    When exactly did they loose against the Sea Harrier ? As i remember it, the British fleet was placed out of their effective range (probably for a reason)

    Is there something i don't know ?
    think what you are missing is The Sea Harrier squadrons shot down 20 Argentine aircraft in air-to-air combat with no air-to-air losses, and some of these were Mirage 111 & 5 including the first kill of the war

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    340
    Quote Originally Posted by pegon View Post
    When exactly did they loose against the Sea Harrier ? As i remember it, the British fleet was placed out of their effective range (probably for a reason)

    Is there something i don't know ?
    Exactly, around 10 MIII/Daggers were lost to Sea Harriers, with zero Sea Harriers lost in air to air combat. This show that the higher listed speed of the MIII/Dagger was not a decisive factor in the Falklands engagments, and that top speed in general is not always the most important consideration in comparing aircraft- like the MiG 23.

    Tactics, intel on launch times, range and the AIM9-L helped the Sea Harriers.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    8,931
    Two factors:
    AIM-9L frontal aspect AAM for the SHar vs Shafrir (AIM-9B) for the Mirage III
    Mirages operating on the edge of their effective range with little or no fuel for maneuvring

    It's easy to shoot down an enemy who is only disengaging and not fighting back.
    That doesn't make the SHar a better fighter. By far not.
    Last edited by MSphere; 31st January 2014 at 19:58.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    .de
    Posts
    2,682
    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    Two factors:
    AIM-9L frontal aspect AAM for the SHar vs Shafrir (AIM-9B) for the Mirage III
    Mirages operating on the edge of their effective range with little or no fuel for maneuvring

    It's easy to shoot down an enemy who is only disengaging and not fighting back.
    That doesn't make the SHar a better fighter. By far not.
    More or less true - the AIM-9L missile was the best out there at the time - although I don't think many AIM-9Ls were fired from the frontal aspect, or were they?

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    long island ny
    Posts
    10