Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 61 to 78 of 78

Thread: MiG-23MS and Mirage III/5

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    574
    Quote Originally Posted by swerve View Post
    I find it interesting that as far as I can discover, all the Syrian pilots who are claimed to have shot down Israeli F-16s in 1982 were themselves shot down immediately after their claimed kills.

    Given the history of information management under Hafez Assad & his son, I place much more trust in Israeli accounts of their own losses than Syrian accounts of Israeli losses.
    Such a thing is not unique to Syrians, reading up about WW2 aerial combat, I've read of several cases where fallen pilots had their achievments 'embellished' post-mortem, possibly by their squadron mates, perhaps out of respect to dead comrade.

    With regard of trustfulness of Israeli loss records, I have no reason to doubt about their reliability, but I have noted that many air forces, which by history buffs and researchers alike are viewed as "trustworthy" in their reporting, have been found guilty to "statistical polishing" upon close examination.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Cemetery Junction
    Posts
    13,549
    Indeed. Aircraft are recorded as damaged if they got back to base, even if written off subsequently, for instance, & I think the attribution of losses to particular causes is often suspect, with a tendency to put it down as AA or SAMs or mechanical failure if there's any uncertainty.

    The Israelis aren't the most open with their own losses, but I see no reason to doubt their overall figures, only some of the causes they state. I think it likely that some they put down to SAMs are probably air-air. They're probably not very guilty of the damaged/written off twist, because they've tended to rebuild damaged aircraft wherever possible.

    Sens made a good point some time back, though. A damaged aircraft which needs major repairs may not be a complete kill, but it's certainly a temporary one. It's removed from the battle, & consumes resources to get it back in.

    I think it's usually wise to trust the side which lost the aircraft more than the side which shot it down. Air forces know when they lose an aircraft, & mostly have a good idea of where & how. It's much easier for the side which shot it down to make an honest mistake. In some forces, e.g. the Soviet contingent in Korea, some pilots have reported (when they could, after glasnost) that they didn't trust their own official tallies. 'Kills' included aircraft they'd reported as probables, or even having just shot at. IIRC Pepelyaev said he was sure of about 12 of his 19 'confirmed' kills - but admitted that he'd not seen the majority of those totally destroyed.
    Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
    Justinian

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    305
    Quote Originally Posted by pegon View Post
    No question that the British planning and execution was superior to the Argentine. My protest was merely to point out that it had nothing to do with the Mirage as such.
    http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.ph...1/Sea_Harriers

    Aussie Mirage pilots proved Mirage III's superiority .

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Luxembourg
    Posts
    2,250
    Three zombie threads resurrected in recent days, each time you are rather keen to "prove" British kit, developments or similar are inferior to others. Interesting.

    Of course on paper the Mirage III has superior air to air characteristics to the Sea Harrier FRS1.
    BVR capability, higher speed, better manoeuvrability at combat speeds.

    However conditions in combat are often not optimal.

    Your obviously also not aware of the testing the RN undertook against AdlA Mirage III's whilst the Falklands task force was sailing south.
    The RN pilot reported that the Sea Harrier did not stand a chance.

    Reality, due to the conditions over the Falklands proved a little different.
    The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
    Bertrand Russell

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    8,983
    .... with Mirages operating on the very threshold of their range being the primary reason, methinks..

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Luxembourg
    Posts
    2,250
    Absolutely, well that and a lack of training, lack of functioning / viable bvr missile system and restrictive tactics.
    The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
    Bertrand Russell

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    305
    Quote Originally Posted by snafu352 View Post
    Three zombie threads resurrected in recent days, each time you are rather keen to "prove" British kit, developments or similar are inferior to others. Interesting.
    Sorry mate . I missed your babble but you are right I seem to have ignored the cardinal rule in this forum, The British kit is always superior..

    I consider myself lucky as I am still allowed to voice opinions but hey I am big Eurofighter Typhoon fan !! how about that ? no joke real ...

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Luxembourg
    Posts
    2,250
    Oh dear. Somebody called you on your not very subtle agenda and you are upset.

    Pray tell where exactly I have made a claim Brit kit is superior?

    Your lack of objectivity allowed you to overlook the words in my first post that said:
    "Of course on paper the Mirage III has superior air to air characteristics to the Sea Harrier FRS1.
    BVR capability, higher speed, better manoeuvrability at combat speeds."
    The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
    Bertrand Russell

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    12,272
    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    .... with Mirages operating on the very threshold of their range being the primary reason, methinks..
    Even without AB the SH had the better thrust ratio compared to the Mirage at low to medium altitudes.

    Not to forget, that the AIM-9L was a game change as well.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Cemetery Junction
    Posts
    13,549
    AIM-9L could have been a game changer . . . . but IIRC all that hit were fired from within the envelope of the older Sidewinders already in stock.
    Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
    Justinian

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,639
    Quote Originally Posted by swerve View Post
    AIM-9L could have been a game changer . . . . but IIRC all that hit were fired from within the envelope of the older Sidewinders already in stock.
    Better ak to Pete COllins? (he was part o that war and also drved mirage V)

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Luxembourg
    Posts
    2,250
    I also believe I've read that all Sea Harrier Falklands Sidewinder kills were obtained within parameters that would have fit those required for the AIM-9G version.
    The rational being that those were the launch parameters the RN pilots had trained to recognise.
    The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
    Bertrand Russell

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,670
    MiG-23 was the sum up of all the 3gen "improvements" gone wrong.
    Shifting focus from flight parameters increase (as they were reached with 2nd gen) to avionics.
    BVR fighting.
    Variable geometry wings.

    Still most of their shortcoming were exacerbated by the wrong doctrine they were designed and employed.
    At this regard I found repeated a completely wrong statement: MiG-23 proved, expecially with ML versions a very maneuvrable aircraft, superior on that regard to the same MiG-21, just they were not employed like such until the eighties, when the Mig-29 was about to enter service.
    Monkey model politics incided in its own career much more than any other soviet aircraft: as it was, like others 3gen, designed about avionic suite, crippling it precisely on that sector was much more impacting than doing the same on , let's say, Mig-21 or Su-22.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    517
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcellogo View Post
    MiG-23 was the sum up of all the 3gen "improvements" gone wrong.
    Shifting focus from flight parameters increase (as they were reached with 2nd gen) to avionics.
    BVR fighting.
    Variable geometry wings.

    Still most of their shortcoming were exacerbated by the wrong doctrine they were designed and employed.
    At this regard I found repeated a completely wrong statement: MiG-23 proved, expecially with ML versions a very maneuvrable aircraft, superior on that regard to the same MiG-21, just they were not employed like such until the eighties, when the Mig-29 was about to enter service.
    Monkey model politics incided in its own career much more than any other soviet aircraft: as it was, like others 3gen, designed about avionic suite, crippling it precisely on that sector was much more impacting than doing the same on , let's say, Mig-21 or Su-22.
    I have found out your comments quite interesting, just in case if you have not seen this old thread about the MiG 23 and MiG 21, you may find the same Thread interesting too:

    http://forum.keypublishing.com/showt...t=#post2137013

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    426
    Quote Originally Posted by PhantomII View Post
    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...
    That's why I think the comparison of Mirage III/5 and Mig-23MS is more valid as
    They have roughly similar A2A weapon systems
    They have similar avionics
    A2G weapons I think Mirage is superior to Mig-23MS
    And aerodynamically and their flying characteristics they need to be compared , any input there is truly appreciated

    Mirage F1 and MiG-23ML/MLD are kind of similar but that's a separate discussion

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    12,272
    Quote Originally Posted by swerve View Post
    AIM-9L could have been a game changer . . . . but IIRC all that hit were fired from within the envelope of the older Sidewinders already in stock.
    .. in doing so the older Sidewinders could fail, when the Lima did not.

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    108
    Was AIM-9L more or less reliable than AIM-9G?

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    426
    I would like the opinion of other members to this

    The comparison of Mirage III/5 and Mig-23MS is more valid as
    They have roughly similar A2A weapon systems
    They have similar avionics
    A2G weapons I think Mirage is superior to Mig-23MS
    And aerodynamically and their flying characteristics they need to be compared , any input there is truly appreciated

    Mirage F1 and MiG-23ML/MLD are kind of similar but that's a separate discussion

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

 

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES