Open main menu
Archive 1


MiG-23 shot down Israeli A-4 and F-4 aircrafts?

I have no recollection of such kills. MiG-23s weren't in Syrian nor Egyptian service during the 1973 war. And there were no Israeli aircrafts shot down by Syrian aircrafts in the 1982 war (actually the Air-to-Air kill ratio was 82:0 for Israel). Cheers, Eranb 18:23, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Or so you have been told.

What are you saying about? I shot down at least 3 Israeli aircraft in 1973. In that time Mig-23 was superior to any aircraft in Israel army.

^^ Unfortunately your recollection, plus your lack of name or signature don't do anything to confirm this. Myself, I've also seen reports IDF/AF losses in 1973 of F-15s crashing in Beqaa in 1982 with the catalysts being strongly believed to have been damage inflicted from Syrian aircraft but unfortunatly since I no longer work with the government here, I no longer have access to these materials. I do not buy for a second that the IDF didn't lose any aircraft in the 1982 war since the IDF proved to be just as misleading and dubious as the Syrian state media and it has been a common practice (by both Governments and manufacturers) to attribute aircraft loses in combat to "mechanical failure" or "pilot error".(Bobbo9000 06:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC))

It's not that simple!

The MiG-23's combat performance in conflicts with Israeli and U.S. pilots was generally poor. Against the F-14, F-15, and F-16, it was picked from the sky in large numbers without inflicting any losses in return. Pilot skill was a considerable factor, but despite its positive attributes (including impressive acceleration and straight-line speed), the 'Flogger's' poor visibility, limited maneuverability, and outdated avionics rendered it a non-starter against more advanced Western aircraft.

Well, what you don't know is: There were three versions of the Mig-23:

A., soviet domestic use (full-extra, so to say) B., WARPAC allies use (Mig-23MF, full-extra, minus some strictly PVO-only IFF equipment) C., Export variant (called MiG-23B)

The arabs were only given the MiG-23B, which was an entirely dumbed down version. It did not have the radar illumination detection and automatic ECM package. It did not have the coded data radio system, an automatic intercept instruction set, which the ground control used to vector the planes to meet the enemy. Its large radome was essentially empty, because it had the Mig-21SMT's tiny radar in it (with a range of 19 kilometers). The arab pilots had to rely on their bare eyes mostly, when fighting the jewish pilots.

No kidding, the MiG-23B was a totally faux warplane, a mere eye candy. The soviets never trusted the arabs, or supported them whole-heartedly, because the arab regimes were nationalistic (pan-arabic) in nature, not communist or socialist.

In contrast the original Mig-23 had a big radar dish with the range of 80km and a very wide sweep, because it could be rotated by hand override slightly beyond 90 degrees, to "look back". It was so capable, some former WARPAC countries considered using the Mig-23 as a "mini-AWACS" during the early 1990's (which was not possible due to high cost of operation versus in the given economic situation).

The main armament, the R-24/AA-7 missiles, made little sense on a Mig-23B, where the radar was not up to the task. Without the BVR missile type AA-7, the Mig-23 was forced into dogfigt for which it was not designed and got slaughtered.

Add to that the fact that arab pilots were very bad fliers, because only the rich and influential families could send their children to be pilots. Talent did not matter, just corruption and clan links, there is still very pronounced contra-selection. E.g. in the late 90's arab pilots regularly needed 200 training flights in Russia to convert them to the MiG-29 and let them fly the single-seater version, while ex-WARPAC pilots were let go alone after 30 to 40 two-seater flight.

WARPAC pilots flying soviet-grade MiG-23 would definitely fare much better against the IAF.

BTW, there are only twop confirmed kills by Mig-23: a Mirage F1 was downed over Angola in 1988 plus one F-16 killed near the Afghani-Pakistan border in 1986, which was hit by an 500 pounder gravity bomb dropped from a soviet MiG-23 on a fighter-bomber mission against the mujahideen. The latter one is probably the strangest aerial victory of all time.

There is no confirmation of either. Angola incident resulted to one Mirage being hit by R-60, but the aircraft was not written off. I've heard rumours of MiG-23MLD downing a Paki F-16, but no evidence of this has ever surfaced.

MiG-23 did probably claim some air victories in Iran-Iraq war, though. --Mikoyan21 17:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

They certainly did. A soviet MiG-23M shot down two iranian CH-74C helicopters 21 june 1978. Pilot Valery I. Shkinder shot down one with two R-60 AAMs and the other with gunfire. The helo hit by gunfire made an emergency landing in soviet territory where the crew was captured by soviet border guards. The Soviet Union later allowed the iranians to repair and recover that helo. On 28 september 1988 soviet MiG-23MLDs shot down two iranian AH-1 helicopters over Afghanistan using R-24 missiles. So the VVS scored four kills with the MiG-23. Both syrian and iraqi MiG-23s have scored confirmed kills. There are much more info on this over at

That South African Mirage was written off from what I have read. In the Israeli-Syrian air battles, the Syrians and Soviets claimed that 12 aircraft were shot down by the MiG-23. Also the Israelis had the advantage of having mini-AWACS (E-2C Hawkeye) to help their fighters detect the Syrians (while the Syrian radars and communications were jammed in the battle area - Bekaa Valley).

Several South Africans claim that although Mirage was damaged, it was not written off. I found a picture of that Mirage from a forum here.. Btw, where from exactly comes the claim that MiG-21 has shot down F-16? --Mikoyan21 12:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Add-on: Okay, I digged up a bit: it seems that rear fuselage of Mirage F.1CZ "206" which was damaged by R-23 or R-60 missile, was used to repair "205" which was damaged in a crash couple of years before. So I guess whether or not one considers it as a "total loss" is a matter of viewpoint. --Mikoyan21 13:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

They just saved a few parts of the F-1 here is the story:

Rewrite complete

Okay, I've done a major rewrite and adding information. Feel free to correct any mistakes etc. As for the combat service - please don't add potential air victory incidents unless there is at least vaguely semi-reliable source for it. --Mikoyan21 12:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Just a clarification: Afghanistan and Vietnam has never been users of the MiG-23. However, there were soviet MiG-23s based in both contries, which may explain such assumtions. 10:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Article needs a lot of work

The grammar in the Service Career section of this article quite frankly stinks. I had a go at fixing a bit up, but I only got the first 2 paragraphs - there's just too much to work on.

Also, there a many claims made that are not backed up. Almost every sentence in this section requires citations!

I am trying to clean up this article. It is a mess. Much of it is crap. Am attempting to fix.-- 22:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I see some new stuff recently. Very good and interesting to include the Russian POV (one that is usually simply squelched by Western sources), but the inclusion is haphazard. I'd like to fix it but some of it is so bad that it is interfering with the readability, not just the appearance and apparent quality of the article. Kazuaki Shimazaki 01:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I keep trying to fix this damn article and somebody keeps changing it. Either it is a five- year old who is trying to turn this into some book report, or it is someone who does not speak English as a first language. Have you ever heard of periods! For god sakes leave the article alone!-- 12:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't put in the article phrases such as "Its important to note" or "Lets remember", this is not some term paper!-- 12:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC) stop wrecking this aritcle!

Do you know anything about the Mig-23? I flew the Mig-23 for five years with the Polish Air Force (1981-1986). Let me tell you about Russian claims, THEY ARE FALSE! I was there during the 1982 war with Israel. I flew as an adivsor to the Syrian Air Force with the 675th Squadron. That squadron took 50% losses.

All the Russian claims are untrue. We did not down one Israeli. Trust me, if we did we would of been happy. I flew the Mig-21 for three years and it was a wonderful aircraft. The Mig-23 was garbage. It was very complex to fly. And it was almost never mission ready. Its radar was always going out, and it was very hard to fly in formation. Also it had limited visiblity. It really was a poor aircraft.

If you are no going to write properly with correct grammer than stay away form this article!-- 16:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Unlike this joker who keeps changing this I have a job and don't have time to mess with it. The article looks like shit. Let it stay that way. By the way, learn how to write with periods!-- 18:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

If nothing else, you are doing the literary quality of the article no favors, By constantly forcing him to rebuild the article manually and in haste, the low readability of the article quickly falls to zero.
He is trying to accomodate your views, I believe, from the way his versions of the article subtly alters over time. Your first pass seems to be an edit, but from your second pass onwards, you are mostly just squelching stuff.
Back to 216 - since your view is really no different from the stereotypical Western/Israeli POV, it really needs no more elaboration. Besides, on a disputed point, a person with personal experience can probably better advance his cause by making a webpage that we can link to rather than try to directly write stuff on WP - freebie website providers are everywhere... Kazuaki Shimazaki 01:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not wrecking the article, it makes me laugh how scared many of you are, i already gave you a link in Russian read it and you will find the claims, search in or about the MiG-23 combat record several Russian books say the same, it is not the grammar what bothers here, but what really bothers many people here is the Idea that the Western sources are not correct, i am not biased but i am just simply letting people know the Russian claims and their version it is better than just claim the West is free and never lies.

Both versions deserved to be known because i have never seen 80 pictures of wreckages and in fact i have seen only a picture of a Kfir C2 shot down allegedly killed by ground fire over lebanon in 1982, a picture of a Syrian MiG-21 on an F-15`s head up display, two good MiG-23 wreckages proving the Israeli version besides film footage of six unidentified Syrian aircraft being shot down over the Bekka Valley in 1982. (MiG-23MF) 10:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

221, I sugest you use the footnotes to precisely delineate which of the kill claims have been mentioned by your sources. As you know, most of us here don't read Russian, and some of your pages seem to be in transliterated Russian which means we can't even throw them into Babelfish. And sign your posts with 4 tildes. Thank you. Kazuaki Shimazaki 00:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I will do, Yoroshiku Onegaishimas, you can read them if you get the Russian english dictionary at, if you read more articles you will notice that while many accept that a Mirage F1 could have shot down F-14s, they won`t acknowledge a Russian aircraft doing the same, in the other hand the israelies have proven their kills a little bit more than the Syrians or Russians, however some MiG-23 kills are called fraticide or crash landing, if a R-60 hits an Mirage F1 and prompts a total loss they called accident even if they have the picture, an interesting aspect of this is in reality you can find a handful of pictures proving air to air losses or showing proof of the 80 so called Israeli kills of Syrian aircraft too, you will see some of MiG-21 but not many. The Pakistani F-16s lost that was called fraticed first was called kill but later was rechanted as fraticide, this was not in case of the Russians who call it kill 10:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Why would I be scared?
I have flown over 5,000 hours, dodged Israeli missiles, and had secret police watching me have my life. What would I be scared of?
Why should we trust Russian sources over Western ones?
You say I have a Western POV but all I see from you is the Russian POV. DO you trust the Russians? Try having them control your country for years and then tell me how much you trust them.
When I was a child in Poland the Russians told us many things, most false. When I was in the Polish Air Force our 'overlords' the Russians told us all these claims about the Migs.. I was not allowed at that time to talk about what I saw in the 1982 War. The Milicja (Poland's KGB) told me they would arrest me and my family if I told about the losses the Syrians suffered.
I am taking out the reference to Belarus operating Mig-23s. All their Mig-23s were put in storage a few years ago. You can even find that in the August 2006 Issue of Air Forces Monthly. Also most of the Migs operated by many of these countries have not flown for years. The Turkmen Air Force has not flown the Mig-23 in years. Nambia has never flown the Mig-23. Kazakhstan does not fly the Mig-23. Most of the Mig-23s listed by most countries do not fly. Only India, Syria, Alegria and North Korea have numbers of Mig-23 that are flying. I do not have the time to correct all the errors, so I will fix some.
Also a chat forum is not a good source.
As a sidenote, during my air force years I flew the Mig-15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 29, Su-7 & Su-22, Yak-18, Ts-11 and An-2. The best was the Mig-21bis. The worst was the Mig-23. I have 652 hours in that plane. 2 of it combat hours. It was the worst plane I have ever flown in all my years. It was also the only plane I ever ejected out of. 19:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello, my friend, i do respect your opinions, however your personal opinion about an aircraft is not a generalized one or sustained all around the world, second you have not proved you are who you are, usually Russian veterans have forums were they post their pictures, one is and there are other aviation forums which are full of old pictures with pilots and their aircraft during the cold war years, if you prove that you were in Syria in 1982 with pictures well i would not doubt who you are.
Now we are in 2006 so you have no persecution in Poland, if you have pictorial evidence well make a webpage and linked to this article, believe me your webpage will be quit important because there is scarcity of pictorial material about the Bekka Valley air combats.
I have three webpages that make me think Belarus has MiG-23, to tell you the true i do not know up to what degree these are totally accurate and updated.
one is in it you will find the claims that Belarus has MiG-23 operational other is, if you want to see Belarrussian MiG-23s in an air show in 2006 at the Baranovichi air field click here
About Kasakhstan or Turkmenistan their air forces have few forth generation combat aircraft but i will be utterly honest i do not trust Western webpages and publications when they talk about Russian aircraft, the reasons are first few have access to good Russian aircraft pictures, second always belittle Russian aviation and many times are wrong and third their view about the Russians or their aircraft is highly political and i am not interested in politics.
regards221.36.19.28 23:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Please observe WP:V and WP:RS in editing this article. The "comparisons" part, in particular, seems full of original research. I will trim out some of the more egregious claims. --Mmx1 23:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Probably the part that bothers many here in the comparissons part is the Idea the MiG-23 might surpass some Western fighters. these claims are correct, i can give you the MiG-23 manual in Russian of course read it and you will find that the MiG-23 is not as bad as many in the West believe, this is more less what many think it`s right: MiG-23 weaponry was inferior to the one arming the F-4, its agility inferior to that of the F-4, its combat record inferior the worst, in few words the MiG-23 was crap. MiG-23 combat record 0:150 never has shot down an enemy fighter.

This idea is an stereotype, the MiG-23 is not the best fighter niether the worst. It did achieve kills, it was more less in the class of the F-4, nobody mentions the terrible fact that more than 700 F-4Es were shot down or destroyed in the ground, nobody mentionss the F-4 has an overload G limit of 7.3Gs, and the MiG-23ML has an overload G limit of 8.5Gs nodody recalls the F-16 lacked BVR combat capability from the 1970s to the early 1990s. Nobody is forcing you to believe the Russians, simply to know what Cubans, Russians, and Arab claimed. The MiG-23 was a very fast aircraft even armed with a pair of R-23s. If you do some reseach in Russian webpages you will find more information available thatn is usually posted in many places remeber the MiG-23 is a Russian aircraft and as such technically speaking they know more than any one else, they knew the MiG-23 good qualities and its short comings 01:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

700 F-4E's did you say? Out of 1300+ F-4E models produced, atleast 900 were owned by the USAF. And another thing, a Royal Australian Air Force F-4E (Phantoms were leased from the Americans in the early 1970's by the RAAF due to the delays of the F-111 program) pulled 10 G's and survived. Cat Balou 10:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
These are the same Russians, I presume, who nicknamed it "Cheburashka" after the clumsy cartoon character who fell a lot (in reference to a high accident rate). Like you said, Russians know best Burninate! 03:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Isn't that a positive point towards the acceptance of Russian sources, rather than a negative? The negative comments about the MiG-23's unreliability, IIRC, have also been integrated into the current article. Kazuaki Shimazaki 05:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
What you fail to grasp apparently is the difference between presenting objective information and letting reader draw educated conclusions and feeding them your point of view. You are doing the latter, it does not belong on Wikipedia, and it will be edited out. - Emt147 Burninate! 03:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
The objective information is that the Israelis claimed one thing. The Russians claimed another. This is what is being presented. Kazuaki Shimazaki 05:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


This article is badly in need of copyediting for neutrality. The entire performance section is half unreferenced and half fanboyish. No point in doing it now since there is an edit war going on between anonymous users but once the article is stable it will need a lot of work to turn it into English language and NPOV. - Emt147 Burninate! 03:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

You want to present something like an innocent claim i will tell you what can happen and what many want , one is you get the typical Western version of the MiG-23 and you get once more the crappy biased version where only the Western aircraft are better or you accept the Russian sources which claim facts about their aircraft i am neutral, what bothers you is the Idea the MiG-23 is going out of the western stereotype as an sluggish aircraft, primitive, bad armed that nerver surpassed any other aircraft specially Western and was shot down as sitting ducks. I will ask you give me the sustained turn rates of the F-15, F-4 and their acceleration and speed with weapons and i give you the manual i can send it by email to you you translate i compare it
Read Russian sources and you will find other idea and concept of the plane221.36.19.28 03:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd bite. Send the manual to I do have a maneuverability diagrammatic of the F-16 I can offer in exchange. Kazuaki Shimazaki 04:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
The article is neutral because never says the MiG-23 was never surpassed or never was shot down or gives only the Russian version what you really want is keep the stereotype221.36.19.28 03:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
And how do you know those figures are accurate? --Mmx1 03:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
May I suggest you register, You seem to be writing quite a bit. Kazuaki Shimazaki 03:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Get the manual, there is an online version in or i can send it to you via email, see this small fact usually the MiG-23 was a better interceptor that it is compared usually to the F-15 and F-16 which are fourth generation aircraft as the MiG-29, when in reality the MiG-23 should be compared to the F-4 and Mirage F-1, there is a very good russian book named "MiG-23, Mirage F1 and Viggen", you can get it online, also see that the Kfir and F-4 in the Bekka valley were not fighters but attack aircraft and the reason is because the MiG-23 could only be outfight with F-15s and F-16s. 04:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I am finding many interesting articles in your provided site, but even if the site was in English, I think I will have trouble finding the manual. Please E-mail it to me if you have it. Either that or give me a direct hotlink to the PDF. Please and thank you. It'd also serve Verifiability some good. Kazuaki Shimazaki 05:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

No one mention if the kfir. Mirage III fought other aircraft or the F-4 fought MiGs, and many sources claim that the fight was fought with short range missiles basicly R-60 and Python III, few sources in the West mention the IRST system the MiG-23 had. 04:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC) Many forget the good qualities Russian equipment have The MiG-23 as an aircraft is a regular aircraft. 04:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

In this article the only thing i have written is what the other side says. If you only says one version the article is not neutral, i have mentioned the Russian side many do not like it but i challenge you get me pictures and webpages that prove eighty six kills and that show them. 04:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your general point, I'd have to agree. While the wording might be negotiated later, the views themselves should stay. It is certainly a much more valuable article the way it is now than if it just parrots the stereotypical Western view. Several articles on Wikipedia also have heavy Russian contributions, and I think they are all the better for it. There are, after all, countless books out there reciting the Western view for those interested. Kazuaki Shimazaki 05:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
If a plane (or any topic) is controversial, the fact that there is a controversy is part of the factual reality of the topic. To suppress a controversy is to deny part of the fact of the aircraft. Kazuaki Shimazaki 05:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

In fact if you read the Page 250 of the MiG-23ML manual you will find the Max instantaneous turn rate for the MiG-23ML it is 16.7 deg/sec and the max sustained turn rate click here and you will see it here is the original thread and here is the manual page 12:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Your second link doesn't work - the forum blocks it, but the first one gets you close enough, and from what I can see it DOES say what you say it does. Kazuaki Shimazaki 13:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The entire ´´comparisons to other aircraft´´ section should be deleted. It is so full of crap, I mean, so full of false claims, that the base is wrong and should be thrown away. Don´t mind about ´´the Western stereotype´´, if an article is biased, doesn´t give data to support his claims, and in fact there is available data that proves them wrong, we don´t want it here.

Here you have PS diagrams on the F-4 and F-16: thanks to Raptor_One from Most of them are official, from the FWS and all that.

And what do we have here?On one side we have the Mig-23ML, with substantially decreased empty weight and also less fuel than original Mig-23 but the same wing and more powerful engine, that is, considerably better liftloading and power loading. Its maximum turn rate as mentioned in an earlier link is 16.7 º/s. The F-4E does 17.5. Furthermore, it does so at 500 height plus, and not only with 2 medium-range AAMs but also two Sidewinders. As for the G limiter, I still have to see one source. Anyway, if it were true that would just mean that the Mig-23 is even worse at turning, because with less turning restrictions than the F-4E its aerodynamics don´t manage to take advantage!We know its ITR, we know that it is crap. A higher G-limiter would only help above the corner speed, and in these airplanes it is above mach 0.7, in fact at most altitudes you would need to go supersonic to take advantage of a higher G limiter, and at supersonic there are more G limits and anyway you can´t turn too much!Also you can see that the F-4E has a 7.6 G limiter a not 7.3 as stated earlier, though it is limited to 6 in supersonic. The Mig-23 probably was the same.

As you would expect the Phantom, even with slats, is no monster at turning. It is nowhere near the turn rates of Mirage III, F-5, Mig-21, F-106, etc. What can we say of the STR?It´s the same as in F-4E, 14 º/s, but at a slightly inferior altitude an with 2 AAMs less. So we can say that it´s marginally inferior. Climb and acceleration?The main indicator here is maximum rate of climb, which in this case is 215 m/s. F-4E does almost the same, slightly more than 200 m/s, 210 perhaps?Anyway, it´s not a huge advantage. But remember: this is the IMPROVED version! So what is the real comparison with fighters of its era, with respect to flight performance?

In the late 60s, original Mig-23 appeared as an aircraft with somewhat good climb but very bad turn, and common-place sustained turn. If the much improved Mig-23ML barely manages to match the F-4E, then the original had to be horrible!Clearly inferior to F-4E, an upgraded version of an older airplane. As were the Mirage III, F-5, Mig-21. All this aircraft were definitely superior at ACM. Though substantially inferior at climbing, all of them had about twice the liftloading. The F-5 also rolled like a thunder. The F-106 climbed like the Phantom and turned like the Tiger. The J-35 Draken...was the king of performance in its era. Climbed like Phantom and turned better than anyone. It could eat a Mig-23 for breakfast in ACM.

So the Mig-23 was clearly the worst maneuvering fighter of is era. An improved version apears in the late 70s, but it´s already too late: the standard now is the Viper, as the J-35 was earlier. For a comparison, just check the diagrams in (it´s a block 15, you can now it becuase of the weight; the 1 G Ps diagram is a block 25) and compare them to those of the F-4E. There´s just no comparison, no competition, NO MATCH! The Viper fucks the crap out of the Phantom in every situation. And its conteporary the Mig-23ML was WORSE! No comments. Whatever the performance improvements of the MLD version (which appeared in the early 80s) are, the gap is impossible to fulfill.

The rest of the comparison section (save for perhaps the avionics) is just a bunch of rumors, interested claims and urban legends with no real data supporting it. Some data is flat wrong. F-16 received the Sparrow with the standard block 15, which introduced continuous-wave in the APG-66. So yes, most F-16As do have BVR capability. A war anecdote tells nothing about the performance of the aircraft in the war. Was it really that difficult to just say ´´we have no idea of what truly happened because neither the israelis nor the sirians tell the truth, they just claim a lot´´?A lot of talk with no real information confuses the reader. A lot of talk being wrong and biased just deserves being eliminated from wikipedia.

Also it makes no sense that the Russians consider the F-15 a threat because of its speed and acceleration, but not so with the F-16. Did they refer to the J79 version perhaps? WAKE UP! Maximum rate of climb is in fact better for F-16 block 1 than F-15A (about 240 m/s vs about 260). Speaking generally, the Viper is the best accelerator in the US inventory, perhaps the world - or at least it was until very recently. At worst we could say that they are matched, they are comparable. Low-level max speed is better for Viper too, it is limited by the 800 knots placard of the engine (mach 1.2 at sea level), while Mig-23 or F-15 just do mach 1.1. All this talk is unnecesary in fact: given that both the Viper and Eagle climb about 250 m/s, they easily out-perform Mig-23, which climbs 215 in its cleanest version. So did the F-20. Even the Su-15 was probably superior!

The comparison section ends giving us a bit more shit. F-16 at 14 million in 1980?That would be the price of two. The very first Vipers were sold at 6 million. Even the way-most-expensive ADF versions cost about 16 million, and that was in 1986. Given the not-giving of a source, and that it is very difficult to compute prices for warplanes (let alone warplanes of the Cold War Russia), this part should plainly be deleted.

I´ve done my homework. I´m not going to edit the article, I´m tired of writing and anyway it can be modified later, but i hope nobody will modify this. A few conclusions can be extracted:

-Mig-23 was a poor (or mediocre if you want) flight performance aircraft, meaning the mix of acceleration, climb, turning, rolling and all that makes an airplane a good performer. Regardless of the version, because enemies improve as well. Original Mig-23 was destroyed by almost anyone out there; improved Mig-23 had new, more powerful enemies that destroyed it as well. Only way to make the Mig-23 appear a good performer is to compare it with a decade old airplanes, such as Mig-23ML vs F-4E...and even then it losses.

-Mig-23 flagrantly ignored Vietnam lessons. Not only because of the performance, but because of the canopy and the useless mach 2+ speed.

-Better to shut up and appear dumb than to speak up and confirm that you´re dummer. If you don´t have anything trusted, reliable >>>and relevant<<< to write, better not to write.

Where is the F-4 manual?

Here we go it is interesting that your charts are from anonimous sources since they are not from a manual but some one passed to some guy through the internet, interesting to see it is the fact the F-18 is just marginally better than the F-4 according to one of your charts.

The F-16 has a claimed instantaneous turn rate of 24 deg/sec this is the best american fighter of the fourth generation, later we have the F-18 with a 20 deg/sec instantaneous turn rate, it is known the F-14 is the less maneuovrable of all the american fourth generation fighters less maneuvrable even than the F-18 however it is claimed to have a 40% better agility than the F-4, now one of your charts claims a number that is quit better than the MiG-23ML, yes so tell me what is the Instantaenous turn rate of the F-14A?

later you have the "F-4E" that has a G limit of 7.6Gs and in the other hand the MiG-23ML that has a G limit at speed bellow of mach 0.85 of 8.5Gs and above Mach 0.85 the G limit for the MiG-23ML is 7.5 Gs so your 7.6Gs fighter have to be more agile is not it?

The interesting of your chart is that the best turn a fighter does is at it`s corner speed and that equals the highest G load, the MiG-29 and F-16 will pull 9 Gs while they pull their max instantaneous turn rate

So now explain me how a fighter that has a 7.6 Gs overload limit can surppass a fighter that has a G limit of 8.5G? so the Su-15 will surpass in the same way an F-4 even when the Su-15 can only hold 6.5Gs same will be with the MiG-31 that barely holds 5.5Gs and the same will be with the MiG-23 versus F-16

Yes the F-16 holds 9Gs the MiG-23 holds 8.5Gs if you noticed all the 9G rate figheters have better sustained and instantaneous turn rates than any jet holding 8Gs or 7Gs why? solution corner speed, the MiG-23 never ever will have a better turn rate than the F-16 or MiG-29 simply because it holds less than 9Gs.

The MiG-23 can surpass the F-16 at high altitudes for a simple reason the MiG-23 has a variable inlet but at slow speeds and low altitudes the F-16 will rule in turning because it`s rated to hold 9Gs safely.

corner speed has the best instantaneous turn rate without producing any damage to the structure of the plane while holding G loads. So your F-4 after 7.6Gs can have structural damage, the MiG-23 after 8.6Gs may have structural damage, the MiG-29 and F-16 can hold safely 9Gs without fear of structural damage

Ah but you forget to mention that those chart are made for a video game By the way the MiG-23 has a rate of climb of 240m/s, another interesting factor about the charts you have given is they claimed a faster angular velocity but this instantaneous rate is at very low speed; at Mach 0.9 the MiG-23 based upon information upon the MiG-23ML manual has better turn rate at 1km and 5km of altitude I gave you the MiG-23 manual give me the F-4 manual and we will argue, video game charts are rubbish221.36.19.28 00:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above author. The biggest mistake of the Soviets was not using the lessons of Vietnam in modifcations like they did with the Mig-21bis.-- 16:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

My last thoughts

Anyone who has ever flown the Mig-23 that reads this article will get a laugh. Even though I retired from the air force I work for a living in the U.S. and don’t have time to build websites. I am only on here because I have been on a short writing vacation. If you want to continue to write junk and misinformation be my guest. I would think that anybody with any degree of intelligence would take what they see on Wikpedia with a grain of salt. Never mind the horrible grammar, just look at the content on this article.

There is one reason that Western sources are more reliable than Soviet ones. Western sources are usually well scrutinized by an open press. Soviet ones are not. Western sources can have their facts checked; Soviet one didn’t.

Most of these so-called sources are old propaganda spun by the Soviets to maintain the illusion of military superiority. Unlike anyone in here, being a Warsaw Pact pilot I know many pilots of the GDR, Polish, Soviet, Bulgarian, and Hungarian air forces that flew the Mig-23. One of the things we agree on is that the Mig-23 was a difficult and unreliable aircraft to fly. Its weapon systems were hard to maintain and were not very effective when they did. The IRST was not reliable. The autopilot was more than likely top drive you into the ground.

How are my views different than the rest of the world? Its has been implied that my view is different than what most people in the world think about the Mig-23. Really?

If it is such a great aircraft why did most countries stop using it after the fall of communism? One reason is they were not getting all the cheap spares to keep it flying. Another was they did not have the Soviets telling them how to run their air forces anymore. They soldiered on for a few years after communism because thats all that those air forces could afford.

The Mig-21 is surviving and will survive for a long time. Many countries are upgrading theirs. A couple of years ago Mikoyan offered and upgrade for the Mig-23, similar to what India, Israel, and Romania are doing with the Mig-21. Not one taker.

India is retiring their Mig-23s. Not because they are old but because they are substandard performers. Their Mig-21s are intended to remain in service for years.

The pictures from Belarus mean nothing. I was at that air show and the Mig-23 were static displays. A couple are even in flyable condition. They bring them out all the time. The rest of the times the aircraft are in storage. I was at an air show in Poland a few months ago and they had flyable Mig-15s. That does not mean the Mig-15 is flying in the Polish Air Force. A few weeks ago I went to a U.S. Air Force air show and they had P-51s. Does the U.S. Air Force still fly P-51s? What do you think?

I am really disappointed that you used airshows pictures and some old Russian websites as reason to justify that Beluras flies the Mig-23. Those are better than my 'Western' sources? I was hoping you had some degree of education about avation and I see that is not true. And that you are not a reader of Air Forces Monthly also further proves it.

I am finishing my vacation tomorrow. I will not have times to play these kid games. All you non-aviation experts (some might THINK they are experts because they look at websites and read tech manuals) continue to destroy this article. Maybe someday if I have spare time I might fix it up after all the children stop editing it.-- 16:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Angola took the Upgrade read the article it`s on the article`s links, India upgraded the MiG-23/27 engine with AL-31 read the article there are plenty on the internet here is a russian one I guess you read russian Основной истребитель-бомбардировщик ВВС Индии МиГ-27 получит новый двигатель, сообщает ИТАР-ТАСС.

Соответствующее заявление сделал генеральный директор ММПП "Салют" Юрий Елисеев на проходящем в Великобритании авиасалоне Farnborough-2006.

По проекту модернизации, на истребитель-бомбардировщик МиГ-27 устанавливается один двигатель АЛ-31Ф. Новый двигатель весит на двести килограммов легче устанавливавшегося ранее Р-29Б-300, имеет на одну тонну большую, нежели старый двигатель, тягу (12300 кг/с против 11300), и одновременно на 15 процентов меньший расход топлива в номинальном режиме работы.

На вооружении ВВС Индии находится 150 истребителей бомбардировщиков МиГ-27 Bahadur. В настоящий момент предполагается модернизация 60 этих машин. Модернизируемые самолеты также пройдут капитальный ремонт и получат улучшенное бортовое оборудование, что позволит значительно увеличить их возможности.

МиГ-27 Bahadur является основным истребителем-бомбардировщиком ВВС Индии. Он создан в середине 70-х годов, а в 1986-1996 производился в Индии по лицензии.

Этот сверхзвуковой самолет с изменяемой стреловидностью крыла предназначен для нанесения ударов по наземным целям противника с применением, в том числе, и высокоточного оружия (корректируемых бомб, управляемых ракет). Модернизация истребителей-бомбардировщиков МиГ-27 и их предшественников - МиГ-23БН, по мнению специалистов, способна принести российскому ВПК не меньше миллиарда долларов в течение ближайших 10-12 лет.

Ссылки по теме Angola awards life-extension contract for MiG-23ML fleet The Angolan air force has awarded a group of Russian and Ukrainian companies a contract to perform a service life extension and upgrade programme on 18 of its MiG-23ML interceptors. The work is being conducted at the Ukrainian defence ministry's Odessa Aviation Repair Services (OdessaAviaRemServis) aircraft repair plant, with the first aircraft already undergoing customer acceptance trials.

The service life extension element of the programme is expected to keep the aircraft in service for a further 10-15 years, and the avionics portion of the deal includes the installation of replacement flight recorders and a Phazotron-Ukraina-managed upgrade to the type's Sapfir-23 radar.

Phazotron has developed radar enhancements for the MiG-23's Sapfir-23 and SUV-23 fire-control system to work with the Vympel RVV-AE (R-77) medium-range missile. Odessa and Phazotron have offered upgrades to MiG-23 operators Algeria, Ethiopia, India, Iran, Libya, North Korea and Syria. 02:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes I think this Free Encyclopedia concept may not be worth it in terms of the quality of information it provides. In some cases, maybe alot of cases, you would be better off getting information elsewhere from professional works, that is works done by qualified people who are paid to do the research and get the correct answers. Now personally, from what I have read about the MiG-23, and before I read this article, the general feeling was that this airplane wasn't a great fighter. Perhaps with the recent public/official acknowledgement of the Constant Peg program we may hear what pilots or evaluation reports from the USAF 4477th Test & Evaluation Squadron had to say about the MiG-23. It may or may not add credence to the Polish person above's supposed personal experience, and that's another thing....personal experience is usually ignored here unless people can prove who they are and have been vouched for in relevent documentation and/or by a recognised or trusted observer/commentator/expert as being a true and accurate source of information. Cat Balou 11:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, you just proved why this Free Encyclopedia concept with a lot of partisans from various POVs participating is good. I had the exact same views as you did about the MiG-23. This is the conclusion you are bound to get reading most English texts (especially the basic level ones) about the matter. If any normal encyclopedia bothered to write an article on the MiG-23, chances are they will just read from those sources and distill it further. With such an apparent consensus, a reader won't feel any need to dig further. Now that you actually realize there are contrary positions, you feel a need to discover more and get into those "professional works" you mentioned with an eye to finding those with the contrary opinion.
Personal experience is ignored here ... the idea is to avoid unverifiable Original Research. Still, in terms of de facto Wiki practice, that Polish guy is not doing himself any favors. He doesn't sign up, which leaves him at the bottom of the totem pole as an IP-only contributor. The quickest practical thing he can do to gain his view some "verifiability" is to go make a freebie webpage with his views and get someone else to link it. While technically by Wiki rules anything less than a book or a really good site can be challenged as "unverifiable", in more cases than not it'd be allowed to stand. Kazuaki Shimazaki 12:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Aircraft comparisons

The "Aircraft comparisons" section violates No Original Research. Specifically, articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of: published arguments, concepts, data, ideas, or statements. This is a Wikipedia policy, not subject to debate, not subject to interpretation. Drawing conclusions about relative performance of different aircraft by pulling in data from various sources is synthesis of information. Therefore, I have removed the entire section and moved it below for posterity's sake:

A common Western stereotype is that the MiG-23 is a sluggish aircraft [1] However published statistics and anecdotes may suggest differently. It should also be noted that the MiG-23 had been substantially upgraded throughout its career, and stereotypes formed from facing an earlier variant may not apply to a later one.
The MiG-23MF has an instantaneous turn rate of 11.5 degrees/second at Mach 0.9 at an altitude of 4600m[1] slightly worst than the F-4E that has a Max instantaneous turn rate of 13.5 degree/second and a max sustained turn rate of 9 degree/second at 5000 meters and at a speed of Mach 0.9 Mach "Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page).

, , however both aircraft were less agile than the MiG-21 that has a max sustained turn rate of 11.5 degree/second. According to the Soviet MiG-23ML manual, the MiG-23ML has dramatically improved manoeuverability to a maximum sustained turn rate of 14.1 deg/sec and a maximum instantaneous turn rate of 16.7 deg/sec"[2],. Aircraft like the F-4 were barely equal to the MiG-23MF and less agile than the later MiG-23ML, though the F-16 (26deg/sec instantaneous[3] ) and MiG-29 (28deg/sec instantanous turn rate[3]) are more agile overall. Even the Kfir C2 used to simulate the MiG-23 by the US Navy (redesignated the F-21) was a less maneuverable fighter than the MiG-23, in fact the Kfir could only simulate the high speed and climb of rate performance the MiG-23 has.

The Soviet MiG-23 manual claimed the MiG-23MLD was superior in what respects acceleration and speed and was slightly inferior in agility to the F-16 at low speeds and heights however at very high speeds and altitudes had better turning ability, while agreeing that the F-15 has an overwhelming superiority over the MiG-23 family[citation needed].
This is somewhat substantiated by Western pilots who had a chance to fly against or fly in late model MiG-23s, who have described the aircraft's maneuvering chracteristics very favorably considering its vintage. For example, the Israelis tested a MiG-23MLD that defected from Syria and found that it had better acceleration than the F-16 and F-18.
The Dutch pilot Leon Van Maurer, who had more than 1200 hrs flying F-16s, flew against MiG-23ML Flogger Gs from air bases in Germany and the USA as part of NATO`s aerial mock combat training with Soviet equipment. He concluded that the MiG-23ML has superiority on the vertical plane over early F-16 variants, and is just slightly inferior to the F-16A on the horizontal plane, he also said the MiG-23ML had superior BVR capability "Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page).

, (note that most F-16As don't have any BVR capability.)

Avionics and Weapons
Due to the lag in the Russian electronics industry, the technological standards of the MiG-23's avionics tended on the primitive. This is most apparent in the radar system. The Sapfir-23 radar used "external coherence"[4], which gave a minimal look-down capability, while its more modern fourth generation rivals such the F-14 and F-15 introduced true pulse-Doppler radars with much better lookdown/shootdown abilities and far greater range. While later upgrades improved the lookup performance, the Sapfir-23 never managed to outgrow its "external coherence" birth, and thus its lookdown range performance improvements were minimal[4].
Russian sources thus agreed the F-15 was a better Beyond Visual Range fighter because it has a longer detection range radar and missiles, also the F-15 was faster and had good acceleration, this combined with excellent agility displayed by the F-15 prompted the development of the MiG-29 and Su-27.
Furthermore, the MiG-23 does have a few advantages:
  • The Russians consider the AA-8/R-60 as more advanced than any missile used by the West in the early 1980s because it could be cued by a Helmet Mounted Sight. This should be tempered because the R-60 is not considered to be a true all-aspect infrared homing missile. however it has better manoeuvrability than even the AIM-9L and Python III.
  • MiG-23s are equipped with IRSTs, a passive system immune to ECM and can cue and fire the R-60MK onto a target. The MiG-23M had the TP-23, while export versions had the TP-23-1. This had a range of 30km against a Tu-16 on a stern chase (looking at the engine exhaust). This evolved through the TP-23M (35-40km) and to the TP-26 IRST system (60km)[4]. Russian Historians highlight this fact due to the over rating of the Israeli jamming over the Bekka Valley by some sources.
  • The HUD doubles as a radarscope, allowing the pilot to keep his eyes focused at infinity and work with his radar. It also allows the Soviets to dispense with the radarscope on the MiG-23. This feature was carried over into the MiG-29, though in that aircraft a CRT was carried on the upper right corner that can act as a radarscope as well. Western opinions about this "head up radarscope" are mixed. The Israelis were impressed, but an American F-16 pilot criticizes it as "sticking a transparent map in front of the HUD" and not providing a three-dimensional presentation that will accurately cue a pilot's eyes to look for a fighter as it appears in a particular direction.[3]
Compared to F-16
The MiG-23 had two main advantages over the F-16 at BVR combat during almost the entire decade of the 1980s, one was the fact it had superior acceleration and higher speed and the other was that it had an IRST system. It also had BVR capability, while most unupgraded F-16As lacked the capability (Block 15 ADF fighters being the exception).[5]
However the MiG-23 pilot`s rear visibility was quit restricted in fact it needed a periscope that allowed a limited but useful rear view, the F-16 in the other hand had a bubble canopy that offered excellent visibility to it`s pilot.
The MiG-23 was armed with AA-11/R-73 air to air missiles that were far more advanced than the AIM-9L short range air to air missile that usually armed early F-16s and it was not surpassed until the AIM-9X, Python IV or IRIS-T armed the latest F-16 variants in the very late 1990s
Usually many compare the MiG-23 to the F-16 due to the fact these aircraft faced each other regularly over the skies of the middle East, but in reality the MiG-23 is more comparable to the F-4E and J-8II in terms of design philosophy.
The F-16 is by far a more advanced aircraft and despite the early F-16s did not have medium range weapons, later versions were upgraded and equipped with AIM-120 and AIM-7, by the late 1990s the MiG-23 was totally out classed by the F-16.
Several russian accounts claim the following:
On 6 June 1982 a MiG-23 brought down an Israeli BQM-34 UAV with an R-23. On 7 June 1982 three MiG-23MFs (pilots khallyak, Said, Merza) attacked a group of F-16s. Captain Merza detected the F-16s at the distance 23 km and he brought down two F-16s with R-23/AA-7s Apex (one from 9km, and another within the distance of 7 km or 8 km); however, then himself was shot down. On 8 June 1982 two MiG-23MFs again met with F-16s. Major Tokhau`s MiG-23 detected an F-16 at the distance of 20km he shot it down (F-16) with an R-23 from a distance of 7km; however, himself was shot down by an AIM-9 Sidewinder fired from another F-16. On 9 June 1982 two MiG-23MFs (pilots Dib and Said) attacked a group of F-16s. Dib brought down an F-16 from a distance of 6km or 7km with an R-23, but himself was shot down, most likely by an AIM-9 Sidewinder"Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page).


However Western Historians disagree and say the F-16 totally outclassed the MiG-23 from the beginning of its carreer and none has ever been lost to a MiG-23.
Compared to the MiG-21
The MiG-23 was designed to become the replacement of the MiG-21.
The MiG-23 had BVR capabilities that the previous MiG-21 lacks. It was also faster and carried deadlier missiles. These factors made the MiG-23 a more modern design than the MiG-21 and fulfilled it`s design requirements
However, the MiG-23 had some deficiencies that limited it`s operational serviceability. Its swing-wing design, landing gear design, and engine became a maintenance nightmare for ground crews. Its radar was also unreliable - early models can have a tenfold difference in detection range based on the skill of its tuning and maintenance crews, and even the late variants fitted on the MLA/MLD variants had a MTBF of only 60 hours[4]. It`s hourly operating cost was thus higher than the MiG-21, and it was not liked by many operators.
Comparisons to Other Aircraft
Overall, the MiG-23 represents the final incarnation of late 1960s fighter technology which, despite being developed close to its full potential, was quickly overtaken by next generation fighters like F-16 and MiG-29 that employed more advanced doppler radars, new aerodynamic configurations, and more advanced engines. The MiG-23's closest contemporaries are perhaps the Mirage F1, F-4E and Saab Viggen.

Unless someone can present a single verifiable credible source (NOT a website or a forum) comparing the different aircraft, no such information can be presented without violating WP:NOR. - Emt147 Burninate! 22:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I have given you the MiG-23ML manual, get the F-4 manual or the F-16 manual and we can talk the MiG-23 manual even has the R-35 manual included221.36.19.28 00:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Which part of "articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of: published arguments, concepts, data, ideas, or statements" do you not understand? To say here's MiG-23 performance from the MiG manual and here's F-4 performance from the Phantom manual and here's why one is better than the other is original research. This is in direct violation of Wikipedia policies. You are welcome to present the performance characteristics of the MiG-23 alone as long as they are substantiated by references and no comparisons are being made. - Emt147 Burninate! 00:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

That is not true you have in Wikipedia an article titled comparassion of 21st century fighters, the only thing i have said is given you a MiG-23ML manual information because you have asked for verifiable sources, the best verifiable sources for the Mig-23 is the manual, now if some one objects to that because they say no it can not be true the MiG-23 shot down this or that aircraft and you ask them give me data and photos you say that is not right so you have double standards do not you think so?

The MiG-23 manual and the F-4 manual are the best examples of reliable sources, several books also give information.

But what is in debate here is if the Russian sources are reliable. I say yes but the vast majority of people here have a embbedded stereotype that only WESTERN ideas should prevail in this article that is not fair neither neutral but very, very bias therefore i said to you and i wrote in the article things like according to Russian sources or Western Historians do not accept this or that, that is neutral because gives different sources and gives same level of reliability 00:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

That article barely escaped deletion by stripping all comparisons between aircraft and turned into a simple presentation of verifiable facts, mostly in generality about the characteristics and important design features of modern (specified as 21st century). It was renamed to 4th generation jet fighter and the aim of the article changed from comparison to describing a historical class of aircraft neutrally. The manual presented is a scanned page posted on a forum. Moreover, why should you presume that Russian published figures about American aircraft are accurate?
Moreover, this is an article about the Mig-23, so presenting stats about other aircraft is inconsequential and irrelevant. --Mmx1 01:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The only solution would be make a new article and name it third generation aircraft but that also will leave something unresolved and that is which combat record is the accurate one the Russian one or the Western one? you see the only thing you deep inside desire is erease the Russian claims and call them unreliable221.36.19.28 01:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC) The article only mentions two versions of the same event, one is the Russian MiG-23 combat record and the other is the Western version of the MiG-23 combat record - - this has lead to comparassions that also are good because it provides a glimpse into the real capacities of an aircraft, using the Manuals is the most reliable of all sources and having pictures of wreckages or gun cameras of the claimed kills. - - However here there is a dispute of two different views the Russian view and the Western View, mentioning both is neutral, delete one of them is bias unless you prove one is the best and that will be very difficult so the best thing is mentioning both with the same level of reliability and i have done it 01:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Russians believe their planes are better and Americans, vice versa. Neither view belongs in an encyclopedia. --Mmx1 01:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

NO you are wrong both views belong to the encyclopedia because for Historians both views are worthed because in the service carreer you always will find different combat records221.36.19.28 01:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no reliable source for victory claims from either Russian or American side, and certainly not for Angola/Egypt/whatever (please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources). Furthermore, the kill/loss ratios oversimplify a very complex subject since any air victory/loss has to be examined in the context of setting (situational advantage, payload, fuel carried, etc.), pilot training, etc. No conclusions purely about aircraft performance could be drawn from these statistics without generating ridiculous claims (e.g. F-4 Phantoms engaged in turning dogfights against MiG-17s and MiG-21s in Vietnam and scored kills, therefore F-4 is more maneuverable than a MiG-17 or a MiG-21... see what I mean?).
Any good student of aviation history knows that the correct approach to appraising military aircraft lies in their perceived capabilities and deterrent/threat value. Think of the panic that MiG-25 caused in the West, and of the F-14 whose standoff reputation protected the fleets more effectively than any Phoenix missile could. In the setting of the MiG-23, the entire Cold War balance of power was sustained on perceived capabilities of the enemy. - Emt147 Burninate! 03:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


Chekc this you have several articles in wikipedia where according to your standards should not be written here is the F-14`s combata record:

-"F-14s of the U.S. Navy have shot down five enemy aircraft for no losses. One has been lost to a surface-to-air missile.

The combat record of the F-14 in IRIAF service is much debated. In 1980 the downing of a Soviet-built Iraqi Tupolev Tu-22 "Blinder" bomber was observed by AWACS crews, while other incidents remain unconfirmed. Western estimates place the figure at four or five kills; Iran claims 35-45 kills.[8] Recent books by Tom Cooper and Farzad Bishop claim nearly 150 kills, though they are based on interviews with pilots and are unconfirmed against independent observers or camera footage".-

I have done the same giving both versions however people here says the neutrality of the article is in dispute yes yes but the F-14 article does the same and nobody complains.

Here is the F-15 combat record but no one objects at claiming kills:

As of 2005, the F-15 in all air forces has a combined kill record of 104 kills to zero losses in air combat (at least as confirmed by its users, and excluding the case of a Japanese F-15J that shot down another F-15J in 1995 due to an AIM-9 Sidewinder safety malfunction during air-to-air combat training with live weapons). The US and Israel maintain that to date, the air superiority versions of the F-15 (F-15A/B/C/D models) have never been shot down by an enemy.

Over half of the F-15's kills were made by Israeli Air Force pilots. In 1979–81 during Israeli-Lebanese border disputes, F-15As downed 13 Syrian MiG-21 'Fishbeds' and 2 Syrian MiG-25 'Foxbats', the latter being the aircraft the F-15 was designed to kill. In the 1982 Lebanon War, the Israeli F-15s shot down 40 Syrian jet fighters (23 MiG-21s and 17 MiG-23 'Floggers') and 1 Syrian SA.342L Gazelle helicopter. In 1985 during Syrian/Israeli skirmishes, Israel reported the downing of 2 Syrian MiG-23s by F-15s.

Royal Saudi Air Force F-15C pilots shot down two F-4E Phantom IIs flown by the Iranian Air Force in a border skirmish in 1984, and shot down two Iraqi Mirage F1s during the Gulf War.

According to the USAF, its F-15C's had thirty-four confirmed kills of Iraqi aircraft during the 1991 Gulf War, mostly by missile fire: 5 MiG-29 'Fulcrums', 2 MiG-25s, 8 MiG-23s, 2 MiG-21s, 2 Su-25 'Frogfoots', 4 Su-22 Fitters, 1 Su-7, 6 Mirage F1s, 1 Il-76 cargo plane, 1 Pilatus PC-9 trainer, and 2 Mi-8 helicopters. After air superiority was achieved in the first 3 days of the conflict, many of the later kills were reportedly of Iraqi aircraft fleeing to Iran, rather than actively trying to engage US planes. The single-seat F-15C was used for air superiority, and the F-15E was heavily used in air-to-ground attacks. An F-15E achieved an aerial kill of another Iraqi Mi-8 helicopter using a laser-guided bomb during the air war. The F-15E sustained two losses to ground fire in the Gulf War in 1991.

In 1994, 2 US Army UH-60 Black Hawk's were downed by USAF F-15C in the Northern no-fly zone of Iraq in a friendly fire incident.[2]

USAF F-15C's also shot down 4 Yugoslav MiG-29's during NATO's 1999 intervention in Kosovo, Operation Allied Force.

I will tell you with Honesty, what i have written is neutral like the F-14 combat record article that mentions two versions like i did, secon you should see that in wikipedia a combat record is okay

Later you have one side version without what the other sides says:

-"Due to their ubiquity, the F-16s have participated in numerous conflicts, most of them in the Middle East.

In 1981, eight Israeli F-16s participated in a raid that destroyed Osiraq, an Iraqi nuclear reactor near Baghdad. During the same year, the Israeli Air Force obtained the first air-to-air "kills" for the entire F-16 series, shooting down a Syrian Mi-8 helicopter and a MiG-21 jet. The following year, during Operation Peace for Galilee (Lebanon War) Israeli F-16s engaged Syrian aircraft on numerous occasions, ending up victorious at all times. F-16s were also used afterwards in their ground-attack role for strikes against targets in Lebanon.

During the Afghan war, Pakistan Air Force F-16s shot down numerous Soviet and Afghan ground attack and transport aircraft (the exact number is classified).[4] The same border clashes also saw the first combat loss of a Fighting Falcon, when an aircraft was shot down by its own wingman, a case of friendly fire later traced back to a faulty air-to-air missile (AAM).[5]"-

If you see this is what bothers some few people about this article, it is not reliability of the sources because i have even used the Mig-23 manual, it is simply that some few people here want to hear only one version because they like it, and they want to erease the russian sources under the excuse of unreliability 22:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

What Emt is objecting to is not the listing of combat record as historical events, but the use of combat record as some sort of metric of effectiveness, which is both methodologically flawed and constitutes original research. If you wish to document the combat actions of the Mig-23, feel free to. But do not introduce the combat record of others or use the combat record as some basis for conclusions.
In fact, the better articles, as you can see, do not present some one tally, but outline the conflicts that the aircraft participated in. Single actions are usually well documented; tallies during extended conflicts less so. The purpose is not comparison but historical listing of actions.--Mmx1 23:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

In fact, the better articles, as you can see, do not present some one tally, but outline the conflicts that the aircraft participated in. Single actions are usually well documented; tallies during extended conflicts less so. The purpose is not comparison but historical listing of actions.--Mmx1 23:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Here we see you can compare numbers you have said it is wrong to compare the data known of fighters but look your own article of 4th generation fighters

- Table of thrust-to-weight ratio and wing loading Thrust/ - Weight - Ratio wing - loading - kg/m² notes - Rafale F2 1.13 304 5300 l fuel internal - Typhoon 1.18 300 4700 l fuel internal - F-2 0.89 430 - MiG-29SM 1.13 411 - Su-27 - Su-30 1.10 414 Indian Su-30MKI has thrust vectoring - J-10 1.10 300 Proposed upgrade will have thrust vectoring - Gripen 0.94 341 - F-22A 1.2 342 13000 l fuel internal and 2D thrust vectoring - F-35A 0.83 446

Later you said it is uncorrect to compare combat records but look at the 4th generation article once more

Combat performance On April 28 1981 Israeli F-16s scored the first air-to-air kill by shooting down two Syrian Mi-8 'Hip' helicopters. [3] and [4] [5] The first fighter kill of the F-16 took place on July 14 1981 during 'Operation Opera' when an Israeli pilot downed a Syrian MiG-21. [6] August 19, 1981 Two USN F-14A Tomcats from Fighter Squadron 41 shot down two Libyan SU-22 Fitters over the Gulf of Sidra, after one of the SU-22's fired an AA-2 "Atoll" air to air missile.

In 1982 3 Syrian MiG-21s and 2 Syrian MiG-23s were shot down by Israeli F-16s. [7] In 1983 and 1984 numerous Syrian missile sites were attacked and destroyed in Lebanon, while Syrian aircraft were engaged and Israeli F-16s achieved a 44-0 kill ratio. [8] and [9] On May 17 1986 a Pakistani F-16 shot down an Afgan Su-22, thus Pakistan became the second country after Israel to put F-16s into military action. [10] On January 4, 1989 two more Libyan fighters, this time Mig-23's were the victims of USN F-14A Tomcats, this time operating from the USS John F. Kennedy as Fighter Squadron 32.

An F-16 of the Venezuela Air Force downed an AT-27 during the Air Force coup on November 27 1992. The first USAF F-16 kill and the first AMRAAM kill took place on December 27 1992 when a USAF F-16D shot down an Iraqi Mig-25 over southern Iraq. [11] [12] On January 17, 1993, a USAF F-16 pilot shot down a MiG-29 in Iraqi no-fly zone. (Some sources claim it was a MiG-23.) [13][14][15] Two USAF F-16Cs shoot down four Serbian Soko G-4 Super Galebs over Bosnia-Herzegovina during two missions on 28 February 1994. [16] [17] During the 1999 Kosovo War, a Dutch F-16 pilot shot down a Yugoslavian MiG-29; a USAF F-16 pilot shot down a Mig-29, the last aerial victory scored against the Mig-29. [18] [19] During the 1991 Gulf War, USAF F-15 pilots shot down 5 Iraqi MiG-29 [20] During the 1999 Kosovo War, USAF F-15 pilots shot down four MiG-29s. [21] In February 1999, during the Eritrean-Ethiopian War, Ethiopian Su-27 pilots shot down four Eritrean MiG-29s. (Some sources claim that the Ethiopian planes were flown by Russian pilots, the Eritrean planes by Ukrainians. (It is certainly true that local pilots were trained by instructors from those nations.) [22]

Check this it is impposible to write about a combat aircraft without comparing it either in performance or combat record for one simple reason combat aircraft were design to beat other combat aircraft:

once more the 4th generation fighters article Aircraft Odds vs. Su-35 Lockheed Martin/Boeing F-22 Raptor 10.1:1 Eurofighter Typhoon 4.5:1 Sukhoi Su-35 'Flanker' 1.0:1 Dassault Rafale C 1.0:1 McDonnell Douglas F-15C Eagle 0.8:1 Boeing F/A-18+ 0.4:1 McDonnell Douglas F/A-18C 0.3:1 General Dynamics F-16C 0.3:1

The MiG-23 was designed to beat the F-4, F-105, Mirage III, and the F-15 was designed to beat the MiG-25, that will always lead to comparassions, and the best way to solve disputes is mentioning both versions like it has been done in the MiG-23 or the F-14 article 23:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Your writing should be guided by the Wikipedia policies and Manual of Style, not by what you see in other articles (particularly non-Feature ones -- no offense to the collaborators but style, NPOV, and lack of proper citations per WP:CITE is what keeps most articles from FA status). Like Mmx1 said, my objection is with your use of combat statistics to draw conclusions about relative performance of the MiG-23 to its adversaries. As I illustrated above, this is the kind of logic that would lead one to conclude that F-4 and F-105 were more maneuverable than MiG-17 and MiG-21 and it is pure speculation, oversimplification of a very complex issue, and original research. It is very simple, really: present only facts (do not embelish them with your conclusions and opinions) and support them with credible references (not links to websites, not teh internets forums). Soviets had no access to Western aircraft during the Cold War and therefore had no way of objectively measuring performance of US or NATO aircraft. Therefore, any statements in the MiG manual about its superiority that are unsupported by hard facts cited in the same source are either conjecture or propaganda. - Emt147 Burninate! 05:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


I think you are not fair, first let`s go for parts, the MiG-23ML manual is a Pilot`s guide, a technical manual to know the truthful characteristics of the MiG-23 at flight, there is no propaganda there because it was developed as a guide for a pilot to know what he could do and what could not do while flying in a MiG-23ML.

Any aircraft is designed with a pourpose in mind, fighter aircraft are designed to defeat certain aircraft, they are replaced when its capabilities are surpassed by the potencial or real enemy aircraft.

The Russians as well as the Americans did know the real characteristics of each other`s aircraft because they fought each other in wars where the saw real losses. If you wonder why they developed each aircraft they did, you have to ask what aircraft their enemies were flying.

The MiG-23 was designed as a F-4 killer, as an aircaft that could shot down any F-111 or 1960s aircraft what happens is you do not like comparassions because you are already entrenched in the idea that Russain sources are lying so it`s better to avoid questions and that si because you can not admitt many times Russian aircraft were superior in the arms race and that is the reason the developed newer weapons.

What authority do you have to decide what source is reliable or not? There are internet forums that are 100 times better than any book, in fact that is the porpose of the wikipedia.

There are websites that are reliable when they show you pictures. Also there are aviation sites which belong to many aircraft manufactures.

You want the article to be in facts based on the MiG-23 alone basicly specifications, however you forget that when the Soviet Union saw the MiG-23 was not a match for the F-16 or F-15 and and that this fighter struggled too much to become an f-16 and F-15 killer simply they designed the MiG-29 and Su-27.

In few words in fighter aircraft evolution competition is the force behind it and this is undoutedly moved by comparassions. So if you are going to talk about combat records and an aircraft evolution you have to compare aircraft. 11:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

First, you cannot measure performance from observing aircraft in combat -- only a thorough test flight program can do that. Soviets never test-flew US aircraft, therefore any comments in Soviet literature on relative performance are inaccurate and speculative. You also seem totally unable to grasp the difference between what an aircraft can do and what its pilot can do. Second, this is not your personal MiG fanboy website -- this is Wikipedia. If you want your writings to appear here, they MUST conform to Wikipedia standards. If you had bothered to read the links to MoS and guidelines for reliable sources that I referenced earlier, you would not have this confusion about why a forum or a website that does not cite its sources is not a good reference. Third, I have no more special authority than any other Wikipedia user. But I will edit out any speculation, POV, original research, poor grammar, and so on. If you don't like you writings to be edited, Wikipedia is not the right place for you. If you don't want to adhere to the community-set standards of contents, style, and verifiability, Wikipedia is not the right place for you. Lastly, stop taking things personally. No one is objecting to your Russophilia -- this is purely a matter of publishing quality material on Wikipedia. - Emt147 Burninate! 01:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do not try to use double standards to justify a dispute and disagrement in what is correct and what is not correct.

i have proven you in the F-15, F-14, and F-16 articles written in wikipedia that what i have written is similar what others have done and no one objetcs to them, simply because they sustain a common Western view that is widely accepted in the West so everybody says yes, we have no objection with that because many readers or people who edit have been used to that view or are Western people.

The only thing you can bother me is in grammmar because i am not native speaker of the English language.

besides that i have no original research as you claim, neither i have biased views i have never written points that are not widely accepted in Russian literature included respected Russian books, i have given you MiG-23ML Manual information and given you widely accepted Russian historical accounts that if you read Russian you will find in Books and websites.

Second you are widely wrong about the Russian aircraft research, first the Russians got Western fighters in the Vietnam war, also got information from some of their allies flying western types, second they did fly against Western aircraft in several wars in the middle east, Africa and Asia where they had to develop tactics based upon their own aircraft performances and the Western aircraft combat capabilities.

Aircraft have limits in performance, avionics and weaponry you can not force a F-104 to out fight a more agile MiG-29 armed with an AA-11 for example, in combat any pilot knows more less what his aircraft can do and up to a degree and what his opponent can do.

The Russians also have flown their aircraft against Mirage F1, Mirage 2000, F-15, F-16 in mock combat and know the capabilities of several Western aircraft.

you also forget each and every Russian aircraft was developed to out fight any possible Western aircraft (or chinese) and they have intelligence reports from their spies 03:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

F-14, F-15, and F-16 are not FA-quality articles. Just because they do something does not mean it is correct (again, had you actually bothered to read my original posts, you would've known that). The only access Soviets had to American aircraft in Vietnam was crashed airframes -- enough to steal and copy technology but obviously insufficient for test-flying and obtaining performance data. Russian websites that do not cite their sources are not a good reference. Seeing how I have now repeated myself three times within a few days, this conversation is over. - Emt147 Burninate! 04:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay regards but remember disagreeing is okay and your reliable sources are what in part you believe is reliable.

I can give you several Russian books that are quoted and widely used by many Russian websites.

Also several russian sites such as have bibliography included so you can know what books they used when they wrote their article. 04:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC) OCRs text straight from books but tends to mix and match different publications, usually with conflicting results, and has a fair number of errors from imperfect recognition of scanned text. I have no problem with anyone citing books -- it's the internet forums and random websites with uncited sources that bother me. - Emt147 Burninate! 06:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Belarus Air Force

I am taking out the reference that Belarus has Mig-23s. Here are my sources:

How about Belarus Air Force website? Look under military equipment and then Air Force and Air Defense. Do you see a picture of a Mig-23?

Is that one too 'Western biased'?

I also took out references to the Bulgarian Air Force. They flew their last mission in 2004 and then put them in storage.-- 20:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is the reference to the Mig-23s not being in Bulgarian Service, the BAF order of battle- 20:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes but you forget one little aspect, the Belarussian air force webpage does not give you any list of the aircraft currently operated by the Belarussian armed forces, true they have some pictures of their main combat aircraft but show me the aircraft list where they name each in every aircraft they operate? Do you mean they do not operate trainers or transport aircraft? do you think the Mi-24 is the only type of helicopter operated by them?

Also in the July 2005 issue of Your loved Air Forces Monthly Magazine they mentioned the belarussian air force had in the 61st air base of Baranovichi a mixed fleet of MiG-23 and MiG-29 (Page 35) if you remember the MiG-23 pictures of 2006 are in the same base.

They said in the July 2005 issue of the Air Forces Monthy that the aircraft probably are not airworthy, in 2006 one MiG-23 was given to adorn a Belarussian town as an aircraft monument. 11:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-23/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Good article, lots of history service record etc. Check on and add references, peer review etc and it will mobe up. B-class - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 00:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 00:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

Substituted at 15:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ a b Spick, Mike. The Illustrated Directory of Fighters. Salamander Books Ltd. ISBN 0862886082.
  2. ^
  3. ^ a b c Lake, Jon. The Jane's How to Fly and Fight in the Mikoyan MiG-29 Fulcrum. Harper Collins Publishers. ISBN 0004721446.
  4. ^ a b c d (note: site down)
  5. ^
Return to "Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-23/Archive 1" page.