When did F-4E enter USN service in Vietnam? - The Air Forces - Warships1 and NavWeaps Discussion Boards - Warships1 and NavWeaps Discussion Boards - Message Board - Yuku

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

When did F-4E enter USN service in Vietnam?

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Author	Comment
bager1968		#21	[-]
Posts: 2863 (20-Mar-2008 09:12:44) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Ummm the Mig 27 was primarily developed as a ground-attack plane, with most models having only a very minimal radar (if any at all). http://www.vectorsite.net/avmig23.html "Mock combats showed the older MiG-21 could win turning fights handily with the MiG-23, though in the vertical plane the MiG-23's greater power gave it an edge. The nastiest problem was ugly handling characteristics under certain conditions at high angles of attack (AOA), as well as unfortunate spin behavior and poor yaw stability. It was a handful on takeoffs and landings." Further improvements are detailed, but it was never to become very maneuverable... although most of the hazardous flight characteristics were eliminated. By the time the MiG-23ML flew in 1975, the Soviet pilots felt it was slightly better than the Phantom, but still inferior to the just-appearing F-15 and in-testing F-16. Last Edited By: bager1968 20-Mar-2008 09:21:59. Edited 2 times.
Admiral Beez		#22	[-]
Posts: 4434 (20-Mar-2008 15:43:38) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	bager1968 wrote: Ummm the Mig 27 was primarily developed as a ground-attack plane, with most models having only a very minimal radar (if any at all). < Sorry, typo, I meant the MiG-29. I know that the MiG-27 was mostly a ground attack plane, not a fighter, much as the MiG-25 was an interceptor, not a fighter. Back on topic, the MiG-21 and MiG-29 are both agile fighters, while apparently the MiG-23 was not.
Nightwatch2		#23	[-]
Posts: 3473 (20-Mar-2008 17:34:51) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Admiral Beez wrote: bager1968 wrote: Ummm the Mig 27 was primarily developed as a ground-attack plane, with most models having only a very minimal radar (if any at all). < Sorry, typo, I meant the MiG-29. I know that the MiG-27 was mostly a ground attack plane, not a fighter, much as the MiG-25 was an interceptor, not a fighter. Back on topic, the MiG-21 and MiG-29 are both agile fighters, while apparently the MiG-23 was not. the Mig-23 was pretty good, but with significant limitations of course. It was roughly on par with the F-4 of the same time period with some advantages in some flight regimes and some disadvantages in other flight regimes (acceleration was supposed to be much better). Generally the missile capabilities lagged for awhile behind western missiles at the same period of time. The biggest limitation of the Mig-23 was their tactics and doctrine. The maintenance and support was also poor compared to western fighters. I wouldn't sell the Mig-23 short - for the time period that it was the primary fighter. Republican; because not everyone can be on welfare.
Admiral Beez		#24	[-]
Posts: 4437 (22-Mar-2008 18:01:44) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	How was the the maintenance and support for the MiG-23 poor compared to western fighters? Per wiki, some of the users of the MiG-23 were piss poor countries, with little expertise or capability (I assume) in high tech maintenence, such as Angola, Yemen and Zimbabwe.
emc		#25	[-]
Posts: 3602 (23-Mar-2008 01:44:59) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Admiral Beez wrote: How was the the maintenance and support for the MiG-23 poor compared to western fighters? Per wiki, some of the users of the MiG-23 were piss poor countries, with little expertise or capability (I assume) in high tech maintenence, such as Angola, Yemen and Zimbabwe. I have read that the engines of Soviet fighters (and, presumably, attack aircraft) were designed with quite short service lives, on the order of dozens, vs hundreds, of hours, which forced much higher levels of engine maintenance than most Western aircraft. iirc, Tony Williams mentions the same thing about many Soviet (and Russian) designed aircraft guns.
Admiral Beez		#26	[-]
Posts: 4438 (23-Mar-2008 22:19:08) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I imagine the poor states just pulled any worn engine and swapped in a new one from their Soviet patrons.
caioduilio	variable geometry wings...	#27	[-]
Posts: 70 (24-Mar-2008 12:55:33) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	When I was a boy, in the late 60s and early 70s, everybody was affected by the variable geometry fever. General Dynamics, Grumman, Dassault, Mig, Sukhoi, Panavia... And one of the advantages was said to be greater agility at subsonic speeds due to the much higher aspect ratio when the wing was at low angles, while retaining a supersonic maximum speed using high angles. Was all rubbish? Was everybody crazy or incompetent at the time? Tomcat could, maybe, justify the cost and weight of variable geometry wings with a landing speed, on carriers, as low as possible, but what about all the others? Even F111 and Tornado were designed for transonic low level flight, where a swept wing is required...
emc		#28	[-]
Posts: 3603 (24-Mar-2008 13:48:03) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	caioduilio wrote: When I was a boy, in the late 60s and early 70s, everybody was affected by the variable geometry fever. General Dynamics, Grumman, Dassault, Mig, Sukhoi, Panavia... And one of the advantages was said to be greater agility at subsonic speeds due to the much higher aspect ratio when the wing was at low angles, while retaining a supersonic maximum speed using high angles. Was all rubbish? Was everybody crazy or incompetent at the time? No. Check out any book or article on wing design; swept wings have considerably lower maximum levels of lift coefficient than do swept wings with the same airfoil--the maximum lift coefficient is proportional to the cosine of the sweep angle (and cosine is an even function, so cos(-x) = cos(x)).

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Quick Reply