Israeli Mirage III vs. Arab MiG-21 had a MASSIVE disparity in pilot quality between the two services, so comparisons between the airframes from this is difficult. MiG-21 has some aerodynamic and power advantages, but is crippled by a simply AWFUL pit and canopy. I'd still prefer the Mirage III. MiG-23 (Cuban) has met Mirage F1CZ (South African) with the victory going to the Flogger about one loop through a turning fight. This loss may be attributed to a loss of awareness in the SAAF pilot. The later ML serier Floggers are vaguely useful in a turning fight, but is still high work-load for the pilot and has a bad canopy. Hard to choose here. Both aircraft have advantages and disadvantages and neither were glowing examples of their era. Within these early eras both French and Soviet electronics had some serious quality issues. The early French missiles were close to useless, while the Soviet R-3S/AA-2 was credible threat (although certainly with its own shortcomings). Basically the weapons sorted out: Russian IRM > French IRM > French and Russian RHM. Both nations electronics have matured considerable in the intervening years. -- Shaken - out --

I guess it depends on whether you are flying a Mirage 3 or Mig in 1963 or 1973, on the avionics/missiles questions. I was always under the impression that the Matra 550 was an ok missile, better than an AA-2 at least. Perhaps the later models were better. Also, even if the Mirage's radar initially had reliability problems, it was a bigger set so you would expect a bigger footprint to match. On the Mirage F-1/Mig 23 fight, I didn't know about that but don't think one fight tells us much about the Mig 23's turnign ability. F-1's shooting down 6 of the more manouverable Mig 21's probably gives us a better indication that the Mirage was better in the turn.

"Both aircraft have advantages and disadvantages and neither were glowing examples of their era." I don't know as much about the F-1, but do know that Mig 23's shot down enough F-4's during the war of attrition, to make it a pretty credible threat. What fighter aircraft of that era would you call glowing?

When was Cuba and South Africa at war?? Did I miss something here??

The Cubans provided military forces to Angola during its war to SA in the 80's.

Mirage F1: More maneouvrable than a F4E or a MIg23 with a 21 degre instantaneous turn rate (similar to F5E).Better roll rate also.Radar of F1 was good in the second update.Magic1 was the best missile of its time in 1973. Mirage 2000 C can matche Mig29 even without helmet sight on short range.M2000mk5 outclass mig29.

>> (Dropbear) >> When was Cuba and South Africa at war?? Did I miss >> something here? (Shaken) As Aussiegunner points out, the Cuban AF (FAR) deployed to Angola in its war with South Africa. A quick glance at ACIG.org shows the Cuban Floggers are thought to have bagged three Mirage F1s and an Impala. -- Shaken - out --

>> (Shaken) >> "Both aircraft have advantages and disadvantages and >> neither were glowing examples of their era." > > (Aussiegunner) > I don't know as much about the F-1, but do know that > Mig 23's shot down enough F-4's during the war of attrition, > to make it a pretty credible threat. (Shaken) The MiG-23 is a hard aircraft to judge. It has some dodgy aerodynamics, is hard to fly well and is generally flown by pilots who aren't very good. There are fairly severe limits on g-load when transitioning the wing, which is doubly bad in a dogfight. But if you get the wing forward, it can turn forever. If you push the wing back it can go like hell. The MiG-23 has a pretty good BVR capability (though not in the same lague as the US fighters of the era), with a nice radar set and a fairly good family of missiles. In this arena, the MiG-23 is a peer of the F-4 and should have similar win/loss rates. Unfortunately for the Soviets, the Phantom was being replaced as the Flogger worked though the problems of the initial MiG-23MS production run (bad engine, interim electronics) and moved into full scale deployment with the MiG-23MF. > (Aussiegunner) > What fighter aircraft of that era would you call glowing? Umm, the Eagle and the Tomcat. Mirage F1 enters service in 1973, while the MiG-23 enters service in 1971. The F-14 enters service in 1972 and the F-15 entered service in 1974. The Mirage F1 and MiG-23 are woeful in comparison to these two fighters, being the last examples of the previous generations of fighters. Comparing tube-fuselage to lifting body is not at all fair, and the US aircraft set the standard for the world in terms of electronics. That France treid to compete the Mirage F1 against the F-16 for the NATO fighter buy was laughable. (Of course, this was a matter of timing. The Mirage 2000 wasn't ready in time for the competition. It was and is a viable competitor to the Viper). -- Shaken - out --

>> (Aussigunner) >> I guess it depends on whether you are flying a Mirage 3 or >> Mig in 1963 or 1973, on the avionics/missiles questions. >> I was always under the impression that the Matra 550 was >> an ok missile, better than an AA-2 at least. Perhaps the later >> models were better. Also, even if the Mirage's radar initially >> had reliability problems, it was a bigger set so you would >> expect a bigger footprint to match. (Shaken) Yes, we are talking about an era where dramatic changes in capability were occuring. The AA-2 being a bold-face copy of the AIM-9B had a leg up on most of its competitors during the 1960s. In the early seventies, the French and Soviets are producing peer aircraft to one another and fairly similar missiles. The French IRMs begin to overtake the Soviet in this era, but the Soviet RHMs are probably superior to their French counterparts. The USN Sidewinders are far and away the best IRM of the time. Best RHM is up for debate. AIM-54As are in service, but the Rolling Thunder era Sparrows have had many of their kinks worked out and are moving up the reliability curve. (Aussigunner) On the Mirage F-1/Mig 23 fight, I didn't know about that but don't think one fight tells us much about the Mig 23's turnign ability. F-1's shooting down 6 of the more manouverable Mig 21's probably gives us a better indication that the Mirage was better in the turn. (Shaken) There are many regimes in which the MiG-23 is the best turning aircraft of this lot, thanks to its high aspect almost straight wing (when swept forward). Unfortunately, it takes a good pilot to take advantage of the manually controlled wing and the Flogger _rarely_ had these available. With the wings forward, the Flogger's roll-rate suffers. The dogfighting comparison of the Flogger, Fishbed and Mirage F1 is close and has a lot of "it depends" built into the discussion. This is a case where the pilot will be the biggest deciding factor (although the MiG-21 canopy is a big technical flaw that weighs against the pilot). -- Shaken - out --

Not so much comment except that Magic 1 was the best IRM in 1973 above sidewinder (a turn rate 50% higher) , while US have the best RHM with the sparrow and Phoenix. The first very good French RHM (I mean at top level relative to Russia and US) was the Super S530D on M2000/F1CIV in 82 which outperform the best contemporary Sparrow.