Z-95 Headhunter comprehensive list

[vanir]

Interesting footnote, the Russian MiG-25 Foxbat initially had a deadly reputation, but then got a bad rep in the 80s, then finally was vindicated in Desert Storm when they were flown into combat against the US military with no holds barred.

And I've got pilot reports saying they flew right past escorts to down attack birds with total impunity, and even in straight dogfights even at low altitude they performed just the same as a Phantom, so long as they had half tanks or less on board fuel weight and half missile loads.

Meaning it dispelled the "dispelled illusions" about the Foxbat the second time over. US speculators first thought it was ultimate, then thought it was unevolved, then finally US pilots reported it's just contemporary 2nd-3rd gen (2.5 gen?) and real dangerous whatever else you want to say about it.

Some Foxbat myths dispelled by Iraqi birds in action:
The Foxbat can't go supersonic near the deck, its performance is all at high altitude, even Mikoyan OKB claims this. US pilots reported Iraqi MiG-25 interceptors easily outrunning US missiles on the deck, right above the sand, going supersonic and then some.

The Foxbat can't manoeuvre at low altitude, the airframe simply cannot handle the stresses of low altitude dogfighting due to design limitations.
Again US pilots reported Iraqi birds were manoeuvring just like any Phantom or MiG-21 around, given in these encounters fuel and weapons loads were minimal. The Foxbat is capable of tremendous loads in both, and they reduce performance markedly under those conditions.
Just like they do the Eagle or any warbird.

What the Eagle pilots found was Iraqi Foxbats had straight line acceleration over them and if they had any visual distance at all during missile fire, they could evade them every time by simply overwhelming any kind of AAM with pure superior sustained energy. Add ECM (flares and chaff were used prodigiously), and Iraqi Foxbats were near impossible to hit unless you outmanoeuvred them first and set up a really good point blank range shot nobody could get out of. Easier said than done.

At the same time the Eagle drivers were clear on having far more effective avionics and seekers for the most part. The Foxbats were at a definite technological disadvantage, but then part of the benefit of having an ancient analogue fire control set is it's virtually impossible to jam with a digital signal. Especially when it's as high powered as a Foxbat's and masks multiple signal frequencies for signal interpretation.
The Foxbat radar literally microwave-cooks rabbits on the runway during staging, something it's known for among Russian pilots. And its set is utterly jam-proof, not a real huge paint range but if you get within about 60km on a good line to a Foxbat in BVR, you're done. That, combined with immense missile-energy translates to being real dangerous in fighter vs fighter at as much as 15-30km. That's peak AMRAAM range and a lot of Eagles stock AIM-7M (problems with early AIM-120A seekers), Russian missiles typically have much more energy and a bigger warhead than comparative US ones, but use older avionics. It basically means, and this was the experience of Eagle drivers in Iraq, Eagles and Foxbats engage BVR at about the same combat ranges against fighters (Americans just use smaller missile weights to do it).

It was largely the fact the Eagle performs so much better at low alt, in thick air, under high fuel burn and high g situations, the Iraqi ones were virtually always forced to play in the Eagle's strengths so lost out in most cases.
But in many others they were literally impervious. Several reports describe them streaking in at mid alt, doing their damage, then outrunning everything on the field from missile fire to escorts.

Anything that quick that handles like a Phantom, well it's tougher than some give it credit for.

[Fallon Kell]

[vanir]

Well generally yes, although there are several airframe versions of the MiG-21 and several Phantom versions with different combat capbilities.
On the Fishbed the rule of thumb is the F-5 was adopted as an aggressor dissimilar training fighter specifically because its performance at low altitude is virtuallly identical to a MiG-21, they're slightly modified so that they do actually perform identically.
And here's an interesting point. Word from the academy is (published and correlated), 1 F-5 against an F-15 has serious problems but 2 F-5s against 2 Eagles come out about even on average of dogfight tallies during training, and 3 F-5s can just about dominate 2 Eagles in CWC (BFM, dogfighting).
Believe it or not Northrop actually offered the F-5 as a competitor against the Eagle in the FX contract. Of course it lost, but the argument which was realistic was that for half the cost you could often do just as much.

Now that's how a MiG-21 handles dude, serious. Phantoms aren't far off, more excess thrust but less high speed acceleration and low speed manoeuvre, and by rights a Foxbat is right in there somewhere, not far behind as has been asserted for some years.

Also, with weapons stores the only modern fighter that can exceed things like Phantoms for induced loading is the Viper (F-16). Everything else gets g-limited.
Those 3-4G Phantom turns are serious turns, they're what an Eagle driver considers a very hard turn. He could exceed it, but it's a risk to the airframe, nominal limits are 7.5-9G (depending on KIAS), but those can't be sustained. 3-4G is about as hard as anyone in a dogfight usually goes unless they're crazy, but yeah okay US honeycomb fighters are built for crazy pilots.
But honestly, aerial combat in all the major actions of recent decades doesn't even nearly go past 3-4G in dogfights.

That said, Israeli pilots talk about crazy things MiG-21s do on the field, one claim is an 8G supersonic loop down to the deck, right in front of a pursuing Mirage III. Unfortunately it lost so much energy the Mirage shot him down, but the pilot was astonished that a MiG-21 pulled that manoeuvre, he said it was an impossible manoeuvre in any aircraft he knew.

Israeli MiG-25 claims, these supported by US CIA operations supporting the Israeli mission, and led to the 1972 declaration by the US Secretary of Defence that "The MiG-25 is currently the most potent interceptor in the world."
4 Phantoms were radar directed on interception vectors by ground stations to a MiG-25 incursion. It outmanoeuvred them, outsped them, then outran all their missiles. Ground stations clocked it at Mach 3.2
As a footnote Soviet records show the Foxbat in question was operated by a Russian pilot on loan to the Egyptians, and the engines were destroyed during the flight and had to be replaced upon landing.

But...the Eagle has exactly the same problem when you exceed Mach 1.78, no kidding. The Mach 2.5 top speed listed is only when you blow the engines, like the Foxbat it's a one shot deal. But the Foxbat does 2.85 Mach minimum when you do that, it's entirely quicker with entirely more supersonic performance.
Really falls down manoeuvring on the deck though, sure, but not as bad as once thought according to Iraq experience by US Eagle drivers (not to mention the Israelis and half of western Europe had been saying this since 1980).


The rough lines I'm drawing here are, honestly, manoeuvrability ratings:
Eagle 3D+1 (with stores and droptanks 2D)
Viper 4D (only with bombs reduce to 3D)
Fulcrum 3D (varies around high subsonic), (MiG-35 OVT version 4D+2)
Flanker 3D+2 (half fuel load), 2D+2 (full load), (superflanker ovt 4D+1)
Hornet 3D
Phantom 1D+2
MiG-21bis 2D+1
F-5 2D+1
MiG-25 2D (half fuel), 1D (full load)

But part of the confusion would be WEGRP doesn't account for manoeuvrability due to excess thrust, it kind of just has a straight airframe limitation which pilots can achieve but there's more involved in performance comparisons between different birds.

Outmanouevring another aircraft might be all about pilot skill and fuel burn, but evading missiles is 100% all about relative energy. And a Foxbat just has oodles and oodles of energy, well beyond any missile, at any altitude. It's a tough nut to knock down in anyone's language, even with different reasons why.

[vanir]

Sorry I get a bit intense. I do mods/apps for a couple of commercial flight sims.
Takes a bagload of research.


Ask me anything about a Focke Wulf or a Messerschmitt. I can give Daimler boost ratings by month for a Messer. Read all the paperwork before submitting the mods.
Ooh, ooh, give me a precise build date and a squadron role/location for a Messerschmitt 109 and I'll tell you exactly what was delivered to your airfield, down to the stores kits fitted and which synthetic fuel type was also sent to operate it.



Oh hey one more footnote on the Foxbat vs Eagle score, tons more power and acceleration right from 15,000ft (on paper the Eagle should dominate it at about 12,000ft and under). The normal speed limitation on a Foxbat to preserve the engines is 2.5 Mach, this it can do all day. Its cruise speed is 2.35 Mach (eg. accelerate from staging and climb to intercept) which is just incredible for any true fighter/interceptor (SR-71/YF-17A are spacecraft with air-breather engines fitted, hardly conventional aircraft, they even require a NASA ground station to sub-contract for all missions since inception, run by the CIA but there you go, not exactly a fighter warbird sortie, more like a space launch).

Eagle's nominal speed limitation is 1.78 Mach to preserve the engines. If exceeded the engines must have complete tear down maintenance upon landing...if they survived. 2.5+ Mach is an achievable airframe limitation with those engines if you don't care about destroying them.
Nominal limitation on the MiG is 2.5 Mach, the airframe limitation is 2.82 Mach, but the monstrous throats on the engines and the bullet-like profile lets it get as high as 3.2 Mach so far clocked.
And extensive tests were performed when they put bombs on Foxbats, all later build Foxbats can sustain 2.82 Mach with a full warload, until the fuel runs out, with total reliability although this requires exceptional engine management by the pilot, anything above 2.5 Mach does.

Seriously, words can't describe how quick these things are, even to an Eagle pilot locking missiles, he's thinking, they're never going to make it to that thing if he pours on the power and does any kind of direction change. That simple, don't have the energy for it.
And no way you're going to get close enough for guns unless he makes a critical piloting mistake.
But...that's how most US-Foxbat (Iraqi) successes happened. Awesome training, US forces, they're really good. Their best are as good as Russian Guards pilot-instructors (pretty damn good).