F-111 vs MiG-23! | with Jeff Guinn 

😁It was......😀

Oh for sure it was! I was stationed there back then as a Weapons Troop. The Range we used was out that way. Fun times a long time ago.

What was the max speed when doing TF?

“Tent peg.” 😂 More like a shredded beer can. 550 knots + mountain = beer can size pieces.🥶 No penetration what so ever. “That’s what she said.” 😂🤣😂

or a 80,000 pound lawn dart

I was also at Heyford in '82 working transient alert. Loved my time there.

The MiG 23 was not well thought of in that book.

You lucky mother fluffer

He is a top bloke.

Wait Jeff is having a BBQ oh yea I’m in I will bring some Hangar 24 Betty IPA

I believe the RAF V Bomber force used to use the same technique for nuclear weapons drops to reduce blast forces on the aircraft post detention. The practice was stopped, even though it was successful, when it was realized the stress damage being caused to the air frame. I'm sure that the designers never had in mind a bomber being thrown around like a fighter. It still boggles the mind that these guys would have fly through hundreds of miles of enemy territory to delivery their weapons and the explosion of the bombs might destroy the aircraft. It certainly sounded like a one way trip for the crews.

@@simonpotter7534 it certainly was a crazy method but very effective! I asked a GR4 pilot about this, regarding dropping a bomb and head back west, but don't have high hopes of finding anything to come back home to, I really can't imagine what was going through there minds when they got the scramble armed with a nuke, it's crazy.

Long range, high speed medium bomber that could fly extremely low. It was perfect at its job

Holy shit!

I’m not holding the laser.

81-2002.... MSgt USAF AMMO RET.

Stationed at MO for 2 1/2 years. Enjoyed the experience and it made me a confident and experienced crew chief.

There is at least one more, somewhat closer to me.

Damn. I was just in Kiev. I wanted to go to the museum but it was flipping 20 degrees below zero. Next time....

Been there, done that...

I believe so, they USAF did not have the definitive MLD version which had more power, less weight and better maneuverability

He was a 3 star General. Thats why he was allowed to fly it!

@@gazof-the-north1980 I was told by my boss, an O6 fighter pilot himself, that General Bond had some special experience in Soviet aircraft, though I've never been able to confirm this. Each time a general is killed while flying an aircraft, the USAF comes out with a new policy. Since generals make these policies, they are subject to morph over time until the next one is killed.

@@Paladin1873 Given the time (1984) and the location (Tonapah) of the Generals fatal joyride - think the fear was it would leak/reveal the highly secret (at that time) F-117!

@@gazof-the-north1980 Possibly, I don't know. We often heard rumors of advanced aircraft, but could never confirm any of them. Several air weapon controllers I worked with a few years later told me about seeing high speed tracks on their monitors during this same time period that indicated an aircraft was flying at very high Mach numbers, well beyond the capabilities of any existing operational or known experimental aircraft (the X-15 had long since been retired). The scuttlebutt was that it was part of Project Aurora, a phantom program still surrounded in mystery.

USAF general crashed one of the MIG23s in Nevada and was killed. The thing I most remember about flying against the -23 at CONSTANT PEG in the F-111 was it's rate of acceleration. While it wasn't faster at the top end than the F-111, it sure could get up to speed faster. It resembled an F-111 and our eyeballs were calibrated to an F-111 sizewise. It was a real eye opener when we did a visual ranging exercise with the Mig since it would be much much closer than we thought.

@@timothywitt4864 MG Bond. Anyway, the -23 could out-accelerate even an F-15 in the trans-sonic region. That was about all that was great about it, though. Most countries who bought and used it were pretty disappointed with it, as a whole.

My dad was tac eval at the 48th in lakenheath back in the 60's along with his best friend... We were all family.. my dad died in 69 and six months later his buddy Died in a 111 doing low-level.at Nellis.

The Mig-23BN and MiG-27 were quite OK for AtoG, indeed. The flight profile is a lot safer than that of the interceptor!

Interesting, I wasn't familiar with this. The only part I'm not surprised by is the BVR capability, as the F-16 was not designed with it. That came in the late 80s I believe.

The upgraded F-111C’s with Pave Tack sure weren’t ‘piles of s-t’

The MiG-23 generally doesn't have a good reputation. There are stories that the later production MiG-23s had better handling and were more reliable but trying to convince the Libyans and Syrians of that would be a HUGE challenge! The US also lost 1, perhaps 2 officers flying MiG-23s in accidents. One of them was Gen. Bond. (Shaken martini jokes aside, his name WAS Robert Bond.) The export versions of most Soviet designs were vastly inferior to the Russian versions in at least the avionics. The The Soviets didn't want their electronic secrets (radar, ECM, fire control) lost to the West if the West recovered debris after battle or someone defected with a MiG to the West. The Belenko MiG-25 defection was a HUGE intelligence windfall for the West. The Soviets wanted to minimize chances of that happening again but they had at least 1-2 other Russian guys defect with equipment including a MiG-29 in the 1980s. The Bekaa Valley "turkey shoot" and the F-14/Soviet swingwing encounters of 1981 and 1989 did NOT paint good pictures of the Su-22 and MiG-23 as competent fighters or say much to bolster confidence in Soviet tactics and equipment.

@@AvengerII Su-22 is not a fighter for starters its for ground atack. F14 incounter with MiG-23 didnt not include BVR fight. F14s fired first.

Probably in low level, high speed envelopes, without weapon load it is true. Otherwise, while the Flogger seemed to be a maintenance and budget nightmare, it DID perform better than the Fishbeds.

@@TheGranicd That doesn't change the fact that on AT LEAST one interception in 1981, the Libyan Air Force flew Fitters against American F-14s. You CAN'T deny that. And one of them DID fire on the F-14 patrol. You're revising history and not accepting the facts if you deny the reality of that situation. They WERE in international waters, not the BS Quaddafi claimed, and were behaving hostily.

The later Floggers did receive large aerodynamics improvements from the ML and MLD series, but yes the early models (which as far as I know is that the US got their hands on) were notoriously mediocre performers.

The Americans must had grabbed on of the very first models of the -23, and those weren't great. By the time the -29 and Su-27 entered operation, the MLD model was operational, and those models can indeed turn well, as the South Africans discovered in the Angolan Bush War with a earlier model.

@@magoid ah thank you for that info!

@@magoid We had more than one…

PICLex There is a German guy who was interviewed.post reunification he was trained on MiG-29 and flew until they were retired.

They probably could and have attempted such interviews. Perhaps there is a reason as to why they are not taking. I too would love to hear their stories and perspectives.

BAHAHAHA What might that be?

No Air Force flies F-111s anymore. NASA had one they used for research but I don't know if it's still flying.

Gregory Parrott: FYI the F-111 is a lousy design and a Pentagon blunder and just one reason the USAF and Pentagon despised Col. John R. Boyd who revolutionized modern warfare. I recommend you read his biography written by Robert Coram.

@@OuttaHere7 Everybody can have an opinion. I flew the F-111 for a number of years and it could do things that no other aircraft in the inventory could do. Like every aircraft design, it is a compromise. The F-111 was optimised to deliver bombs low level, at high speeds and it could do this better than any other aircraft. The original concept was flawed in that it was conceived as a do everything (well) aircraft for both the Navy and the Air Force. It couldn't and never did.

Yes sadly the RAAF no longer flies the F111.

RAAF buried or decommissioned all planes as they were nuclear delivery capable and too costly to maintain.

Mac, want a rant... Just give a rest, do you think US is superpower. Only if haw been more onest and humble in your "win" couple of decades ago. True democracy and light in the world, no... Just money and power, insane dream of endles gluteny US is just a front for multinationals and mil complex, its long gone. My friend read what one of your presidents read in 1950s, Eisenhauer.

F111 was designed as a fighter bomber replacement, but it was later found better as, and its role changed, it evolved with the times instead of being phased out. Amazing airframe

Robert McNamara, the guy that made Vietnam worse, had an idea to save money by making a really expensive airplane that could do everything. Kinda like making one vehicle that could be a personal transportation vehicle and a dump truck. Well, anyone with an engineering background or a rudimentary understanding of aerodynamics knows this is impossible, but software people and accountants aren't always real great with the hard sciences. So they built the multi-purpose aircraft and it ended up being a great low level bomber. Completely useless as a fighter or interceptor, but a great bomber. Lowest loss rate to enemy fire than any aircraft that flew in Vietnam, and later served in first gulf war. It should have been known as B-111.

@@tomsmith3045 Thanks for the explanation. Wonder if they did the same with the development of the F-35? They built 3 versions of it, which probably defeat the original goal of a multi- purpose multi- service plane.

@@mikaelbiilmann6826 It's a great question. There seem to be similarities to me, but others say that it's not as bad. The F-35 is slower than most other fighters, and shorter range than most attack planes, so it is a compromise in some ways.

@@tomsmith3045 Thanks for your exlanation. So kinda like the Russians have the MiG-29 for the short range defense, and the Su-27 family for the frontline defense? The US have the F-15 as air dominance and the F-35 for when the russian air defences are down to go in and finish the job? Of course along with the B-bombers.

@Firsthgyhgyhuy Lastujhujhuj "Dont talk crap." Don't act like you? Drivel. Yaaaawn.

Yes they did. Even against Iranian f-14s.

It was said that the -MLD was superior to early vipers in sustained turn rate at all altitudes, and had superior BVR capability. The way to fight the MLD in an early model viper was to keep your airspeed above 350 kts and stay down in the weeds, but even then it was not a sure thing.

The only thing that's an even bigger joke than your comment is your meme name, "best of the best" 🤣🤣🤣🤣. OMG what a joke, you don't really think that about yourself do you?

Depends on the mission. For what the F-111 was tasked to do, side by side was better. Air to Air, I agree--tandem is better.

111 was a fast bomber not a fighter

@@alexjohnward think there was a planned Naval fighter version but it got canned ,programme eventually led to the F14

Navy Requirement like the A-6 and the failed A-12.

🤣🤣🤣

someones got brains and balls !