MIG 23MLA capabilities

I wouldn't want to turn with a Mirage 2000 in a MiG-23.:smilewink:

Depends on speed. A straight wing MiG-23 will have a really small turn radius and high angular speed, and at low speeds overloads are not too high, combined with the R-60MK this could be really dangerous. This is of course one out of many possible scenarios, in the general diapason of turning performance the Mirage has the advantage so the 23 pilot should use more the vertical against such an opponent.

Depends on speed. A straight wing MiG-23 will have a really small turn radius and high angular speed, and at low speeds overloads are not too high, combined with the R-60MK this could be really dangerous. This is of course one out of many possible scenarios, in the general diapason of turning performance the Mirage has the advantage so the 23 pilot should use more the vertical against such an opponent.

I have heard of this R-60MK variant but can't find much info on it, how does it differ from the R-60/R-60M, and will the MiG-23MLA module recieve it?

I have heard of this R-60MK variant but can't find much info on it, how does it differ from the R-60/R-60M, and will the MiG-23MLA module recieve it?

Export version of the R-60M.

It’s almost always means export for Soviet/Russian gear. Unless it means naval:)

Not an export version, but a change in the proximity fuse from the R-60M optic one to a radar one on the R-60MK. Same limited all aspect missile.

Interesting

Inverse squared law is a bitch.

It is worse than that - radar return signal goes like 1 over the distance to the power of 4...

(Inverse square to the target multiplied by inverse square of the way back).

Trying to burn through ecm is a very poor way to deal with it and will work only at short distances before you will get overwhelmed by the inverse power of 4. Also, if the ecm technique is more sophisticated than simple noise even that will not work.

Radars and radar guided missiles can be reduced to uselessness by some modern ECM. That part is usually not modeled very in depth in computer games that tend to model simple noise jam or at best range/speed gate steals for radars and adopt the official P_kill values for missiles. That “official” P_kill is for near ideal conditions with regards to ECM. Of course, ecm has its own requirements and conditions in order to function currently so it may not always work too.

It is worse than that - radar return signal goes like 1 over the distance to the power of 4...

(Inverse square to the target multiplied by inverse square of the way back).

Trying to burn through ecm is a very poor way to deal with it and will work only at short distances before you will get overwhelmed by the inverse power of 4. Also, if the ecm technique is more sophisticated than simple noise even that will not work.

 

Radars and radar guided missiles can be reduced to uselessness by some modern ECM. That part is usually not modeled very in depth in computer games that tend to model simple noise jam or at best range/speed gate steals for radars and adopt the official P_kill values for missiles. That “official” P_kill is for near ideal conditions with regards to ECM. Of course, ecm has its own requirements and conditions in order to function currently so it may not always work too.

Yup. Im well aware and on the improve the ECM/ECCM torch and pitchfork committee.

What's with the rumored licensing kerfluffle? Storm in a teaglass or serious roadblock?

What's with the rumored licensing kerfluffle? Storm in a teaglass or serious roadblock?

What rumor?

I find the whole licensing thing with any russian/soviet aircraft to be weird but I'm not a lawyer. I mean the mig23 was developed in a country that "doesn't exist" anymore (Russia is not Soviet Union, legally speaking), the company that built it presumably didn't retain "rights" to it in the legal sense under that regime, but maybe they did after it all fell apart. And now the team doing this is basing it on an Cuban Export MLA (from what I know). Its a really weird situation IMO.

There has been a slight agreement problem between ED and Razbam.

But it seems it has been solved, and Razbam hold the agreement with ED to make DCS MiG-23 MLA.

So I would say the case is closed.

Yeah, the case was closed in like 2017/2018, a while ago

The main quiestion which MLA will be modelled.

There were actulaly several variants of MLA - MLA 23-12A - an upgraded ML variant. MIG-23ML and MiG-23P for PVO were produced on the same plant, and it was decided to use -P parts for unification. 23-12A recieved N003 radar (Amethyst series, ML uses Sapphire MiG-23P used N006), upgraded sight ASP-17ML and other minor unifications. Then there were export variants of 23-12(A) - "variant A"for WarPac and "Variant B" for 3rd world.

There are also MiG-23MLAE 23-19, or "B variant" for 3-rd world countries and MiG-23MLAE-2 23-22A for WarPac countries - essentially a 23-18 (i.e. MLD) but w/o aerodynmic improvements.

While I'm waiting MiG-23MLA, still I wish it was MLD, because MLD feautured massive upgrades over 23-12A: N003 replaced with N008 which feautured digital signal processing and dedicated dogfight mode.

Upgraded weapon control which allowed use R-73 (up to four)

Vortex generators on pitot and "lambda" LEX

BVP-50-60 flare dispensers + new fuel tank pilon with intergrated flare dispensor

Unified trim

new flight control SOS-3-4 that allowed utomatically prevent stall at wing angles >30deg by moving control stick away from pilot

SPO-10 replaced with SPO-15

new IFF

and other minor improvements.

Overall with all upgrades MLD comes close to Gen-4 fighter and much more agile in dogfight.

Over Stratos has said it wil have options for SPO-10 or SPO-15, Lazur datalink, and optional countermeasure dispensers, we will not get R-73

The main quiestion which MLA will be modelled.

There were actulaly several variants of MLA - MLA 23-12A - an upgraded ML variant. MIG-23ML and MiG-23P for PVO were produced on the same plant, and it was decided to use -P parts for unification. 23-12A recieved N003 radar (Amethyst series, ML uses Sapphire MiG-23P used N006), upgraded sight ASP-17ML and other minor unifications. Then there were export variants of 23-12(A) - "variant A"for WarPac and "Variant B" for 3rd world.

 

There are also MiG-23MLAE 23-19, or "B variant" for 3-rd world countries and MiG-23MLAE-2 23-22A for WarPac countries - essentially a 23-18 (i.e. MLD) but w/o aerodynmic improvements.

While I'm waiting MiG-23MLA, still I wish it was MLD, because MLD feautured massive upgrades over 23-12A: N003 replaced with N008 which feautured digital signal processing and dedicated dogfight mode.

Upgraded weapon control which allowed use R-73 (up to four)

Vortex generators on pitot and "lambda" LEX

BVP-50-60 flare dispensers + new fuel tank pilon with intergrated flare dispensor

Unified trim

new flight control SOS-3-4 that allowed utomatically prevent stall at wing angles >30deg by moving control stick away from pilot

SPO-10 replaced with SPO-15

new IFF

and other minor improvements.

Overall with all upgrades MLD comes close to Gen-4 fighter and much more agile in dogfight.

It isn't about what we wish, it is about what data they can access to.

It's the same thing for all 3r party studios.

If I'm not mistaken the MiG-23MLA we get will be based on a Cuban MiG-23MLA, so just a regular "upgraded" ML with the option to upgrade it to the Iraqi MiG-23MLA with a SPO-15 instead of a SPO-10. So no dedicated export version like the two MLAE-2-versions that are more comparable to a MLD anyway. Sure the MLD was the "best" version, but i still don't get why people still have such a problem with it just getting the "2nd best version", i think its far better than getting nothing at all, its probably not very easy to get any access to a soviet MiG-23MLD. I thought that was pretty clear by now.

Ok, just to stop all speculation. Cuban MLAs were exactly the same as Soviet MLAs, just with different IFF equipment.

Second, we are working to have access to MiG-23MLD information, but there´s nothing definitive yet.

If you DO manage to get enough accurate data on the MLD, do you intend to change course and develop it instead, or will you make both?

Just curious.

I'd prefer both, as MLA has a wider historical span. And it fought in Angola....

Ok, just to stop all speculation. Cuban MLAs were exactly the same as Soviet MLAs, just with different IFF equipment.

 

Second, we are working to have access to MiG-23MLD information, but there´s nothing definitive yet.

Very cool. Thanks OS... :thumbup:

If MLD ever comes to scope of possibility, I would like to see it as a add-on to MiG-23MLA, meaning it requires you own the MiG-23MLA first and then you can buy a MLD with lower fee than full module price. This way if one wants to buy MLD, they need to buy MLA as well.

And while the MLA should be challenge to fly at low speeds turning fights, I think I would prefer it as well, as long we get to fly against appropriate enemies.

If MLD ever comes to scope of possibility, I would like to see it as a add-on to MiG-23MLA, meaning it requires you own the MiG-23MLA first and then you can buy a MLD with lower fee than full module price. This way if one wants to buy MLD, they need to buy MLA as well.

That seems needlessly restrictive. If there were two modules why not just give owners of one a discount toward the other?

if this become true, i would buy both modules 23 times. . . PROMISED! :-)

Manchester!

That seems needlessly restrictive. If there were two modules why not just give owners of one a discount toward the other?

Yeah this. But if they do a good job with the 23mla, id buy a 23mld.