DCS: MiG-23MLA by RAZBAM

I am expecting it to be quite useful in the current Blue Flag environment if they stick it into interceptor slots... Radar should be more or less on par with the current MiG-29A radar, just few km weaker.... the R-24s will perform more or less similar to the current un-updated R-27s... I see the scenario of running in... F-poling the amraam... getting the R-24s off... turning and out accelerating and outrunning the newer stuff...

Or even better, limit Blufor to Aim7's...

That is all true, but you're also comparing it in a scenario against 2-3 4th gens!

Not comparing to 2-3 F-15C but to Su-27S itself and its capabilities. If comparing to something Mig-23MLA it would then be the F-4 II Phantom with a similarities, and of course if we could have, a F-16A or F-15A or even F-14B (that we get).

Still, the helmet aiming device makes a huge difference in close combat. And the R-60 missiles would be as deadly then as R-73 was later on.

Flown well I'm sure it will be a dangerous opponent in equal numbers to the 4th gens, even if at a disadvantage. And of course, as you mention, when we get more Vietnam era stuff too.

Sure, in equal numbers it will be as it is more about pilot and their tactics how the utilize the weakness of enemy and strength of theirs.

I am very much waiting Mig-23MLA, more than any other fixed wing aircraft really. Only a Mi-24P and possibly even AH-1"whatever" comes before it.

My dream after Mig-23MLA is that we get a Mig-27K a couple years later. It would IMHO complete the Soviet aircrafts for years in 3rd generation.

I am expecting it to be quite useful in the current Blue Flag environment if they stick it into interceptor slots... Radar should be more or less on par with the current MiG-29A radar, just few km weaker.... the R-24s will perform more or less similar to the current un-updated R-27s... I see the scenario of running in... F-poling the amraam... getting the R-24s off... turning and out accelerating and outrunning the newer stuff...

If we just could get a semi-realistic GCI, as otherwise you wouldn't do anything like that.

The written rule was that if the GCI doesn't see the target, you are not authorized to engage it.

The GCI commands were the law, you obeyed them when they issued a commands to you, what headings, altitudes, speeds, what targets, when to activate radar, lock target, fire missile etc.

As the GCI had the full picture of the situation, they knew what was on the ground at air defense in own and enemy, and they knew where the enemy and own aircrafts were. So their much higher situational awareness that only now is approaching with a Link-16 and F-35 digital cockpits that gets transmitted to the pilot through his visor. So now in F-35 a pilot is doing the decisions that the GCI did on Soviet era a small team of tactician officers. Mig-21/23/27 etc pilots didn't need to know the full picture, only to follow what GCI talked to them. Even in dog fights the GCI knew better than a pilot in the air as the good GCI knew what the enemy is about to do when they were not read to do it themselves.

The Aggressors mimicked the Soviet use of GCI in order to complete their re-enactment of Soviet fighter doctrine. According to Robert “Kobe” Mayo, then a major in the initial cadre of Aggressors back at the 64th FWS, Nellis:

 

They were a fantastic asset. These guys flew with us, briefed with us, were part of the post-flight debriefing, and made it possible for us to do our mission. During our air-to-air engagements they were in there with us and we felt that they were as valuable as another wingman. I remember flying against a flight of two F-4s. During the debrief, I was playing my tape recording of the engagements and you could hear my GCI controller talking to me as if he were another fighter pilot participating in the fight.

At one point in the fight I was engaged with one of the F-4s and “Stump”, my GCI guy, was talking almost non-stop.

 

“Kobe, you can press your fight … the other F-4 is across the circle from you … Kobe, you’ve got 40 seconds left before he’s a threat … Kobe, come off hard right. The other F-4 is your 5 o’clock and 9,000ft, closing.”

 

I did break right, picked up the other F-4 and continued the fight. During the debrief when the F-4 guys heard my tape they were convinced that I had brought another wingman into the engagement.

They said, “There is no way any GCI controller could have that much awareness of what’s going on by looking at a radar screen. And he is not talking like a GCI controller, he’s talking like the fighter pilot that he is!” They were really upset and I’m not sure to this day that I convinced them that I was the only T-38 in the fight. Our GCI controllers were absolutely fantastic.

https://www.amazon.com/Red-Eagles-Americas-General-Aviation/dp/1846039703

If we just could get a semi-realistic GCI, as otherwise you wouldn't do anything like that.

The written rule was that if the GCI doesn't see the target, you are not authorized to engage it.

The GCI commands were the law, you obeyed them when they issued a commands to you, what headings, altitudes, speeds, what targets, when to activate radar, lock target, fire missile etc.

As the GCI had the full picture of the situation, they knew what was on the ground at air defense in own and enemy, and they knew where the enemy and own aircrafts were. So their much higher situational awareness that only now is approaching with a Link-16 and F-35 digital cockpits that gets transmitted to the pilot through his visor. So now in F-35 a pilot is doing the decisions that the GCI did on Soviet era a small team of tactician officers. Mig-21/23/27 etc pilots didn't need to know the full picture, only to follow what GCI talked to them. Even in dog fights the GCI knew better than a pilot in the air as the good GCI knew what the enemy is about to do when they were not read to do it themselves.

that's correct. Mig-23 and Mig-21 were organized in Air defense squadron which only do tactics in combination with Air defenses commanders in frontline defenses using a different GCI signal receiver. And then Mig-23, Mig-21 and Mig-25 working for Air force with another GCI receiver.

Mig-23 and Mig-25PD both have an IRST TP-26Sh under the nose to combine IR and SAHR missiles in interception sorties.

All was designed to be ordered and guided from GCI commanders with an interception point.

The current AWACS service is useless for this kind of interception. The Fighter Collection should make a plan to at least modify the current AWACS adding a choose option in the threat picture call for the interceptor pilot in his radio menu, then make slave the selected bandit for a final interception for the right point.

Now we get Flanking and hot and cold direction, with bearing and altitude. All this information does not show an interception point.

Edit: As we can do in CA slot, giving orders for AI flights groups to attack targets, the same can be made for an specific interception order. Using CA players as GCI commanders it is a good idea, or maybe they have another better...

Well, two ways they (raz or ED) could make this sort of work,

Obviously a human or multiple human GCIs in CA is probably the ideal solution for MP (at least one that knows what he's doing)

Secondly, I wonder if something like Jester AI could be adapted. Obviously it wouldn't be that smart, but it could certainly guide you in and yell at you if you deviated from whatever course you had (maybe that could be an option to turn off). And then once in the dogfight could provide Jester like callouts like enemy position, or break if there's a missile launch or stuff like that. I wouldn't be perfect, but it would be a nice way to leverage that specific technology.

I'd like for that to be more generalizable than just the mig23 as all of the other migs (15/19/21) would benefit from this.

Not comparing to 2-3 F-15C but to Su-27S itself and its capabilities. If comparing to something Mig-23MLA it would then be the F-4 II Phantom with a similarities, and of course if we could have, a F-16A or F-15A or even F-14B (that we get).

 

Still, the helmet aiming device makes a huge difference in close combat. And the R-60 missiles would be as deadly then as R-73 was later on.

 

 

 

Sure, in equal numbers it will be as it is more about pilot and their tactics how the utilize the weakness of enemy and strength of theirs.

 

I am very much waiting Mig-23MLA, more than any other fixed wing aircraft really. Only a Mi-24P and possibly even AH-1"whatever" comes before it.

 

My dream after Mig-23MLA is that we get a Mig-27K a couple years later. It would IMHO complete the Soviet aircrafts for years in 3rd generation.

Well realistically the MLA was a late 70's version which along with the later 80's era MLD's would have had to deal with early western 4th gen aircraft like the F14A, F15A, and F16A. Of those the first two would be serious problems for the mig23 due to their better BVR capabilities and radars. I recall seeing a Mig23 tactics manual which more or less said, don't mess with these aircraft. The F16A would be more tractable, as it only had Aim9's at that time and the early radar wasn't great.

I don't think the HMD system was actually in practice fitted to any MLA's, maybe the later MLD's. (I know it was tested in the mig23, but by then the mig29 was the priority)

I'd also love to see a mig27K, that would be an insta-buy for me, provided it was done properly.

Never in the Soviet tactics were Plan to face Mig-23 against F-14 as a counterpart. Also never in the US navy was a plan to deploy F-14 in the continental European battlefield. So the idea to set F-14 against Mig-23 is not realistic. The only cases we saw these two aircraft facing each other were two 3rd World countries using outdated versions as Libya send it two MF versions in a crazy move and Iraq using several versions in his war against Iran. In this last scenery you even can’t find many Iraqi pilots to confirm any real action because they are or died or in asylum somewhere, or they just do not want to declare anything of their actions. Go right now to Wikipedia and read Iranian F-14 shot down 160 Iraqi aircrafts... jajaja

To be honest in this regards. The multiplayers missions for the F-14 in DCS are a kind of sci-fi in realistic speaking. I don’t think this will change for Mig-23 by Razbam. I don’t expect a campaign, mostly because the load of work is huge.

What you gonna find in MP these days...: naval attack group with F-14 carriers just 45km from a red airbase where the red aircraft can’t take off quite and also need to evade missiles just after take off. No Tu-22M and no artillery to solve the situation by reds and they all the time expecting red forces use Su-25T to face a naval group. After saw this... I went to play my second option simulator.

PVO utilized Mig23. Its pretty clear there was some prospect of PVO Mig23's and F14's clashing in 1983 in the aftermath of KAL007. The European Battlefield also includes the North Cape, again, a likely flashpoint between the USN and the PVO or even Frontal Aviation.

They are near contemporaries, and would have fought each other.

this can happen only with the destruction of Soviet Naval groups in what range from the Mig-23 combat range you expect deploy an Aircraft carrier with all kind of Soviet threats? In a realistic scenery this only happen if you destroy the first line of the North Fleet and then the long range Naval aviation and long range coast artillery and then long range high altitude Soviet interceptors. You need to beat all those enemy threat to reach Mig-23 combat assignment area.

this can happen only with the destruction of Soviet Naval groups in what range from the Mig-23 combat range you expect deploy an Aircraft carrier with all kind of Soviet threats? In a realistic scenery this only happen if you destroy the first line of the North Fleet and then the long range Naval aviation and long range coast artillery and then long range high altitude Soviet interceptors. You need to beat all those enemy threat to reach Mig-23 combat assignment area.

Actually, I was thinking of a scenario on the Syria Map. Have airstrikes from f18's/F14's into Syria, which actually did operate MLA's.

Actually, I was thinking of a scenario on the Syria Map. Have airstrikes from f18's/F14's into Syria, which actually did operate MLA's.

I guess you want to do it better in Syria intending a Fight against Syrian Mig-23MLA. Sound good. Remember, that move with this level of military forces is not a surprise and in response a move of the allies forces mentioned above also apply.

What you want to try maybe apply better for F-16 from Israel.

I mean I am talking in a realistic simulation. The people always are free to do fictional scenery and play in them.

...

The MiG-23 will be modeled to be realistic and to the max of its capabilities and this includes a properly made datalink system.

Good news. Thanks for let it know that.

The MiG-23 will be modeled to be realistic and to the max of its capabilities and this includes a properly made datalink system.

Wow, i didn't expect that. That's the best info about this project, now i'm sold. This fighters had an ability to be automatically and semi automatically guided from the ground during interception in the most optimal way.

This was different philosophy than western but this ability would be something really new.

That's interesting! I wonder how they will pull that off, it's probably at least as complex as Jester AI.

Absolutely bizarre to dismiss confrontations between aircraft types as unrealistic, when these actually took place many times in the past at multiple different locations.

When there is a difference between reality and an idealized confabulation of the past, the problem lies with the latter.

 

I don't think the HMD system was actually in practice fitted to any MLA's, maybe the later MLD's. (I know it was tested in the mig23, but by then the mig29 was the priority)

It was tested as you know, but Mig-23 cockpit was too small to get it fitted without blocking visibility to front sides of the HUD.

There are photos of the installation and you really only can see through HUD for front view. So you are almost blind with it.

Otherwise it would have been installed if just possible, as it would have changed Mig-23 to be as deadly in close combat as Mig-29 etc.

Can’t wait to see the external model of this beauty as I was very happy with the overall quality of the Mig-19 by Razbam. Thanks Razbam.

The MiG-23 will be modeled to be realistic and to the max of its capabilities and this includes a properly made datalink system.

So how will the interaction with GCI be handled (if any?)

We will make use of this module once its out shame we didnt get MLD version.

So how will the interaction with GCI be handled (if any?)

We are currently disscusing these matters. We will let everybody know when we agree on the implementation.

this can happen only with the destruction of Soviet Naval groups in what range from the Mig-23 combat range you expect deploy an Aircraft carrier with all kind of Soviet threats? In a realistic scenery this only happen if you destroy the first line of the North Fleet and then the long range Naval aviation and long range coast artillery and then long range high altitude Soviet interceptors. You need to beat all those enemy threat to reach Mig-23 combat assignment area.

Well if you do a quick search on 'Fleetex 83' or 'Able Archer 83', you will probably find an article showing that in early 1983 (I think it was march) a USN Battlegroup was able to operate in the sea of Okhotsk for about 3 days before it was 'discovered'. Caused a bit of an international incident when a flight of F14's got lost and flew over a Soviet Island. One of the carriers involved was the USS Enterprise. It kind of illustrates, its not as easy to find aircraft carriers at sea as people claim, particularly nuclear powered ones.

There is also an interesting interview on the 'aircrew interview' page, where an F14 crewman (It might have been Okie, I cant remember) describes intercepting a Soviet Mig23 off the coast of Vietnam that was getting too close to the battlegroup.

There are plenty of circumstances an F14 and an Mig23 could have met. They did in real life as we can see.

Hello halowraith1,

 

 

What do you feel is still lacking in the cockpit? Could you expand on this?

 

 

Thanks

late reply, sorry.

i'm gonna be really frank; i didn't feel the cockpit textures were up to scratch in the Farmer, and both the exterior and internal sounds were too similar to the su-25.

the Flogger is a MAJOR piece of Soviet kit you're building so please, please take as much time as you need and then some to make it the top-notch module everyone's raving about. :thumbup:

late reply, sorry.

 

 

 

i'm gonna be really frank; i didn't feel the cockpit textures were up to scratch in the Farmer, and both the exterior and internal sounds were too similar to the su-25.

 

 

 

the Flogger is a MAJOR piece of Soviet kit you're building so please, please take as much time as you need and then some to make it the top-notch module everyone's raving about.

Sent from my SM-G930U using Tapatalk

It was tested as you know, but Mig-23 cockpit was too small to get it fitted without blocking visibility to front sides of the HUD.

There are photos of the installation and you really only can see through HUD for front view. So you are almost blind with it.

 

Otherwise it would have been installed if just possible, as it would have changed Mig-23 to be as deadly in close combat as Mig-29 etc.

I haven't seen the pics of that. Just read that it was tested on the 23, and that the mig29 at the time was more important to upgrade. And yes that would have greatly increased the lethality of the mig23 in WVR ranges in that era.