DCS: MiG-23MLA by RAZBAM

I have the magazine pages as a PDF, but not sure Is possible to upload them here. Maybe a moderator can clarify?

Easier to upload to ie. Google Drive and then send Personal Message to those wants to read those pages (I am interested).

The only advantage of MiG-29 over MiG-23MLD in BVR is a little lesser workload. Engagement distance is same. And you have the same SPO-15.

As for MLA, its mostly R-23 or R-24 loaded making a difference between barely keeping up with Phantoms and Starfighter-G's to trying to attack a sparrow-armed F-15 head-on.

AFAIK, the only armament that MiG-23MLD shares with the MiG-29 is the R-73 as R-27s were never added. This leaves the MLD with the same R-24s for BVR as the MLA, giving the R-27 armed MiG-29 the edge.

Also, I don´t understand what you mean by "barely keeping up".

Easier to upload to ie. Google Drive and then send Personal Message to those wants to read those pages (I am interested).

Should I make a list of the people interested? :D

Yeap, its MLA because the documentation they have access to is that Bird.

But I Agree we need more NATO era counterparts.

I dont wnat the most capable jets in DCS i want the most interesting ones.

We need Phantom II´s, Starfighters, Tornados, Corsair II´s, Crusaders, Mirage III´s, I´s, 80´s stuff!

As it is now Full fidelity Modules from red and blue do not match ;)

AFAIK, the only armament that MiG-23MLD shares with the MiG-29 is the R-73 as R-27s were never added. This leaves the MLD with the same R-24s for BVR as the MLA, giving the R-27 armed MiG-29 the edge.

Also, I don´t understand what you mean by "barely keeping up".

According to pilots who transitioned from MLD to Su-27 the only real difference was impressive fuel capacity of the latter. N001"Sword" does not add much range over N008 or N003, and "usual" R-27 are basically same as R-24. Thats what R-23/R-24 manual says at least. Or maybe real R-27 are better than in DCS.

By keeping up I assume that when you have R-23 a Phantom will likely have first shot. If you have R-24 you may have a first shot against an F-15 if you are fast and reasonably high.

As for R-73, of course its an improvement but its better to win with a rifle than with a knife :).

As for helmet cueing, strap your head to a wall with industrial bungee cords and add a cinder block on top. Now you have an idea of what its like to cue your R-73/Aim-9X in a turn :))

Long story short, I dont know if its MLA and MLD pleasantly surprising me or Mig-29 disappointing me.

Yeap, its MLA because the documentation they have access to is that Bird.

But I Agree we need more NATO era counterparts.

I dont wnat the most capable jets in DCS i want the most interesting ones.

 

We need Phantom II´s, Starfighters, Tornados, Corsair II´s, Crusaders, Mirage III´s, I´s, 80´s stuff!

 

As it is now Full fidelity Modules from red and blue do not match ;)

Extremely hoping for at least a bot MIII. Hope Razbam can make the M2000's simplier predecessor.

Yeap, its MLA because the documentation they have access to is that Bird.

But I Agree we need more NATO era counterparts.

I dont wnat the most capable jets in DCS i want the most interesting ones.

 

We need Phantom II´s, Starfighters, Tornados, Corsair II´s, Crusaders, Mirage III´s, I´s, 80´s stuff!

 

As it is now Full fidelity Modules from red and blue do not match ;)

Agree since both ED and 3rd parties can model realistic planes from 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, but nobody will be able to realistically model more modern i.e. Russian planes. So no counterparts for the 2005 Hornet, Viper, Warthog in the future. Maybe only Pakistani JF-17.

And an air war up to about Desert Storm was arguably more interesting/fun/engaging to play than modern flying computers.

Agree since both ED and 3rd parties can model realistic planes from 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, but nobody will be able to realistically model more modern i.e. Russian planes. So no counterparts for the 2005 Hornet, Viper, Warthog in the future. Maybe only Pakistani JF-17.

And an air war up to about Desert Storm was arguably more interesting/fun/engaging to play than modern flying computers.

Big +1

Easier to upload to ie. Google Drive and then send Personal Message to those wants to read those pages (I am interested).

Yeah me too.

Agree since both ED and 3rd parties can model realistic planes from 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, but nobody will be able to realistically model more modern i.e. Russian planes. So no counterparts for the 2005 Hornet, Viper, Warthog in the future. Maybe only Pakistani JF-17.

And an air war up to about Desert Storm was arguably more interesting/fun/engaging to play than modern flying computers.

100%. I only buy the modern stuff to support the rest. Tomcat is about as modern as I want.

According to pilots who transitioned from MLD to Su-27 the only real difference was impressive fuel capacity of the latter. N001"Sword" does not add much range over N008 or N003, and "usual" R-27 are basically same as R-24. Thats what R-23/R-24 manual says at least. Or maybe real R-27 are better than in DCS.

I wonder why those pilots seem to omit the plethora of characteristics in which the Su-27 is vastly superior to the MiG-23MLD, including the radar. Regarding the baseline R-27 I can tell that it´s also superior to the R-24.

By keeping up I assume that when you have R-23 a Phantom will likely have first shot. If you have R-24 you may have a first shot against an F-15 if you are fast and reasonably high.

The R-23 is equivalent to the AIM-7E, while the R-24 is close enough to the AIM-7F in high altitude range and about equal at low altitude. Both the R-23 and 24 use monopulse seekers, that the Sparrow only got in the M version.

Regarding the baseline R-27 I can tell that it´s also superior to the R-24.

Looking forward towards comparing your professional model R-24 to ED R-27. Maybe this would force improvements in it, good for the whole DCS ecosystem.:thumbup:

I would put to bed the R-73/23MLD topic. It's known to have been tested but this ability has been (if at all) available in a very limited number of Soviet MLD's. The last serial produced MLD's served with the Bulgarian AF and still had 60M as short range missile.

I would put to bed the R-73/23MLD topic. It's known to have been tested but this ability has been (if at all) available in a very limited number of Soviet MLD's. The last serial produced MLD's served with the Bulgarian AF and still had 60M as short range missile.

AFAIK, the option existed, not sure If anyone applied it, but the USSR had tons of updated MiG-23MLD.

We are getting MLA, and limited to late K-13 and R-60. Any R-73 speculation is useless. And R-60 is decent enough for its era, its just small warhead makes it less effective. Still you can finish a crippled enemy with the gun.

The R-60 is enough for the MiG-23MLA, as the R-73 really would need a HMS to be such a admirable weapon. So its main benefit would be the increase range, but the R-60 agility ain't so bad at all.

The problem is anyways the MiG-23MLA limitation in close combat targeting modes, requiring you to fly in boresighted aiming. The MiG-23MLD would improve that situation but we get the MLA.

The problem is that people are going to put Mig-23MLA against almost 30 years newer Teen Fighters, of course it will be in disadvantage in those phases, what is to be expected?

The R-60 is such a missile that you shouldn't look down at it at all, even when it is small and has small warhead, it still is more than just "puff" when hit, unless hit badly and you get just the minor damage. But when we get improved damage modeling to fighters, you will start to feel those R-60 missiles effect far more.

I'm not familiar with this plane. What kind of plane is it? Air to air? Or air to ground? Or multi-function? Does it have air to ground radar mode?

I'm not familiar with this plane. What kind of plane is it? Air to air? Or air to ground? Or multi-function? Does it have air to ground radar mode?

It is mainly air to air, with limited AG capabilities. It was mainly designed to be extremely fast and high altitude interceptor/fighter instead of a bomber.

The successor MiG-27 was having more AG capabilities and better cockpit visibility with drawbacks in performance.

Detailed info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-23

lmao anyone who looks down on the r-60 hasnt used it at all

you guys cry over the smallest losses in paper performance as if they were death sentences yet you think you can just shrug off an r-60 and win the fight?

what a joke

I'm not familiar with this plane. What kind of plane is it? Air to air? Or air to ground? Or multi-function? Does it have air to ground radar mode?

You can start with this:

The 2nd video is very silent - Need to turn up volume.

But nice overview - thanks for it :)

I'm not familiar with this plane. What kind of plane is it? Air to air? Or air to ground? Or multi-function? Does it have air to ground radar mode?

The MiG-23 airframe was used for two main types of aircraft: frontline fighter/interceptor and ground attack variants.

Most know fighter variants were the MF, ML and MLD. These were mainly focused on air-to-air combat, but can also use most Soviet non guided rockets and bombs and the radio guided Kh/X-23 missile.

The bomber variants were the MiG-23B, BN and MiG-27. These lacked the radar having a laser rangefinder and much better forward visibility. Later variants of the MiG-27 were able to use PGMs and ARMs.

There was also the MiG-23UB two seater training aircraft.

Now the Big Question is: Did the MiG-19 do well enough to make a MiG-23? And perhaps in the farther future a MiG-27?

Now the Big Question is: Did the MiG-19 do well enough to make a MiG-23? And perhaps in the farther future a MiG-27?

Likely. As they are making the MiG-23MLA, but that drops the Mig-27 out of the question as easy job as it has totally different flight modeling, but it would be far nicer than any MiG-23 bomber variant.

Likely. As they are making the MiG-23MLA, but that drops the Mig-27 out of the question as easy job as it has totally different flight modeling, but it would be far nicer than any MiG-23 bomber variant.

Yeah a 27 would be great... I just don't see it happening documents wise. Not like they were exported much if at all.