Jump to content

MIG 23MLA capabilities


Neon_20

Recommended Posts

Yes, MiG-23 performed quite well Vs Mirage F1 CZ. MiG-23 engine is more powerful.

 

But Mirage F1 CZ didn't have access to latest weapons like Magic 2 and Super 530F which was more dangerous than R530.

 

But while turning with a MiG-23 in Mirage F1 may not be a good idea, Mirage 2000 is another thing.

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

 

Mirage 2000 is another beast of course, but comparing the deployment dates, if should be matched with the MIG-29A/B

 

MIrage 2000: first flight in 1978 and introduction in 1984

MIG-29A/B: first flight in 1977 and introduction in 1982

 

The M2000C was introduced later, it should be compared to the MIG-29S

 

The difference in DCS lies in the quality of the Matra Super 530 missile, which is the best SARH missile at this time, there is no chaff or anything that allows you to get rid of it when it is fired at the correct distance.

 

On the other hand, the simulation of the R-27R/T in DCS against countermeasures is really bad, in the first case, it is lost if you throw a car license plate out the window of your plane! :megalol: and in the second case it goes behind a cigarette butt! :pilotfly:


Edited by JunMcKill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mirage 2000 is another beast of course, but comparing the deployment dates, if should be matched with the MIG-29A/B

 

MIrage 2000: first flight in 1978 and introduction in 1984

MIG-29A/B: first flight in 1977 and introduction in 1982

 

The M2000C was introduced later, it should be compared to the MIG-29S

 

The difference in DCS lies in the quality of the Matra Super 530 missile, which is the best SARH missile at this time, there is no chaff or anything that allows you to get rid of it when it is fired at the correct distance.

 

On the other hand, the simulation of the R-27R/T in DCS against countermeasures is really bad, in the first case, it is lost if you throw a car license plate out the window of your plane! :megalol: and in the second case it goes behind a cigarette butt! :pilotfly:

 

There are some interesting article from the Indian air force comparing the two air frames as they operated both. The overall conclusion was the mirage was nice for peactime "features", but for war the raw A/A performance of the mig would be the preferred airframe.

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are some interesting article from the Indian air force comparing the two air frames as they operated both. The overall conclusion was the mirage was nice for peactime "features", but for war the raw A/A performance of the mig would be the preferred airframe.

 

Yeah, but they have the MIG-29K (naval) and MIG-29UPG versions, those are another thing! and their MIG-21 Bison have the Kopyo radar and R-77 capability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, but they have the MIG-29K (naval) and MIG-29UPG versions, those are another thing! and their MIG-21 Bison have the Kopyo radar and R-77 capability.

 

This was a guy doing T/E on the earliest mig29's that india got back in the late 80's so not the K or UPG.

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was a guy doing T/E on the earliest mig29's that india got back in the late 80's so not the K or UPG.

 

This is a general thing in the region, being India or Pakistan you can’t trust that much their opinion, it’s more a pissing contest than anything else.

 

I read the Indian MiG-29A pilot interview, and he was mainly comparing dogfight in clean aircraft over the airfield. Off course the MiG-29 is the best in that kind of contest.

 

But MiG-29A has no ECM, no air refuelling and I do prefer SERVAL over SPO-15.

MiG-29A barely has more fuel than Mirage 2000 but 2 engines, not very good for play time.

These are not features to dismiss if you mean serious business :music_whistling:

 

A while back Indian pilots gloated over beating hands down RAF Typhoon with Su-30MKI during training.

After the clash Vs Pakistanis F-16 and AIM-120 they are eager to get Rafale delivered with Meteor ASAP :music_whistling:

 

Likewise a Pakistanis pilots pretended in interview they would turn around Mirage 2000 easily, but their solo display doesn’t demonstrate that capacity.

Their area of contest is over high altitude mountains, and the Greek who operate both F-16 and Mirage 2000 explain that the Mirage behaves better above 20 000ft.

Much to my surprise a F-15E pilot who did fly in Mirage 2000D told me the Mirage 2000 was performing better in high altitude too (but F-15E is much more loaded).

 

So being India or Pakistan pilots, cross checking what they say is very important.


Edited by jojo

Mirage fanatic !

I7-7700K/ MSI RTX3080/ RAM 64 Go/ SSD / TM Hornet stick-Virpil WarBRD + Virpil CM3 Throttle + MFG Crosswind + Reverb G2.

Flickr gallery: https://www.flickr.com/gp/71068385@N02/728Hbi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

Because I like to see a profitable business for DCS. Where same series units becomes cheaper but as they require "previous module" it makes possible for developers consider making small variations with small prices.

 

Like make a T-72A for 69,90 and then T-72B for 19,90 and T-72B2 for 19,90.

 

Now instead people just buying one 89,90 module and get all, studio can get 109,70 with happier customers, but yet both sides feel that smaller variant ain't so expensive. Yet that if you really like the specific version, you still need to pay for it.

 

Like let's face it, not all variants can be made and charge at full price and then just hope enough people buy it, even with a discount.

 

Like you make great product that you want to keep updating for years. So it would be better to get income from it. But how many wants to buy T-72A when you get T-90A? Even when it is based to same work you already did?

 

It is same business model that you but the main game, and then extension disk for it. But if you buy standalone extension disk, you don't get what the original game had.

 

So the idea is to support developers to make more variants when they can be sure to get work money for them.

 

AH-64A vs AH-64D vs AH-64D Longbow.

S-200 vs S-300 vs S-400

M1 vs M1IP vs M1A1 vs M1A1

Su-27S vs Su-27SM vs Su-27SM2

 

Now you have reason to maintain older modules as you get paid from it.

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where same series units becomes cheaper but as they require "previous module" it makes possible for developers consider making small variations with small prices.

 

You're assuming small variations require an equally small amount of work to make. Even if two planes share 90% commonality you can't make one for 10% of the work just because you already made the other, the Tomcat is a great example of that. If building a new variant is going to take most of the work of building the base plane you may as well charge full price for it.

 

That aside, no one wants to be bullied into buying more than they want. If I want a new module I'm going to expect to pay 100% for it (sales aside), I don't want to be told I actually have to pay 120% because it needs to be bundled with another module I'll never use.

 

Anyways, back to the MiG-23! Has anyone seen EM charts for the MLA or MLD? Were they in this thread or the other one and I missed them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MIrage 2000: first flight in 1978 and introduction in 1984

MIG-29A/B: first flight in 1977 and introduction in 1982

 

The M2000C was introduced later, it should be compared to the MIG-29S

Wait, what? I was fairly sure the Mirage 2000C was actually the first variant around. The French don't go A-B-C like the Americans do, the 'C' in their stands for 'chasseur' or fighter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait, what? I was fairly sure the Mirage 2000C was actually the first variant around. The French don't go A-B-C like the Americans do, the 'C' in their stands for 'chasseur' or fighter.

 

That's correct, Mirage 2000C was the first 2000. First it had the RDM RADAR (pilots called it Radar de merde), it was only capable to guide the Super 530F. Later the Mirage 2000C got the RDI Radar together with the more advanced Super 530D.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that RAZBAM should release their own version of the R-24R and T missile guidance with the MIG-23MLA, like they did with the 530 SARH for the Mirage 2000C

 

What DCS actually needs is some sort of unified missile testing to verify that missile data is actually "relative". I think that 3rd party uber missiles/systems are very bad path forward for DCS or Raz.

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What DCS actually needs is some sort of unified missile testing to verify that missile data is actually "relative". I think that 3rd party uber missiles/systems are very bad path forward for DCS or Raz.

 

 

There is enough data regarding R-24 performance, so nothing will be made OP here. This also means it will not be UP either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait, what? I was fairly sure the Mirage 2000C was actually the first variant around. The French don't go A-B-C like the Americans do, the 'C' in their stands for 'chasseur' or fighter.

 

You're right.

But the first Mirage 2000C (#1 to #37) were delivered with RDM radar, from #38 it was RDI radar, but it's still Mirage 2000C.

 

Then there are standards like US blocks or lot.

Mirage 2000C RDM were delivered and upgraded S1/ S2/ S3.

Mirage 2000C RDI started with S4, and ended with Mirage 2000C S5-2C (nothing to do with Mirage 2000-5F).

Mirage fanatic !

I7-7700K/ MSI RTX3080/ RAM 64 Go/ SSD / TM Hornet stick-Virpil WarBRD + Virpil CM3 Throttle + MFG Crosswind + Reverb G2.

Flickr gallery: https://www.flickr.com/gp/71068385@N02/728Hbi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for clearing that up. I guess I wasn't really aware of which exact sub-variant the DCS Mirage was.

 

It's supposed to be Mirage 2000C S5-2C (RDI radar with NCTR).

Originally mainly delivered to EC 1/12 & EC 2/12 in Cambrai, now operated by EC 2/5 in Orange.

:smilewink:

Mirage fanatic !

I7-7700K/ MSI RTX3080/ RAM 64 Go/ SSD / TM Hornet stick-Virpil WarBRD + Virpil CM3 Throttle + MFG Crosswind + Reverb G2.

Flickr gallery: https://www.flickr.com/gp/71068385@N02/728Hbi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is enough data regarding R-24 performance, so nothing will be made OP here. This also means it will not be UP either.

 

The real question is the following. You "presumably" (because its old) have real world data on this missile. But the real question is how will it be relative to DCS missiles for which no good data exists?

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right.

But the first Mirage 2000C (#1 to #37) were delivered with RDM radar, from #38 it was RDI radar, but it's still Mirage 2000C.

 

Then there are standards like US blocks or lot.

Mirage 2000C RDM were delivered and upgraded S1/ S2/ S3.

Mirage 2000C RDI started with S4, and ended with Mirage 2000C S5-2C (nothing to do with Mirage 2000-5F).

 

AFIK, the RAZBAM M2000C version have the RDI radar, then as I told is compared to MIG-29S years, but without the R-77 which entered service years later, but capable to launch the R-27ER/ET

 

"The Radar Doppler Impulse (RDI) built by Thales for the Mirage 2000C entered service in 1987. It has a much improved range of about 150 km, and is linked to Matra Super 530D missiles, which are much improved compared to the older Super 530F."


Edited by JunMcKill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The real question is the following. You "presumably" (because its old) have real world data on this missile. But the real question is how will it be relative to DCS missiles for which no good data exists?

I doubt that the solution to the problem of missile performances in DCS having grown historically and at times being tweaked to a 'relative performance' can be improved by even more devs black-boxing their own attempts of doing the same.

Either try to get the missiles all closer to proper data, or make sure all of the missiles are tweaked by ED themselves to a consistent treatment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's still a shame we couldn't get the MLD version. That said, the Flogger will be a thorn to Blue in MP if leveraged correctly, especially in hit and run tactics.

 

It's going to be wonderful and way more effective than most people think. In the right hands that is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm curious - what is the first variant of the Mig-23 that had a fire control system allowing it to mix IR and SAR missiles in its loadout (apparently the early ones could only carry either 2xR-23T or 2xR-23R but not a mix)?

 

AFIK, the Cuban MLA can have both at the same time, I was in the Cuban Armed Forces for 14 years and many times went to Air Force Bases for work, and watched the MIG-23ML with R-24T in one wing and R-24R in the other, and below 4 x R-60MK. The one visible in the picture below right wing is the R-24T

 

s3MxSn664WsH_wBsHluS4Ys49h9OpxAFBkrzKg70Oal0zIh4x_otQc_cTRACiW8bMEvTsafBc_B0U2MjnJy3CAGoJA

 

The same day left wing is visible the R-24R

 

Xalwty-dqGh33fBW5Da4Mq-ac7gLoKz_76K5X6zbZrCLh1Sx4zSg1wS5DpnRQPOEMNSan1YZ_4YaXR0VHnug8TPkusM4Pt2ODFyLY6n4MJoBDDkO8AgBlG9A375ZfSoK4mdvRAdpETbbTSYjqKA2kirB68R0hsgCBUy3K9PcrzLXfBp3jQr3HsehQTYHzvqhMZeo2sCG7zaEckWoqatlRaJNDpIBuBpgNqlpClx6H7s1EUJCsfmQLglEPeKTyL5vV7T4HGklo2umu-IPsqrspq7cBTFUeqq_F-0NOpVlGpxQxR4phNz7JJFg9MAmcbzcA0xVHL5bs-S8vUylHB8vKlJxVOncZSwtZqgS90Ew48_o98aTT7U-Xev7x8VoNZfzex8KAbLyArwqqSsAN-5zAIbKOPHWcj6C5rfRRIoHiIVjTezwOUXPLtiIH8Q5Lormk3QeOcTiwW7YxeSqgDZAObvaNhiG4Ok-abO3DOzLHfCyggHFbM39FqqbQjbi3-ArO-dM_BrGSpNJoOtDqKA4zZXuqogB7qdx0mtkH5G27fFMICizvA43IdDARoQBVQyeOBvrIZfkJVKkBFeo4Y_62q4KOjt67eTONlSgrZUlw7t5ZWfvQaClMOxo5NOHJuJq6AhWMlkNmvJPfyt3yo0kjRGXHbPXkA6QLfCiTF2rAT4nF5sSmI-iM30=w800-h539-no


Edited by JunMcKill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...