Jump to content

DCS: MiG-23MLA by RAZBAM


MrDieing

Recommended Posts

How 'limited' is the ground attack - just rockets & bombs?

 

basically like the Mig21bis. Unguided bombs/rockets mostly. IRRC the only Surface to Ground guided munition the Mig23 could use was the Kh23 Grom. Basically a Radio command guided missile, like the US Agm12 bullpup or the Swedish RB05 like we have on the Viggen.

 

 

BY "limitation", I didn't mean Expecting targeting pods or any high tech guided muntions given its Generation, but Like the Mig21, the Mig23 isn't any dump Truck ( Ie Quantity of Ordinance carry)


Edited by Kev2go

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MiG-23 MLA is pure fighter/interceptor. MiG-23BN is fighter-bomber with a lot of A/G capabilities.

 

Incorrect.

MiG-23BN cheap and limited version of the MiG-23, devoid of radar. MiG-23BN is fighter for the poor countries that need in the first place cheap fighter-bomber and secondly a simple day fighter.

As according to the Soviet doctrine the MiG-23МЛA is designed to gain air superiority. When air supremacy is achieved, then the MiG-23МЛА will begin to strike at the ground with the more specialized and expensive fighter-bombers Su-24


Edited by PermAG-CyMPAK

 

Iniquissimam pacem justissimo bello anteferro

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incorrect.

MiG-23BN cheap and limited version of the MiG-23, devoid of radar. MiG-23BN is fighter for the poor countries that need in the first place cheap fighter-bomber and secondly a simple day fighter.

As according to the Soviet doctrine the MiG-23МЛA is designed to gain air superiority. When air supremacy is achieved, then the MiG-23МЛА will begin to strike at the ground with the more specialized and expensive fighter-bombers Su-24

 

And they had those MiG-27's and Su-17's just as targets for NATO strikes, I guess.

 

While the Frontal Aviation did have a secondary ground strike mission, AFAIK, only one of the three squadrons in a fighter regiment would have trained for that and would have been used in such a way.


Edited by Dudikoff

i386DX40@42 MHz w/i387 CP, 4 MB RAM (8*512 kB), Trident 8900C 1 MB w/16-bit RAMDAC ISA, Quantum 340 MB UDMA33, SB 16, DOS 6.22 w/QEMM + Win3.11CE, Quickshot 1btn 2axis, Numpad as hat. 2 FPH on a good day, 1 FPH avg.

 

DISCLAIMER: My posts are still absolutely useless. Just finding excuses not to learn the F-14 (HB's Swansong?).

 

Annoyed by my posts? Please consider donating. Once the target sum is reached, I'll be off to somewhere nice I promise not to post from. I'd buy that for a dollar!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incorrect.

MiG-23BN cheap and limited version of the MiG-23, devoid of radar. MiG-23BN is fighter for the poor countries that need in the first place cheap fighter-bomber and secondly a simple day fighter.

As according to the Soviet doctrine the MiG-23МЛA is designed to gain air superiority. When air supremacy is achieved, then the MiG-23МЛА will begin to strike at the ground with the more specialized and expensive fighter-bombers Su-24

 

The BN was designed as ground attack, that's why it lack the radar and other things of the A2A/interceptor models. But in Angola's war, the Cubans use only MIG-23ML and UB, in the case of the ML for ground attack and A2A, CAP defense.

 

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

 

http://www.urrib2000.narod.ru/EqMiG23-e.html

 

[/url]

 

http://www.urrib2000.narod.ru/EqMiG23aa-e.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incorrect.

MiG-23BN cheap and limited version of the MiG-23, devoid of radar. MiG-23BN is fighter for the poor countries that need in the first place cheap fighter-bomber and secondly a simple day fighter.

As according to the Soviet doctrine the MiG-23МЛA is designed to gain air superiority. When air supremacy is achieved, then the MiG-23МЛА will begin to strike at the ground with the more specialized and expensive fighter-bombers Su-24

 

When you look in the design of Mig-23, is clear they were made to punch and run at high speed. The F-15 with improvements in radar and missiles is the only thing in the planet that stopped the Mig-23. So there you can see Mig-23 was a pure defensive tactical fighter, never ever the air superiority was the soviet tactic, because the main offensive tactics moves was always planed with a high quantity of tanks and armors.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MiG-23BN was, as far as I know, a precursor to MiG-27, and was more geared for ground attack.

 

Rest of the MiG-23 versions were more interceptors/point defense fighters. The first aircraft that could be classified as air superiority fighter in Soviet Union was Su-27 in my opinion.

Wishlist: F-4E Block 53 +, MiG-27K, Su-17M3 or M4, AH-1F or W circa 80s or early 90s, J35 Draken, Kfir C7, Mirage III/V

DCS-Dismounts Script

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MiG-23BN was, as far as I know, a precursor to MiG-27, and was more geared for ground attack.

 

Rest of the MiG-23 versions were more interceptors/point defense fighters. The first aircraft that could be classified as air superiority fighter in Soviet Union was Su-27 in my opinion.

 

Yep, +1

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

When you look in the design of Mig-23, is clear they were made to punch and run at high speed. The F-15 with improvements in radar and missiles is the only thing in the planet that stopped the Mig-23. So there you can see Mig-23 was a pure defensive tactical fighter, never ever the air superiority was the soviet tactic, because the main offensive tactics moves was always planed with a high quantity of tanks and armors.

 

True, especially for the early-late 1980's. My understanding is that the Soviets invested heavily in short-medium range SAMs, SPAAGs and MANPADs to cover the FLOT and deny NATO air supremacy. Soviet fighters, with the exception of Su-27s, primarily covered operational and strategic depth behind the Soviet FLOT to counter NATO interdiction strikes.

 

Compare that to NATO, which with a few exceptions had relatively poor short range SAM/SPAAG coverage of their FLOT, relying more on gaining air superiority through use of their fighters and specialized SEAD aircraft to counter the SAM threat.

 

The point being, the MIG-23 and early MIG-29s were not meant to go toe to toe with NATO air superiorty fighters. They were designed to counter NATO interdiction aircraft through GCI and provide limited escort for Warsaw Pact aircraft striking the NATO FLOT.


Edited by Tread_Head57
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you look in the design of Mig-23, is clear they were made to punch and run at high speed. The F-15 with improvements in radar and missiles is the only thing in the planet that stopped the Mig-23. So there you can see Mig-23 was a pure defensive tactical fighter, never ever the air superiority was the soviet tactic, because the main offensive tactics moves was always planed with a high quantity of tanks and armors.

 

the only thing that stopped?

 

Actually virtually any Teen fighters can "stop" a mig23.

 

MIg29 and Su27 were introduced for a reason. an ANswer to the emergence of Nato's 4th generation aircraft.Tthe Mig23 at its inception was at best expected to bring parity against Nato 3rd generation A/C like the F4 which with the emergence of the F14 , and F15 3rd generation A/C were still around in significant numbers until about the 1980s, where lighter workhorses like the F16 and F18 came in.


Edited by Kev2go

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with most has been said... what I noticed people than to have two most common misconceptions regarding MiG-23MLA performance. First is they tend to compare it to the current version of the 'teens'...

 

remember in 1980 there was not AMRAAMs, High-performance digital radars and data linking on a mass scale.

 

the MiG-23MLA was taking on an Aim-9L only equipped F-16 which outperformed in BVR and out-accelerated, an Aim-54A anti-bomber (not anti-fighter) equipped F-14 and the AIM-7F equipped F-15A which it didn't outrange it by much... and it was much cheaper and more available then all of them

 

The second mistake people then to do is paint the mainline MiG-23 performance by using the MiG-23MS with poorly trained pilots. The MiG-23MS has more common with the MiG-21 than a MiG-23MLA.

 

In the end, to conclude, the MiG-23MLA was in my opinion in the 1980 quite capable in-expensive fighter all dought a bit dated something a keen to the venerable F-4. Of course with all of its down and upsides but nothing close to a completely useless fighter...

-------

All the people keep asking for capabilities to be modelled.... I want the limitations to be modelled.... limitations make for realistic simulation.

Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in the mud, after a bit you realize the pig likes it.

 

Long time ago in galaxy far far away:

https://www.deviantart.com/alfafox/gallery

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You folks want to compare something to the F-14?

Well?

...where is my MiG-31? :megalol:

 

Probably hanging out with my M2000-5

 

 

Modules: [A-10C] [AJS 37] [AV8B N/A] [F-5E] [F-14] [F/A-18C] [FC3] [Ka-50] [M-2000C] [Mig-21 bis] [NTTR] [PG] [SC]

Intel i7-12700F, Nvidia GTX 3080, MSI MPG Z690 Carbon WiFi, 32GB DDR4 @ 1600 MHz, SteelSeries Apex Pro, Razer Basilisk 3

VKB Gunfighter 3 w/ F-14 grip, Thrustmaster Warthog throttle, Thrustmaster MFD Cougars x2, MFG Crosswind,

DSD Flight Series button controller, XK-24, Oculus Rift (HM-A)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The second mistake people then to do is paint the mainline MiG-23 performance by using the MiG-23MS with poorly trained pilots. The MiG-23MS has more common with the MiG-21 than a MiG-23MLA.

 

In the end, to conclude, the MiG-23MLA was in my opinion in the 1980 quite capable in-expensive fighter all dought a bit dated something a keen to the venerable F-4. Of course with all of its down and upsides but nothing close to a completely useless fighter...

 

Because the western propaganda. Also the tactics were different and they want to put the Mig-23 in their own tactics to compare.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with most has been said... what I noticed people than to have two most common misconceptions regarding MiG-23MLA performance. First is they tend to compare it to the current version of the 'teens'...

 

remember in 1980 there was not AMRAAMs, High-performance digital radars and data linking on a mass scale.

 

the MiG-23MLA was taking on an Aim-9L only equipped F-16 which outperformed in BVR and out-accelerated, an Aim-54A anti-bomber (not anti-fighter) equipped F-14 and the AIM-7F equipped F-15A which it didn't outrange it by much... and it was much cheaper and more available then all of them

 

The second mistake people then to do is paint the mainline MiG-23 performance by using the MiG-23MS with poorly trained pilots. The MiG-23MS has more common with the MiG-21 than a MiG-23MLA.

 

In the end, to conclude, the MiG-23MLA was in my opinion in the 1980 quite capable in-expensive fighter all dought a bit dated something a keen to the venerable F-4. Of course with all of its down and upsides but nothing close to a completely useless fighter...

 

I agree, fighting fighters of that period would be really fun. I hope someone post proper MiG-23 proper tactics ASAP.

I don't understand anything in russian except Davai Davai!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because the western propaganda. Also the tactics were different and they want to put the Mig-23 in their own tactics to compare.

 

 

I'll be honest, and this it not an attack, but I have seen some of your comments around these forums and I'm not sure if you are fully objective yourself. I sense some affection to a certain side and aversion to the other one..

''Greed is a bottomless pit which exhausts the person in an endless effort to satisfy the need without ever reaching satisfaction.''

Erich Fromm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with most has been said... what I noticed people than to have two most common misconceptions regarding MiG-23MLA performance. First is they tend to compare it to the current version of the 'teens'...

 

remember in 1980 there was not AMRAAMs, High-performance digital radars and data linking on a mass scale.

 

the MiG-23MLA was taking on an Aim-9L only equipped F-16 which outperformed in BVR and out-accelerated, an Aim-54A anti-bomber (not anti-fighter) equipped F-14 and the AIM-7F equipped F-15A which it didn't outrange it by much... and it was much cheaper and more available then all of them

 

The second mistake people then to do is paint the mainline MiG-23 performance by using the MiG-23MS with poorly trained pilots. The MiG-23MS has more common with the MiG-21 than a MiG-23MLA.

 

In the end, to conclude, the MiG-23MLA was in my opinion in the 1980 quite capable in-expensive fighter all dought a bit dated something a keen to the venerable F-4. Of course with all of its down and upsides but nothing close to a completely useless fighter...

 

 

 

You are correct most still associate the MiG-23 with the MiG-23MS mostly thanks to the Red

Eagles I expect - and your conclusion is not that far off.

 

Both the F-15 and F-16 had digital radars in 1980 - the only fighters that did without checking - no they were not as good as digital radars 10 years later - but consider this the APG-77 in the Raptor is derived from the APG-66 family.

 

Lastly similar to how the MiG-23 is associated with the MS, BVR seems to be associated with useless radar and missile ranges. In 1980 BVR only exists under very specific conditions not far removed from 1975. The real problem is how do you detect something on the deck over Europe in mostly terrible weather, then how do you identify that? IFF (Nope), IFF hacks like Combat Tree still depend on the target having a transponder on. GCI and AWACs are more of less out of the picture - and that is before you add in any kind of ECM capability.............. Many F-4s were slaughtered in the recreation of this environment. :thumbup:


Edited by Basher54321
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The real problem is how do you detect something on the deck over Europe in mostly terrible weather, then how do you identify that?

 

I don't get the "in mostly terrible weather" part. Are you implying that european countries have bad weather most of the year ? Such a strange claim, perhaps I missed something in previous comments ?

There are only two types of aircraft, fighters and targets. - Major Doyle "Wahoo" Nicholson, USMC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That whole 'Europe has lousy weather' thing actually used to be something in a lot of USAF training during the cold war, not because there is absolutely no sunshine in Europe ever, but because a lot of training happens over desert terrain. It was a bit of a reminder that these conditions were good for training, because you had favourable weather for flying, but being able to fulfil your mission in bright sunshine and blue skies would not be good enough.

 

Also, how comes this whole thread has gotten into a battle of the propaganda claims for the past ten pages or so?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but consider this the APG-77 in the Raptor is derived from the APG-66 family.

 

1- Where the hell does this come from ???

2- how is it relevant to current topic ?

 

Personally I see the MiG-23 has kind of "half-new generation" fighter, a bit like Mirage F1 in France.

Improvements other previous generation, but doesn't change the way you fight.

MiG-23 is an interceptor built to work highly integrated with GCI (on some variant the GCI could take control through auto-pilot).

 

Maybe it can work, but if jamming cut you from GCI, not the best fighter to fight on your own...

 

When the new generation came out, there was nothing much left for improvement.

Even if it's still an interceptor, MiG-29 is much more pilot friendly.

And Vs 80' western fighters, MiG-23 would have to rely on hit & run.

 

I remind the magazine from early 90', MiG-23 was still the backbone of many Warsaw Pact countries (still flying alongside MiG-29). But it was already obsolete...(like Mirage F1 in France where it was re-used as AG attack aircraft).

 

At the end, the MiG-23 is very nice and important feature for 1980' scenarios. :thumbup:

Luckily for MiG-23 future pilots, no GCI comms jamming yet in DCS. :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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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