Leatherneck MiG-23 Flogger

I've been waiting for the MiG-21Bis for sooooooo long.

Please finish that one first.

Mig-23??? Absolutely !!!!!

When the USAF got their hands on a mig21 (I think it was from Syria via the Israelis) they found that it was a much better dog fighter than thought, and that it was a fair match to the f4. Victories were generally decided by pilot skill and experiance. Hence once the yanks started teaching ACM indepth they started getting favorable loss ratios in Vietnam.

Anyway for the record I would give my left nut for an electric rat (sky hawk). I would buy a flogger regardless.

What I really want - one of the ground attack variants (similar to the Mig-27)

Mig23 MLD would be great!!

This or the Su-22/17 would be the first DCS swing wing, this would be time!

What I really want - one of the ground attack variants (similar to the Mig-27)

Me, too. Probably shares some tech with the Frogfoot.

My wish: MiG-23MLD (similarly to the MiG-21bis this is one of the most modern versions and already in as AI, and it's multi-role at least with unguided A-G stuff) followed by the real mudmover version MiG-27K (again, not the oldes model).

They looked amazing;

Apology for the low res images.

I find it more surprising there's actually a Mig-23 thread considering that they said they weren't planning on one after the Mig-21 any longer.

I d like to see Su-24 Fencer

LOL, me a Super Étendard!

I d like to see Su-24 Fencer

Su-24, with all the nuances of the attack profiles like it and the F-111 have to run...terrain-following radar would be great.

The MiG-23 in DCS would be a great to fly, also the MiG-27..

MiG 23 is great idea!

Mig-21 - 37

F-4 - 66

 

... Maybe the MiG-21 shot down more phantoms than other MiGs, I don't know ... but the Phantom shot down nearly twice as many MiG-21's as MiG-21's shot down phantoms, so really, greatest distributor of parts goes to the Phantom, not to the MiG.

 

That assumes of course that such figures are correct - and these are just for Vietnam :)

This is not true.Best prof for that is statement almost all USAF fighter pilots who participate at Vietnam war.

On the question if thay can back the time,wich aircraft vould like to be in,MiG or Phantom.Almost all answered MiG.:thumbup:

Especialy at the begining of the war,Phantom had many problems.One of them was falling in to the spin,so MiGs where shoting them down at big numbers.

Please link me to the survey that was told by a majority that they'd preferred a Mig-21 over their Phantom. The actual facts don't really match that perceived (wished) quality difference.

Please link me to the survey that was told by a majority that they'd preferred a Mig-21 over their Phantom. The actual facts don't really match that perceived (wished) quality difference.

Search on youtube.I watched intervieves at Discavery TV chanel also.Found same things at some books at library.I will thry to find one of the intervievs at youtube again.

Didn't think so. The almost 1:2 ratio of Phantoms to Mig-21s are fact. Discovery channel isn't.

And that's despite flying over hostile territory, with enemy radars that ROEs prevented being destroyed, ROEs that prevented them using longer range missiles, and with the NV Vietnamese airforce always being able to chose when to fight.

Operation Bolo goes some way towards indicating what the outcome was when they fought on more even terms.

I think you got your history lessons seriously crossed.

The lesson for the phantom crews was that they needed BFM training and a gun. The MiG-21 was never the better fighter - in some areas it was better, in others the F-4 was the top dog.

And once the crews were trained in BFM, the MiG pilots started getting squeezed. That is a fact. That F-4's tasked with air to air combat were doing a good job is also a fact. There's no need for youtube or any other anecdotal evidence - the research has been done and you can probably find publications on dtic.mil.

This is not true.Best prof for that is statement almost all USAF fighter pilots who participate at Vietnam war.

On the question if thay can back the time,wich aircraft vould like to be in,MiG or Phantom.Almost all answered MiG.:thumbup:

Especialy at the begining of the war,Phantom had many problems.One of them was falling in to the spin,so MiGs where shoting them down at big numbers.

Mig-21 - 37

F-4 - 66

 

... Maybe the MiG-21 shot down more phantoms than other MiGs, I don't know ... but the Phantom shot down nearly twice as many MiG-21's as MiG-21's shot down phantoms, so really, greatest distributor of parts goes to the Phantom, not to the MiG.

 

That assumes of course that such figures are correct - and these are just for Vietnam :)

Numbers for Vietnam? As you know MIG-21 is single seat and F-4 is double seat. From my point of view when F-4 is shot down you can loose both pilots on the other side when you shot down a mig you are one man short. But the important fact is that North Vietnam had just a few MIG-21 (about 12 if i am not mistaken) and they were used to intercept US fighter bombers instead of dogfighting F-4s. But still like someone said here one of the most important facts is pilot training.

I like MIG-23 and i really don't know what leatherneck want to develop after MIG-21 but i assume they have headaches of finishing MIG-21 and those user's polls.

Speaking of the Phantom, I would much rather have that than a Mig 23. The Mig-23 would alright I suppose, but it would just be another plane with no true opponent. If would just get mauled by the F-15. Phantom would be a better idea I think so that the Mig-21 can have its historical rival and we can settle this debate in the air :)

Didn't think so. The almost 1:2 ratio of Phantoms to Mig-21s are fact. Discovery channel isn't.

And that's despite flying over hostile territory, with enemy radars that ROEs prevented being destroyed, ROEs that prevented them using longer range missiles, and with the NV Vietnamese airforce always being able to chose when to fight.

 

Operation Bolo goes some way towards indicating what the outcome was when they fought on more even terms.

SSSR sources clame 2:1.So who lie now?I chose to belive USAF pilots statement given at Discavery TV chanel interview.Thay had no any interest to lie.Thay also clame that kill ratio was at phantom side,but no 2:1.So,source was not Discavery,than USAF fighter pilots.And thay said if thay vould have to be in all that agian,thay vould like to be in MiG cocpit.

One thing you need to keep in your mind.It was conflict US top phantom version agains SSSR export version.

Again, link please. That is, a link to an USAF Phantom pilot who flew in Vietnam, and said that 2 Phantoms were shot down for every MiG-21 shot down in dogfights during the Vietnam war.

I think you got your history lessons seriously crossed.

 

The lesson for the phantom crews was that they needed BFM training and a gun. The MiG-21 was never the better fighter - in some areas it was better, in others the F-4 was the top dog.

 

And once the crews were trained in BFM, the MiG pilots started getting squeezed. That is a fact. That F-4's tasked with air to air combat were doing a good job is also a fact. There's no need for youtube or any other anecdotal evidence - the research has been done and you can probably find publications on dtic.mil.

What does it mean BFM?

DCS MiG 23 vould be nice to fly.It is true there is no right oponent.So fine solution vould be DCS F5.In my opinion it is right oponent for DCS MiG 21 and DCS MiG 23.