DCS: MiG-23MLA by RAZBAM

[Dr.SquirrelBoy12]

Some 3rd parties or ED would be able to do it, but they aren't allowed to do so :smilewink:

 

That's what I meant, they are not able to because they are not allowed to.

[Maverick966]

Was hoping for the MLD, can't see the benefits of a MLA, not so powerful radar, less weapons, and IIRC no chaff/flares. DCS is the place for the non so popular variants.

There is a reason if the MLA was chosen and not the MLD, the MLA was the most produced variant and is from 1978, more representative of the Mig-23, it would have been wrong to develop the MLD variant which is from 1982 and produced in less units, too modern and not representative of the Mig-23, a Mig-29 is more suitable for the 80-90s, it would have been like developing first the F-14D, not representative of the F-14 Tomcat, first the F-14A/B and then the D.

Edited December 27, 2018 by Maverick966

[Akatsuki]

The team behind the MiG-23 has access and documentations on a MLA. That's probably the main reason.

[DmitriKozlowsky]

I bought AV-8B and M2KC modules, and Harrier is my favorite DCS: module. So you would be fighting someone who is a friend and loyal customer of RAZBAM and of ED.

But Flogger is a marginal aircraft, well IMHO anyway. However the module it is being developed , and MIG-23 has met Western types in combat. But with no known victories. Gulf Of Sidra incident of MIG-23 vs. F-14A 2V2 daytime engagement. Straight out of Top Gun (real Naval Fighter Weapons School) scenario, resulting with two splashed Floggers. Bekka Valley of Syrian Floggers vs. Israeli F-15A or F-15C.

Soviets did have good service experience with Mig-27 ground attack variant. But we have so many DCS: level ground pounder modules, and two DCS: level Gen 4 air-air capable fighter modules. F/A-18C and M2KC, both being Western types. DCS kind of needs Gen 4 Russian/Soviet/Chinese air-air module.I thought that MIG-29S or export version of MIG-29 SMT that does not use Phazatron SZHUK radar, with functional cockpit and systems modeling. The PFM in current FC3 MIG-29 A/S is really good, albeit pitch is crazy sensitive below 400 KPH when Fulcrum's flaps and slats are extended.

[BeastyBaiter]

You're missing the only major war they participated in, the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980's. It's showing was mixed, but it wasn't horrible. This is especially true given Iraq mostly had the ultra crappy MS versions instead of the much more potent ML's. Links at the bottom. As for the module, I expect it to be a fun plane. It bridges the gap between the MiG-21Bis and the MiG-29A and represents an interesting transition period. Will it stand up to the F/A-18C with 10 SPAMRAAMS? Not typically, but it should do pretty well against the F-5 and the F-4, if it ever gets made.

 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Iraqi_aerial_victories_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_war

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Iranian_aerial_victories_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_war

[jojo]

I bought AV-8B and M2KC modules, and Harrier is my favorite DCS: module. So you would be fighting someone who is a friend and loyal customer of RAZBAM and of ED.

But Flogger is a marginal aircraft, well IMHO anyway. However the module it is being developed , and MIG-23 has met Western types in combat. But with no known victories. Gulf Of Sidra incident of MIG-23 vs. F-14A 2V2 daytime engagement. Straight out of Top Gun (real Naval Fighter Weapons School) scenario, resulting with two splashed Floggers. Bekka Valley of Syrian Floggers vs. Israeli F-15A or F-15C.

Soviets did have good service experience with Mig-27 ground attack variant. But we have so many DCS: level ground pounder modules, and two DCS: level Gen 4 air-air capable fighter modules. F/A-18C and M2KC, both being Western types. DCS kind of needs Gen 4 Russian/Soviet/Chinese air-air module.I thought that MIG-29S or export version of MIG-29 SMT that does not use Phazatron SZHUK radar, with functional cockpit and systems modeling. The PFM in current FC3 MIG-29 A/S is really good, albeit pitch is crazy sensitive below 400 KPH when Fulcrum's flaps and slats are extended.

 

Even if my French pride suffer from it, a Cuban MiG-23 damaged a South African Mirage F1 CZ during Angola war in the 80'.

It was probably with a R-60.

The Mirage managed to go back home, but the pilot did the mistake to try to land.

The hydraulic system was damaged and there was no break.

Before rolling of the runway at high speed, the pilot ejected on the ground, but outside of the seat ejection envelope (not 0-0 yet).

Plane destroyed and the pilot ended in wheelchair.

 

The story (by injured Mirage F1 pilot) is in a book called Vlamgat or something like that.

 

Note: South Africa never received Super 530F, it could have been a different story...

[TOZZVogh]

I bought AV-8B and M2KC modules, and Harrier is my favorite DCS: module. So you would be fighting someone who is a friend and loyal customer of RAZBAM and of ED.

But Flogger is a marginal aircraft, well IMHO anyway. However the module it is being developed , and MIG-23 has met Western types in combat. But with no known victories. Gulf Of Sidra incident of MIG-23 vs. F-14A 2V2 daytime engagement. Straight out of Top Gun (real Naval Fighter Weapons School) scenario, resulting with two splashed Floggers. Bekka Valley of Syrian Floggers vs. Israeli F-15A or F-15C.

Soviets did have good service experience with Mig-27 ground attack variant. But we have so many DCS: level ground pounder modules, and two DCS: level Gen 4 air-air capable fighter modules. F/A-18C and M2KC, both being Western types. DCS kind of needs Gen 4 Russian/Soviet/Chinese air-air module.I thought that MIG-29S or export version of MIG-29 SMT that does not use Phazatron SZHUK radar, with functional cockpit and systems modeling. The PFM in current FC3 MIG-29 A/S is really good, albeit pitch is crazy sensitive below 400 KPH when Fulcrum's flaps and slats are extended.

 

I don't get why the first part of this belong here but ok.

 

Now I'm more or less going to repeat what I wrote on reddit but your post is one more reason for me to fly the mig-23.

Everybody judges the mig-23 by the engagements it had, done with exports variant that depending on the variant was more a mig-21 in a mig-23 disguise than anything with inexperienced pilots against up-to-date american fighters flown by it's main operator (understand they have the last variants created by the constructor in service, the best training and all the logistics figured out).

While I don't claim it will be a formidable fighter capable of going toe-to-toe with every aircrafts there is, the beast we'll get will be a different one from the ones that fought in the middle-east theaters.

 

And after a quick check on wikipedia for this Gulf of Sidra incident, it seems the russian built, libyan flown aircrafts were 2 Su-22, not migs-23.

 

Sources include militoryfactory who claims that they were indeed su-22.

[dolfo]

 

And after a quick check on wikipedia for this Gulf of Sidra incident, it seems the russian built, libyan flown aircrafts were 2 Su-22, not migs-23.

 

.

 

Su-22

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Sidra_incident_(1981)

 

MiG-23

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_air_battle_near_Tobruk

[TOZZVogh]

Thanks you for the precision dolfo, I did miss that.

 

However my point still stand, having read the article I don't see anything that can help make a judgement concerning the capability of the mig-23.

 

it could have been any kind of plane and it would have been shot down trying to get aggressively close like this without attacking to make it seems like they were attacked out of the blue.

 

what we could judge here are the pilots actions or their orders (surely to try to trigger an incident).

[Alpenwolf]

[Dehuman]

 

what we could judge here are the pilots actions or their orders (surely to try to trigger an incident).

 

Which pilots? The ones flying next to their territory or the ones who have traveled across the globe?

[DmitriKozlowsky]

I did forget Angolan Civil War (Cuba's Vietnam), and Rhodesia(now Zimbabwe), and rest of African Bush Wars of 1970's and 1980's. Those little, but bloody, brushfire wars by proxy, as a side show to US/NATO-Soviet Union Cold War 1.0 Touche, my friend, touche.

 

Is F-1 a Gen 4 platform? 3.5 maybe? F-1 is/was a ground attack type with self-defense Magic X2 on wingtips.

 

I kind of viewed F-1 , Etendard/Super Etendard as advanced 3rd gen, not quite Gen 4. Perhaps 3.5, 3.75 Gen. However those types should be given benefit of doubt, and class them as Gen 4.

But those types are still strike types, not 'real' fighters like F-teen series, and Mirage2K family.

[Shadow_1stVFW]

Which pilots? The ones flying next to their territory or the ones who have traveled across the globe?

"Their territory" haha.

 

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[FIN_Centurion1]

I did forget Angolan Civil War (Cuba's Vietnam), and Rhodesia(now Zimbabwe), and rest of African Bush Wars of 1970's and 1980's. Those little, but bloody, brushfire wars by proxy, as a side show to US/NATO-Soviet Union Cold War 1.0 Touche, my friend, touche.

 

Is F-1 a Gen 4 platform? 3.5 maybe? F-1 is/was a ground attack type with self-defense Magic X2 on wingtips.

 

I kind of viewed F-1 , Etendard/Super Etendard as advanced 3rd gen, not quite Gen 4. Perhaps 3.5, 3.75 Gen. However those types should be given benefit of doubt, and class them as Gen 4.

But those types are still strike types, not 'real' fighters like F-teen series, and Mirage2K family.

 

The SAAF fielded both the F.1cz and AZ variant, where the CZ was an interceptor/fighter capable of fielding two Magics and two R.530 sarh missiles.These missiles were by all accounts quite worthless. The CZ also had a Cyrano IV radar while the AZ attack variant had not. It instead had a moving map type display in the cockpit and more advanced ground attack avionics. The Mirage f.1 was definitely a 3rd gen fighter. There was a pitch to mate the airframe to a modern turbofan like the Snecma m53 or Rd-33, in both cases the performance gains were substantial, with electronics upgrades would have easily made the f 1 equivalent to a fourth gen.

[DmitriKozlowsky]

1989 Tobruk interception in Gulf Of Sidra. 2X Mig-23 vs. 2X F-14A

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_air_battle_near_Tobruk

 

1986 Sidra battle that had no air-air fights. Extensive use of F/A-18C/D in anti-surface. This was related to Eldorado Canyon mission, the F-111 strike on Lybia to kill MAQ.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_in_the_Gulf_of_Sidra_(1986)

 

The SU-22 vs. F-14A happened in 1981

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Sidra_incident_(1981)

 

I do want to say, that SU-22 pilots in 1981m and Mig-23 pilots in 1989 incident were brave, if foolish. To fly into teeth of Nimitz class CVN air defense cordon and tangle with F-14A over water, having near zero chance of victory or even survival, takes some serious brass, and beleif in one's duty. MAQ's Lybia was a foe of United States, but their armed forces did fight with a sense of integrity. It is too bad they were led by a madman.

[jojo]

I did forget Angolan Civil War (Cuba's Vietnam), and Rhodesia(now Zimbabwe), and rest of African Bush Wars of 1970's and 1980's. Those little, but bloody, brushfire wars by proxy, as a side show to US/NATO-Soviet Union Cold War 1.0 Touche, my friend, touche.

 

Is F-1 a Gen 4 platform? 3.5 maybe? F-1 is/was a ground attack type with self-defense Magic X2 on wingtips.

 

I kind of viewed F-1 , Etendard/Super Etendard as advanced 3rd gen, not quite Gen 4. Perhaps 3.5, 3.75 Gen. However those types should be given benefit of doubt, and class them as Gen 4.

But those types are still strike types, not 'real' fighters like F-teen series, and Mirage2K family.

 

That generation thing is US marketing.

 

Mirage F1 started as interceptor, and evolved in time with ground attack (Mirage F1 AZ) and even multirole variants (Mirage F1 EQ).

At the beginning the weapon system was barely improved compared to Mirage III.

But later with Super 530F greatly improved air defence capacity compares to R530 (South Africa never got it). For a period of time, between Mirage III and Mirage 2000, Mirage F1 C was the backbone of our air defence.

Magic 1 IR proximity fuse default was discovered during Iran-iraq war.

Mirage F1 also could use improved Magic 2 with laser proximity fuse, but I don't think it was procured by South Africa either because of embargo.

 

Both MiG-23 and Mirage F1 had great improvements of their weapon system during their service time.

 

Super Etendard was kind of our Sky Hawk, definitely a strike fighter.

We couldn't really field bigger attack aircraft aboard Clémenceau and Foch aircraft carrier.

Since Rafale was delayed by budget cut after the end of Cold War, SE stayed in service longer than anticipated.

[Alpenwolf]

This image is not official, or is it? Looks ike DCS 1.5

 

 

[DeathAngel1]

I think this image is from MiG-23-98 mod.

[Jester986]

I can't believe I almost missed the ground crew bringing ordinance in that picture ! ;)

[MrDieing]

Look at the username thats at the top of the screen, its unofficial and its probably better not to mention the dude by name.

[Sarraceno]

That art is cool, hope we get somethin similar

[Kev2go]

That generation thing is US marketing.

 

Mirage F1 started as interceptor, and evolved in time with ground attack (Mirage F1 AZ) and even multirole variants (Mirage F1 EQ).

At the beginning the weapon system was barely improved compared to Mirage III.

But later with Super 530F greatly improved air defence capacity compares to R530 (South Africa never got it). For a period of time, between Mirage III and Mirage 2000, Mirage F1 C was the backbone of our air defence.

Magic 1 IR proximity fuse default was discovered during Iran-iraq war.

Mirage F1 also could use improved Magic 2 with laser proximity fuse, but I don't think it was procured by South Africa either because of embargo.

 

Both MiG-23 and Mirage F1 had great improvements of their weapon system during their service time.

 

Super Etendard was kind of our Sky Hawk, definitely a strike fighter.

We couldn't really field bigger attack aircraft aboard Clémenceau and Foch aircraft carrier.

Since Rafale was delayed by budget cut after the end of Cold War, SE stayed in service longer than anticipated.

 

 

yea aircraft generation might be a marketing buzzword, but the A/C generation thing is used by various nations outside US including Russia. It allows people to kinda of have a general idea of A/C capabilities or contemporaries without having to analysis every single feature side by side in every discussion.

 

If you had to apply the Generation logic ( irregardless of its origins) F1's a 3rd gen aircraft, however as you say capabilities would somewhat vary depending on Interceptor/ Multi-role version or which time period it is simulated.

Edited January 5, 2019 by Kev2go

[brianiscool]

Iraqi aircrafts had standard Soviet ASO-2 dispensers in 4x32 configuration.

Soviet aircrafts had two systems: PKWP-23 with 12 PPI-50 (flare) or PPR-50 (chaff) cartridges. PPI/PPR-50 cartridges belongs to KDS-23 CM system created on the beginning for MiG-27 and Su-24, later used on Su-17, Su-27 end others aircrafts. Diameter 50 mm, weight about 850 gramms. Here photo:

 

 

 

PKWP is combined dispenser and wet pylon for central fuselage fuel tank.

 

Second is well known KDS-155 ( because created in first place for MiG-25 ), sometimes caled WP-50-60 ( or wrongly BWP-50-60 ). Two dispensers for 30 cartridges each.

 

 

Would this mean that if the central fuel tank is mounted that the KDS-23 container can no longer be used?

Edited January 9, 2019 by brianiscool

[dawestsides]

I see Abiator (Alexander Yartsev) awesome 3D renders popping up a lot here, for info he is a famous digital artist on DeviantArt and has nothing to do with Cubanace or DCS:

 

 

 

Check out his gallery, his MiG-31 is top-notch!

Edited January 8, 2019 by dawestsides

[foxbat155]

Would this mean that if the central fuel tank is mounted that the KDS-23 container can no longer be used?

 

Yes, fuel tank need to be dropped if you want use PPI's built into the pylon. But this is no senseless in general because, first: fuel from external tanks is used in first place and after that those are just balast, second: because of light construction they limiting aircraft's g-load and third: MiG-23 pilot's manual forbids any maneuvers with excess 3g and is forbid to change wing geometry when underbelly fuel tank is present ( because presence of fuel tank change heavily aircraft's longitudinal stability). Hope we will have this modelled in module. So during combat you need change wing position, so you will drop tank anyway, and then you can use flares/chaffs.