Jump to content

DCS: MiG-23MLA by RAZBAM


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Already we were discussing this few times on this forum, K-13 is NOT a AIM-9B copy, Soviets used Sidewinder missile as a sample and built similar thing, R-3 variant was reverse engineered for test pur

That's some real next-level Swedeposting right there. Impressive.   I am not sure where the "Viggen was the only plane capable of locking SR-71" thing came from, presumably SAAB's marketing

SR-71 was locked almost in every flight according to the interceptor pilots' latest interviews. Moreover, intercepting the one doing the Norway/Murmansk route was a routine flight that was happening t

I'm fairly certain that the devs stated on several occasions that SPO-15 and countermeasure launchers will be optional features on the Flogger-G to reflect field-modded MLAs flown by export users (i.e. Iraq) and - this is entirely speculation on my part - export MLAE/"MLD" variants as used by Bulgaria and Syria.

 

Although I'd prefer the MLD for its aerodynamic enhancements, the MLA (izdeliye 23-12A) is (imho) a better representation of the Flogger family, as it was used by a great number of export customers in addition to its native USSR. I'm not counting the export "MLDs" (better described as MLAE, 23-19 for Syria and 23-22 for Bulgaria) with the Soviet variants (23-18, only used by the USSR), as they were MLA airframes outfitted with MLD-derived avionics and as such lacked the aerodynamic enhancements of the 23-18.

DCS module wishlist: F-104S ASA-M Starfighter / F-111F Aardvark / F-4E Phantom II / J 35F2 Draken / J-7M AirGuard / Kfir C.2 / MiG-17F / MiG-21 Bison / Mirage F1 / Su-17M4 / Su-24M / Yak-9U

Link to post
Share on other sites
are you sure?

 

Yes its been said many times by overstratos.

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 post
Share on other sites
I'm fairly certain that the devs stated on several occasions that SPO-15 and countermeasure launchers will be optional features on the Flogger-G to reflect field-modded MLAs flown by export users (i.e. Iraq) and - this is entirely speculation on my part - export MLAE/"MLD" variants as used by Bulgaria and Syria.

 

Although I'd prefer the MLD for its aerodynamic enhancements, the MLA (izdeliye 23-12A) is (imho) a better representation of the Flogger family, as it was used by a great number of export customers in addition to its native USSR. I'm not counting the export "MLDs" (better described as MLAE, 23-19 for Syria and 23-22 for Bulgaria) with the Soviet variants (23-18, only used by the USSR), as they were MLA airframes outfitted with MLD-derived avionics and as such lacked the aerodynamic enhancements of the 23-18.

 

measure the "representibity" of the version in respect of the family is almos imposible (in the world of "my opinion" all is valid, but this let us with nothing... and i respect your opinion and this opinion diverge almost nothing than of mine)

they thought the mld as a form to seal the gap between the 4th gen and the trird gen (soviets had a lot, in the 80s, planes of third gen, nato too but i think wen they come first to the 4th gen era... they got more planes built) so its not a simple variant... its a fix of a problem... a solution desperate to a big problem... an very good solution

they replase all old variants and send them to the frontline of the cold war (wating for the mig-29... even the agressors scuadron training the pilots of the mig-29 were flown by experienced pilots in mld variants)

thy send them to afganistan to do CAP in the frontier with Pakistan, they send them to Cam Ram Bay Vietnam to patroll and confront the tomcats.. and more important they send them to DDR

so the representibity from the 84 to the end of the carrere in the URSS (yes in castellano jajajja) and russia were almos all mld (ml... mla... how long their carrer were be til transform them in mld?)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Nothing is preventing you from using radar in search mode with MiG-23 or 29. That`s like saying F16 is intended to be guided by AWACS and not use its radar for searching.

 

Nothing is preventing, except the short range radar and powerful emissions to reveal you while you can't see a thing.

 

The MiG-29 and Su-27 were first fighters designed to operate standalone if needed. Otherwise the GCI were always in contact and provided valuable information even in dog fights as they could see what enemy is about to do as they could read the enemy energy state and capabilities from the radar screen. For a good GCI operator the radar screen was like a Tacview is to us, they saw and understood situations better as they had all the data from flight plans to SAM network and all fighters on the air. So there was a dozen people helping a fighter pilot to complete their missions, instead of one pilot trying to find a solution to situation that they didn't know.

 

The MiG-23 flies with the GCI. By its guidance, its information and it only activates radar when commanded. We do not have even semi-realistic radar modeling in game where you wouldn't even find the target in many cases as it could just be so faint return. Combine with everything else from ECM to CM and you would love a human GCI to guide you silently on the target, activate your radar and you just launch missiles at unaware target that just seconds ago learn that it RWR is telling something just locked on it.

 

Think about flying to enemy land and you have just your radar and RWR telling there are a dozen or so EWR, and you are absolutely unaware of dozens of SAM sites, fighters etc all tracking you based to the EWR data, all waiting a some master plan to come together while you just fly deeper the defense to drop your bombs or something, and every second you are driving to your doom.

This is why the F-16 or F-15 needs their radar to get a glimpse what is ahead of them, missing many targets but same time trying to find out the game plan that defenders has laid out to stop you.

 

The difference is big, Soviets designed many systems based defense, while west for the offense. Other will know what is happening in own backyard, while another needs to get in and find it out by "looking through a straw".

 

And you would be happy if MiG-23 intercepting you did turn radar On, instead acquiring you with IRST and launch a IR missile without warning.

 

Combine it with very high speed interception capability, they can just be guided to get behind you where your radar can't see them.

 

This is why MiG-23 (and overall DCS) requires a overhaul of the EW to be implemented in core DCS.

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 post
Share on other sites
Nothing is preventing, except the short range radar and powerful emissions to reveal you while you can't see a thing.

 

The MiG-29 and Su-27 were first fighters designed to operate standalone if needed. Otherwise the GCI were always in contact and provided valuable information even in dog fights as they could see what enemy is about to do as they could read the enemy energy state and capabilities from the radar screen. For a good GCI operator the radar screen was like a Tacview is to us, they saw and understood situations better as they had all the data from flight plans to SAM network and all fighters on the air. So there was a dozen people helping a fighter pilot to complete their missions, instead of one pilot trying to find a solution to situation that they didn't know.

 

 

what???????????:doh:

the mig-23 have a radar of short range... with ENORMOUS emitions???? and they forgot to make the receiver? ... expend all the money in the emitter?

the f-15 and the f-16 have an radar wich dont emit a thing and can see everything???? really you believe this?

some data from wikipedia (EN) :

AN/APG-66 can detect a fighter-size plane at a range of 34.5 Nautical miles (55.6 kilometers) / Introduction:17 August 1978 (f-16a)

some data from wikipedia (RU) :

RP-23D "Zafiro-23D" (1972) - MiG-23M / pulse Doppler radar (MiG-23M and MiG-23MF, MiG-21 class air target detection range - 55 km, acquisition range 35 km)

very close, obviously the digital computer in the aiming sistem of the f-16 make some difference. very diferent thing is say with no fundaments the mig-23 dont see and spend so much radiation "to be spoted" and shot down

other big mistake... "The MiG-29 and Su-27 were first fighters designed to operate standalone if needed" (uffffffff) :doh::doh::doh:

the a-4 skyhawks Argentina use in Malvinas operate in the next manner... the leader of scuadron has in his plane nav sistems... others fron the scuadron dont... so if you lose the leader you gone to freezing water with NO posibility of SAR missions... if you have to make the british task force go to talk with the fishs.. you do wat you has to do, all plane can operate alone if it needed (Necessity have the face of a heretic says popular culture)

i go further with this.... and i say "no plane in the world can operate alone"

no recon?

no mission planners?

no awacs?

no satellites? (now think wat happen if the u.s. fight against a country that dominates the radio spectrum, which forces it to fight without satellites ... bye gps ... bye stand off weapons) so, think in "warplanes alone" is a risky bet

 

cgi "....they could see what enemy is about to do as they could read the enemy energy state and capabilities from the radar screen" so.... the command and control sees all... o yea jajajajja and can tell you by radio "what" is dooing "who"... in dogfigth the datalink its for morons? and wen you tell "energy state you talk abaut speed and altitud? in dogfigth things change so quick... no se... quizas soy tan mal jugador que me estoy perdiendo algo (p.d. cgi datalink lazzor is not voice chat in radio with command and control, and is an old sistem ........... i bet my entire salary of 6 moths that the awacs or cgi screen has not so much to do wit tackview)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The MiG-23 flies with the GCI. By its guidance, its information and it only activates radar when commanded. We do not have even semi-realistic radar modeling in game where you wouldn't even find the target in many cases as it could just be so faint return. Combine with everything else from ECM to CM and you would love a human GCI to guide you silently on the target, activate your radar and you just launch missiles at unaware target that just seconds ago learn that it RWR is telling something just locked on it.

 

Think about flying to enemy land and you have just your radar and RWR telling there are a dozen or so EWR, and you are absolutely unaware of dozens of SAM sites, fighters etc all tracking you based to the EWR data, all waiting a some master plan to come together while you just fly deeper the defense to drop your bombs or something, and every second you are driving to your doom.

This is why the F-16 or F-15 needs their radar to get a glimpse what is ahead of them, missing many targets but same time trying to find out the game plan that defenders has laid out to stop you.

 

 

i think this is what you imagine is the operational profile of the mig-23... i dont know much about this... but... the mig-23 dont fly with cgi, the cgi shows in the instruments where intersept the intruder and the plane go this way and shot the enemy (seems like an P variant of the pvo) the other variants go to de front... to a terrain captured (not his oun home with dtv and playstation) to airfields of mud or grass at best, bombing near targets and defending the base from atacks (they call it frontal aviarion) and yes... the command in this theatre is the cgi

ups!!! is the same theater for the f-16

 

"Think about flying to enemy land and you have just your radar and RWR telling there are a dozen or so EWR, and you are absolutely unaware of dozens of SAM sites, fighters etc all tracking you based to the EWR data, all waiting a some master plan to come together while you just fly deeper the defense to drop your bombs or something, and every second you are driving to your doom." come on man... and youre are traing to tell me the f-16 and f-15 can operate "withouth help" ajajjajaja so naiv... and finishing

".....This is why the F-16 or F-15 needs their radar to get a glimpse what is ahead of them, missing many targets but same time trying to find out the game plan that defenders has laid out to stop you....."

so you really think the radar of the mig-23 is for tell the enemy "im here!!! shot me!!!" the f-16 pilot= master in chess ... mig-23 pilot= moron jajajajaja

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The difference is big, Soviets designed many systems based defense, while west for the offense. Other will know what is happening in own backyard, while another needs to get in and find it out by "looking through a straw".

 

And you would be happy if MiG-23 intercepting you did turn radar On, instead acquiring you with IRST and launch a IR missile without warning.

 

Combine it with very high speed interception capability, they can just be guided to get behind you where your radar can't see them.

 

This is why MiG-23 (and overall DCS) requires a overhaul of the EW to be implemented in core DCS.

 

the difference in the soviet doctrine and the nato (u.s.) doctrine is in certain manner as you say "based defense, while west for the offense"...

but remember... red army take berlin... and wait for the u.s. to arrive... in the militari doctrine of all cowntries habe "defence" and "attack"... "manouver" and " possition".... "shoting war" and "diplomacy"... you reduce all the things to a soup of misconceptions and propaganda (bad taste propaganda... noncence propaganda.. propaganda for dummyes)

the only thing you say is not a total chaos and waste of time is...

"DCS requires a overhaul of the EW to be implemented in core DCS."

 

some useful concepts

 

1°cgi is an structure of command and control, so its function is the same as the awacs (in most of the cases the awacs replace the cgi)

 

 

2° an figther pilot is an soldier, and in ALL the cases his duty is TO FOLLOW ORDERS, in the air forces of the world the orders are gived in the "briefing" and by command and control

 

 

3° all warplanes has some degree of comunication with (cgi/awacs) command and control (... if avaliable... if it still alive, remember all dogs go to hell.. and if it is intended, some times the mission requires you still quiet... or your poverty deprives you of this system)

so... there is no such thing like "U.S. maverick pilot showing the ass to his commander... and not such thing as soviet robots specting the order to eject in a flaming plane (i heard an stupid nato pilot saying that nonsense), both things are propaganda and nothing more)

 

 

4° each cowntry has its doctrine and all doctrine in everi corner of the world is revisited over and over again, sometimes the doctrine show its inefectivnes, sometimes they have to follow the spirit of the times and its changes

 

 

5° THERE ARE NO SILVER BULLETS!!!!! :megalol:

 

 

6° dont spend all nigth answering silly people (thats for me :D )

 

p.d. si a alguien le molesto todo lo que escribi... me chupa un huevo... es corta la bocha:music_whistling:

Link to post
Share on other sites
measure the "representibity" of the version in respect of the family is almos imposible (in the world of "my opinion" all is valid, but this let us with nothing... and i respect your opinion and this opinion diverge almost nothing than of mine)

they thought the mld as a form to seal the gap between the 4th gen and the trird gen (soviets had a lot, in the 80s, planes of third gen, nato too but i think wen they come first to the 4th gen era... they got more planes built) so its not a simple variant... its a fix of a problem... a solution desperate to a big problem... an very good solution

they replase all old variants and send them to the frontline of the cold war (wating for the mig-29... even the agressors scuadron training the pilots of the mig-29 were flown by experienced pilots in mld variants)

thy send them to afganistan to do CAP in the frontier with Pakistan, they send them to Cam Ram Bay Vietnam to patroll and confront the tomcats.. and more important they send them to DDR

so the representibity from the 84 to the end of the carrere in the URSS (yes in castellano jajajja) and russia were almos all mld (ml... mla... how long their carrer were be til transform them in mld?)

 

... hermano ...

HANGAR

JETS : FlamingCliffs 3 | MiG-21bis | Mirage 2000C | F-14A/B | F-16C | F/A-18C

HELIS : Mi-8MTV2

 

... yep still on Windows 7.

Link to post
Share on other sites
what???????????:doh:

the mig-23 have a radar of short range... with ENORMOUS emitions???? and they forgot to make the receiver? ... expend all the money in the emitter?

the f-15 and the f-16 have an radar wich dont emit a thing and can see everything???? really you believe this?

 

First of all, I didn't say anything like that. Quote properly if you will....

 

some data from wikipedia (EN) :

AN/APG-66 can detect a fighter-size plane at a range of 34.5 Nautical miles (55.6 kilometers) / Introduction:17 August 1978 (f-16a)

some data from wikipedia (RU) :

RP-23D "Zafiro-23D" (1972) - MiG-23M / pulse Doppler radar (MiG-23M and MiG-23MF, MiG-21 class air target detection range - 55 km, acquisition range 35 km)

very close, obviously the digital computer in the aiming sistem of the f-16 make some difference. very diferent thing is say with no fundaments the mig-23 dont see and spend so much radiation "to be spoted" and shot down

 

Do you know how much energy does the F-16 radar transmit?

Do you know how much power does the MiG-23 radar complex (Sapfir-23E) transmit?

Peak power of impulse transmitter: 70kW

 

Now spend a moment to think about the difference between the Peak Power per pulse, and the range they get. MiG-23 gets just about that 55 km detection and 35 km for lock range.

 

other big mistake... "The MiG-29 and Su-27 were first fighters designed to operate standalone if needed" (uffffffff) :doh::doh::doh:

 

Yes, MiG-29 and Su-27 were first fighters for Soviets that were designed to operate standalone without GCI.

 

the a-4 skyhawks Argentina use in Malvinas operate in the next manner...

 

I didn't talk about A-4 or any other western fighters, just about what Soviets made in doctrinal difference when Su-27 and MiG-29 were developed.

 

i go further with this.... and i say "no plane in the world can operate alone"

no recon?

no mission planners?

no awacs?

no satellites? (now think wat happen if the u.s. fight against a country that dominates the radio spectrum, which forces it to fight without satellites ... bye gps ... bye stand off weapons) so, think in "warplanes alone" is a risky bet

 

Did you know that Soviets doctrine was that if the GCI doesn't see a target, then fighters were not allowed to engage it? If the MiG-23 pilot saw an fighter somewhere, they reported it to GCI, if the GCI didn't see it, it was not allowed to engage. If MiG-23 pilot detected an target with radar or other sensors, if GCI didn't see it as well then it was not authorized to be engaged. It was simple as that, GCI made the rules and pilots obeyed them strictly.

 

The Soviet doctrine was that MiG-23 pilots didn't just get the signal to intercept point, the GCI talked to them over radio as well. They were in direct communication with the human. For various purposes you just get the signal for coordinates as enemy can't cipher it, but they were not constantly silent either just with a coordinates.

 

cgi "....they could see what enemy is about to do as they could read the enemy energy state and capabilities from the radar screen" so.... the command and control sees all... o yea jajajajja and can tell you by radio "what" is dooing "who"... in dogfigth the datalink its for morons? and wen you tell "energy state you talk abaut speed and altitud? in dogfigth things change so quick... no se... quizas soy tan mal jugador que me estoy perdiendo algo (p.d. cgi datalink lazzor is not voice chat in radio with command and control, and is an old sistem ........... i bet my entire salary of 6 moths that the awacs or cgi screen has not so much to do wit tackview)

 

You are like the western pilots who didn't know what the Soviets GCI doctrine truly was like and how effective they were with it.

 

The Aggressors mimicked the Soviet use of GCI in order to complete their re-enactment of Soviet fighter doctrine. According to Robert “Kobe” Mayo, then a major in the initial cadre of Aggressors back at the 64th FWS, Nellis:

 

"They were a fantastic asset. These guys flew with us, briefed with us, were part of the post-flight debriefing, and made it possible for us to do our mission. During our air-to-air engagements they were in there with us and we felt that they were as valuable as another wingman. I remember flying against a flight of two F-4s. During the debrief, I was playing my tape recording of the engagements and you could hear my GCI controller talking to me as if he were another fighter pilot participating in the fight. At one point in the fight I was engaged with one of the F-4s and “Stump”, my GCI guy, was talking almost non-stop. “Kobe, you can press your fight … the other F-4 is across the circle from you … Kobe, you’ve got 40 seconds left before he’s a threat … Kobe, come off hard right. The other F-4 is your 5 o’clock and 9,000ft, closing.” I did break right, picked up the other F-4 and continued the fight. During the debrief when the F-4 guys heard my tape they were convinced that I had brought another wingman into the engagement. They said, “There is no way any GCI controller could have that much awareness of what’s going on by looking at a radar screen. And he is not talking like a GCI controller, he’s talking like the fighter pilot that he is!” They were really upset and I’m not sure to this day that I convinced them that I was the only T-38 in the fight. Our GCI controllers were absolutely fantastic."

Red Eagles, America's Secret MiGs – Steve Davies

 

The GCI on the Soviet Doctrine was like that, what even Western TOP GUN school would later on teach. The GCI was "all seeing with hundreds of eyes" and they knew everything that own pilots were about to do.

And that was changed later on with MiG-29 and Su-27 doctrine to make them more standalone pilots as they had far better sensors for situational awareness and to have decisions for being more creative in combat. They were allowed to engage targets that GCI didn't see etc.

 

Edit:

 

By the US Congress public documents (F-16 APG-66 SYSTEM PARAMETERS

(AS OF MAY 29. 1976)) about F-16 with APG-66:

 

2. TRANSMITTER

The transmitter contains an air-cooled traveling wave-tube (TWT), a solid-state grid

pulser, high voltage power supplies and regulators, and protection and control circuitry,

entire transmitter is solid state, except for the final TWT output tube. The pilot may select

among four of the 16 available APG-66 operating frequencies in any given F-16 aircraft.

INPUT POWER: 358D VA. 400 Hz. 245 WDC

POWER OUTPUT AVERAGE: ~200w

 

SPECIAL RELIABILITY EMPHASIS ON TWT

• AIR COOLED 16 KW PEAK POWER TWT INITIALLY CONSIDERED HIGH RISK COMPONENT

 

 

1148787036_APG-66FireControlRadarCaseStudyReport.thumb.jpg.50e34634596a312df6f560834e89216b.jpg


Edited by Fri13

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 post
Share on other sites
First of all, I didn't say anything like that. Quote properly if you will....

Do you know how much energy does the F-16 radar transmit?

Do you know how much power does the MiG-23 radar complex (Sapfir-23E) transmit?

Now spend a moment to think about the difference between the Peak Power per pulse, and the range they get. MiG-23 gets just about that 55 km detection and 35 km for lock range.

Yes, MiG-29 and Su-27 were first fighters for Soviets that were designed to operate standalone without GCI.

I didn't talk about A-4 or any other western fighters, just about what Soviets made in doctrinal difference when Su-27 and MiG-29 were developed.

Did you know that Soviets doctrine was that if the GCI doesn't see a target, then fighters were not allowed to engage it? If the MiG-23 pilot saw an fighter somewhere, they reported it to GCI, if the GCI didn't see it, it was not allowed to engage. If MiG-23 pilot detected an target with radar or other sensors, if GCI didn't see it as well then it was not authorized to be engaged. It was simple as that, GCI made the rules and pilots obeyed them strictly.

 

The Soviet doctrine was that MiG-23 pilots didn't just get the signal to intercept point, the GCI talked to them over radio as well. They were in direct communication with the human. For various purposes you just get the signal for coordinates as enemy can't cipher it, but they were not constantly silent either just with a coordinates.

 

You are like the western pilots who didn't know what the Soviets GCI doctrine truly was like and how effective they were with it.

 

 

Red Eagles, America's Secret MiGs – Steve Davies

 

The GCI on the Soviet Doctrine was like that, what even Western TOP GUN school would later on teach. The GCI was "all seeing with hundreds of eyes" and they knew everything that own pilots were about to do.

And that was changed later on with MiG-29 and Su-27 doctrine to make them more standalone pilots as they had far better sensors for situational awareness and to have decisions for being more creative in combat. They were allowed to engage targets that GCI didn't see etc.

 

Edit:

 

By the US Congress public documents (F-16 APG-66 SYSTEM PARAMETERS

(AS OF MAY 29. 1976)) about F-16 with APG-66:

 

 

[ATTACH]246638[/ATTACH]

 

i see where you obtained the data of the soviet cgi... from the us navy... ok... no discussion... everyone can choose to which liar believe in

and the data from radars.. im not an electronical engenier... and o dont know the math to do the calculations but i bet my salary (again) you cant make the maths neither

and my coments abaut the a-4 in malvinas.... was just an analogy... i see you cant untherstand an analogy properly too.... is ok...

 

NO PLANE IN THE WORLD IS CONCEIVED TO OPERATE ALONE!! ALL ARE CONCEIVED TO OPERATE IN AN STRUCTURE OF AN ESPECIFIC ARMY !!!NO THE MIG-29 NO THE F-15 NO THE F-16!!! NO ONE!!! NO THE 747 OR THE A-320!!! (yes im yelling you)

 

i see yoy say

¨Did you know that Soviets doctrine was that if the GCI doesn't see a target, then fighters were not allowed to engage it? If the MiG-23 pilot saw an fighter somewhere...... bla bla bla bla bla bla........ purposes you just get the signal for coordinates as enemy can't cipher it, but they were not constantly silent either just with a coordinates¨

 

where you buy this???? some one tells you so?... you are an ex soviet pilot??? your grandpa was an former cgi oficer?

in case of that you say "is true"... its in peace time??? in case the plane catch in his sensors (that you say cant do it without cgi... you are in this being at least incongruent) an intruder and the cgi dont see it... there the cgi go to sleep the nap... and the intruder pass?... or the cgi uses the plane as eyes??? in peace time an figther has to shot down any intruder withowt identify it? wat abaut the war time? the intruder has to pass because the cgi dont see it? do you see the stupidity in your words?

 

i dont know wat the soviet doctrine was... but i know thet all the things the us say abaut the soviet union is crap... and the us people are educated in thsi crap... and this crap is also flooding internet... there is almos no reliable info abaut this things

 

and again (AGAIN) what abaut u.s. doctrine and awacs? if the f-15 and f-16 has the power of the universe and the eye of god (which god??? tutatis??)... if the see all with is superduper radars (littttttle emit = big data receive) why in the name of satan the us expend so much money to buy a fleet (20 airplanes?) of e-3 (Unit cost. US$270 million wikiverga)?

wat is the purpose of them if the f-16 cand do alone the job... (is a stupid cuestion... i know... i know what is the purpose... command and control... for who?... for the usaf... so f-22 f-15 and f-16 has datalinc with the commander of the battle... and for wath they need that?)

Link to post
Share on other sites
i see where you obtained the data of the soviet cgi... from the us navy... ok... no discussion... everyone can choose to which liar believe in

and the data from radars.. im not an electronical engenier... and o dont know the math to do the calculations but i bet my salary (again) you cant make the maths neither

and my coments abaut the a-4 in malvinas.... was just an analogy... i see you cant untherstand an analogy properly too.... is ok...

 

NO PLANE IN THE WORLD IS CONCEIVED TO OPERATE ALONE!! ALL ARE CONCEIVED TO OPERATE IN AN STRUCTURE OF AN ESPECIFIC ARMY !!!NO THE MIG-29 NO THE F-15 NO THE F-16!!! NO ONE!!! NO THE 747 OR THE A-320!!! (yes im yelling you)

 

i see yoy say

¨Did you know that Soviets doctrine was that if the GCI doesn't see a target, then fighters were not allowed to engage it? If the MiG-23 pilot saw an fighter somewhere...... bla bla bla bla bla bla........ purposes you just get the signal for coordinates as enemy can't cipher it, but they were not constantly silent either just with a coordinates¨

 

where you buy this???? some one tells you so?... you are an ex soviet pilot??? your grandpa was an former cgi oficer?

in case of that you say "is true"... its in peace time??? in case the plane catch in his sensors (that you say cant do it without cgi... you are in this being at least incongruent) an intruder and the cgi dont see it... there the cgi go to sleep the nap... and the intruder pass?... or the cgi uses the plane as eyes??? in peace time an figther has to shot down any intruder withowt identify it? wat abaut the war time? the intruder has to pass because the cgi dont see it? do you see the stupidity in your words?

 

i dont know wat the soviet doctrine was... but i know thet all the things the us say abaut the soviet union is crap... and the us people are educated in thsi crap... and this crap is also flooding internet... there is almos no reliable info abaut this things

 

and again (AGAIN) what abaut u.s. doctrine and awacs? if the f-15 and f-16 has the power of the universe and the eye of god (which god??? tutatis??)... if the see all with is superduper radars (littttttle emit = big data receive) why in the name of satan the us expend so much money to buy a fleet (20 airplanes?) of e-3 (Unit cost. US$270 million wikiverga)?

wat is the purpose of them if the f-16 cand do alone the job... (is a stupid cuestion... i know... i know what is the purpose... command and control... for who?... for the usaf... so f-22 f-15 and f-16 has datalinc with the commander of the battle... and for wath they need that?)

 

 

 

 

Mate you need to calm down and let it go - you seem unhinged and also wrong on most counts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ED team has soviet / russian pilots on your develop team and ED main team, Yo-Yo was a old SAM technical. RAZBAM "Cuban" team surely has some SME with can get info about how working GCI soviet / russian system.

 

Some documents:

From SamSimulator site (autor was old SAM Hungarian PacVar commander), get info about LAZUR GCI on Mig-23ML, part of IADS Soviet System

http://www.mediafire.com/folder/9h98baii3btat/IADS%2C_GCI

 

Meanwhile early systems was under direct voice GCI operator, 80s LAZUR system get fighter instructions vs mandatorie comands by technicals with "typewriters" send to interceptors, that was icon row bellow Mig-23 HUD to show that commands.

 

IADS "Vozduh

Part 1

http://www.rtv-pvo-gsvg.narod.ru/doc/Wozduch_1.djvu

Part 2

http://rtv-pvo-gsvg.ucoz.ru/doc/Wozduch_1-2.djvu

More news to the front

Wishlist: ED / 3rd Party Campaings

My Rig: Intel I-5 750 2.67Ghz / Packard Bell FMP55 / 16 GB DDR3 RAM / GTX-1080 8 GB RAM / HD 1Tb/2Tb / Warthog / 2 MDF / TFPR

 

DCS: Roadmap (unofficial):https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=116893

DCS: List of Vacant models: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=4076891#post4076891

21Squad DCS: World News: https://www.facebook.com/21Squad-219508958071000/

Silver_Dragon Youtube

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mate you need to calm down and let it go - you seem unhinged and also wrong on most counts.

 

wrong according to who??? in which part????

 

and your arguments are.... what... "i'm infallible and you are wrong because i say so"?


Edited by nsf_zx
Link to post
Share on other sites
Nothing is preventing, except the short range radar and powerful emissions to reveal you while you can't see a thing.

 

The MiG-29 and Su-27 were first fighters designed to operate standalone if needed. Otherwise the GCI were always in contact and provided valuable information even in dog fights as they could see what enemy is about to do as they could read the enemy energy state and capabilities from the radar screen. For a good GCI operator the radar screen was like a Tacview is to us, they saw and understood situations better as they had all the data from flight plans to SAM network and all fighters on the air. So there was a dozen people helping a fighter pilot to complete their missions, instead of one pilot trying to find a solution to situation that they didn't know.

 

The MiG-23 flies with the GCI. By its guidance, its information and it only activates radar when commanded. We do not have even semi-realistic radar modeling in game where you wouldn't even find the target in many cases as it could just be so faint return. Combine with everything else from ECM to CM and you would love a human GCI to guide you silently on the target, activate your radar and you just launch missiles at unaware target that just seconds ago learn that it RWR is telling something just locked on it.

 

Think about flying to enemy land and you have just your radar and RWR telling there are a dozen or so EWR, and you are absolutely unaware of dozens of SAM sites, fighters etc all tracking you based to the EWR data, all waiting a some master plan to come together while you just fly deeper the defense to drop your bombs or something, and every second you are driving to your doom.

This is why the F-16 or F-15 needs their radar to get a glimpse what is ahead of them, missing many targets but same time trying to find out the game plan that defenders has laid out to stop you.

 

The difference is big, Soviets designed many systems based defense, while west for the offense. Other will know what is happening in own backyard, while another needs to get in and find it out by "looking through a straw".

 

And you would be happy if MiG-23 intercepting you did turn radar On, instead acquiring you with IRST and launch a IR missile without warning.

 

Combine it with very high speed interception capability, they can just be guided to get behind you where your radar can't see them.

 

This is why MiG-23 (and overall DCS) requires a overhaul of the EW to be implemented in core DCS.

 

here you got an u.s. documentary of the "air national guard" operations in alaska (and.. all is controlled by cgi... or iads, even awacs)

 

${1}
Link to post
Share on other sites

i am thinking where come the idea of "pilos in western aiforces fly alone" (almost like hippies in lollapetoza... searching for a beer or something else... hooo good times all my respects to those hippies) and dont recieve orders from cgi... this idea dont come from the usaf... they make documentaries showing they work, and its like i alwais thinck it is... so where the stupid idea comes?.... from top gun and hollowood movies like this? (at least top gun is an good enterteinment.... iron eagles are just crap, below z category movies), i know were the idea of "soviet pilot were robots stupids and soviet machines are made bla bla bla crap bla bla bla crap bla bla bla propaganda bla bla bla crap" this is just propaganda... but tho other idea its a nonsense spreaded all over internet... but where that come from????

Link to post
Share on other sites
i am thinking where come the idea of "pilos in western aiforces fly alone" (almost like hippies in lollapetoza... searching for a beer or something else... hooo good times all my respects to those hippies) and dont recieve orders from cgi... this idea dont come from the usaf... they make documentaries showing they work, and its like i alwais thinck it is... so where the stupid idea comes?.... from top gun and hollowood movies like this? (at least top gun is an good enterteinment.... iron eagles are just crap, below z category movies), i know were the idea of "soviet pilot were robots stupids and soviet machines are made bla bla bla crap bla bla bla crap bla bla bla propaganda bla bla bla crap" this is just propaganda... but tho other idea its a nonsense spreaded all over internet... but where that come from????
Probably from the same decade that produced Top Gun. If you look at a lot of films with a militaristic and/or patriotic plot from that era, you'll notice that they're pretty similar, thematically speaking.

Can't pretend fly as well as you can.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Love the radar talk :)

 

 

To put it into reality:

ML/MLA's radar emits 40 kW peak (70kW is for M/MF)

return cut-off is roughly 10^-9 W (-8 for M) - the cut-off also varies with altitude

 

If F-16's radar emits 16kW with only slightly less range, this means it's more sensitive.

 

But this more/less sensitive in the end does not matter. What matters is the end result, that being range. Where they are more or less equal, with slight advantage when it comes to the ML.

 

But here's the catch - electronic warfare exists. And more powerful radar is always an advantage. Until you get down low, where the radar power becomes a hindrance - because you need to filter out all the noise you get reflecting from the ground. Even then you can find the enemy on N003 with enough time before your missiles get in range.

 

 

 

As for GCI, it's a situational awareness thing. No, GCI will not be able to tell your enemy's energy state from the radar screen. Nor would the poor guy there be able to communicate to you quickly enough. This is the reason why even the "merge" exists. Did you know radars do not have infinite resolution? At some point, speaking about older radars, the "blips" of you and the target will merge on the screen, to the point where you cannot tell them apart. That is the "merge". More modern radars will still be able to recognize and display two separate targets, but the refresh rate and the spacing (or lack there of) will prevent the GCI from giving you any meaningful inputs.

 

As for doctrine, air force pilots (not air defence) would be directed into an area of operations, updated on the threats, and given optimum directions to initiate the combat. This being facilitated either by an integrated command centre, dispersed command centre, or airborne command centre (A-50, Tu-126). Past that it's in the hands of the pilot, who is trained in both BVR and manoeuvre combat. Here just keep in mind that BVR was very simplistic back then, there was no cranking or weaving. At best you would launch your heat seekers and climb away.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There were photos of ML's from Afghanistan and history books mention orders. 50mm flare rounds for Soviet racks and centrline pylon flare launcher. Iraq used 20-something mm helicopter flare rounds.

i5-10600k/32GB 3600/SSD NVME/1060gtx 6gb/1920x1200'24/VPC T-50 Saitek X-52 throttle Saitek combat rudder

Link to post
Share on other sites
Where is this (what's the source)? Could u show text and photographic proof if possible?:)

 

Book by Victor Markovsky mentions VP-50 installations on ML, MLA, MLD and even UB going to Afghanistan. Unfortunately all clear photos that I've found are MLD's. But multiple MiG-23ML pilots and technicians on many forums and Razbam discord stated that VP-50-60 launcher rack is bolt-on. MiG-29 flare dispensers are also separate bolt-on device and not part of the airframe btw.

UPD - there are photos of UB with VP-50, which is technically an MF with dual cockpit. So if can mount it on UB which is like really different from MLD, mounting to ML should be no problem at all.


Edited by Кош

i5-10600k/32GB 3600/SSD NVME/1060gtx 6gb/1920x1200'24/VPC T-50 Saitek X-52 throttle Saitek combat rudder

Link to post
Share on other sites

50358470557_4b80d49deb_o_d.jpg

 

Picture: Mig-23ML from one of the F-1 onboard camera in that combat, Taken from a Cuban Military magazine.

 

Real Story in Spanish about an unsuccessful ambush made by 3 F-1 against a single Mig-23ML. Angola war:

 

¡Cuidado, son tres!

 

Artículo de Maikel Mederos Fiallo.

 

El 25 de febrero de 1988, alrededor de las 17:35 horas, el piloto de tercera, capitán Orlando Carbó, cumple una misión de cobertura al sureste de Cuito en el MiG-23ML matrícula 476. Su navegante en tierra, el primer teniente Ricardo López Castillo, le informa de la presencia en la zona de un Mirage F1 sudafricano.

– 877, tome rumbo 90 grados. ¡Máxima velocidad!

– Enterado, rumbo 90 – respondió con rapidez Carbó.

– 77, el objetivo está delante de Ud., distancia 25 km, 30 grados a su izquierda y debajo.

La tensión del piloto aumentaba con la creciente velocidad de acercamiento, mientras sus ojos peinaban la pantalla de su radar.

– ¿Este radar estará ciego? – pensó el piloto. El velocímetro llegaba a 1 100 km/h. Su mano derecha, sin quejarse, aplicaba mayor fuerza sobre el bastón de mando.

– 877, objetivo 5 grados a su izquierda, distancia 12 km…

– ¿Qué altura más o menos? – preguntó el piloto.

Su voz sonó como un latigazo de decisión que daba confianza al navegante López Castillo quien oprimió de nuevo el micrófono de su equipo e indicó:

– 77, busque el objetivo por debajo, aumente la velocidad.

No hubo respuesta.

– Lo perdí, lo perdí, delante de usted. Búscalo a la izquierda 5 grados.

– 877 ¡En captura!... – apareció en su radar el objetivo aéreo.

Hasta ese momento habían transcurrido 2 minutos y 29 segundos.

– ¡Correcto!

– Completamente de frente – dijo el piloto.

– Distancia 8 km – indicó el navegante.

– ¡Se cayó la captura! – se lamentó el piloto.

Interferencias activas nublan la pantalla del radar.

– Distancia 7 – el piloto no oyó ni contestó nada.

– De frente completamente, 3 km. Búsquelo por debajo. Coge pa´ abajo trancando – se alteró el tono de voz de Castillo.

– ¿Pa´ qué rumbo? – preguntó Carbó con desconcierto.

– ¡Tranca por la izquierda pa´… curso 280!

– 280 grados por la izquierda.

Carbó se apresta para entablar combate.

– Delante de usted, distancia 9… Distancia 7, es una pareja, delante de usted, ahí abajo – se acercaba con rapidez – De frente completamente. ¡Cuidado que están trancando! ¡Cuidado!, de frente dos… – le pasó por debajo.

– ¿Dime?... ¿dime?... ¿dónde?... ¡a la vista, voy pa´ bajo!

– ¿Lo tienes? – preguntó Castillo.

– Correcto, son dos – respondió Carbó.

– Correcto, mete caña, no te dejes coger.

Momentáneamente los perdió y Castillo le informó que los tenía detrás. Lanzó el tanque auxiliar de combustible y descendió con brusquedad su altura girando en espiral. El combate se desarrollaba a alturas entre 200 – 1 000 metros.

Efectivamente, por encima y por detrás se acercan a alta velocidad dos cazas Mirages F1: el MiG-23 ha caído en una emboscada. El primer avión solitario era un señuelo para atraer a Carbó.

Al instante escucha la voz de su navegante que le informa sobresaltado:

– ¡Cuidado, son tres, son tres!

Un macabro carrusel aéreo se entabla en el cielo: de un lado el MiG-23 secundado desde tierra por López Castillo y del otro las tres máquinas sudafricanas empeñadas en coger la cola del solitario MiG. En pocos instantes se entremezclan la emoción con el aplomo, la valentía con la sagacidad y entre giros y banqueos, trepadas y picadas se oye la voz de Castillo que más que hablar grita:

– ¡Dale tú, coño! – Resuena en el intercomunicador del piloto – ¡Métele caña, tienes que tumbarlo! ¡No te dejes coger la cola!...

El avión líder enemigo lanzó un cohete desde el ala de su F1. Con un brusco tirón del bastón de mando Carbó evadió el cohete cuando este se encontraba próximo al impacto. El segundo disparo de “Kukri” se efectuó teniendo una diferencia de 30 grados desde la semiesfera frontal, este se desvió de su trayectoria de vuelo e impactó contra tierra. El tercer y último disparo lo recibió desde la semiesfera trasera y sintió sobre la cola de su avión una fuerte sacudida, provocada por la onda expansiva.

En tierra de detectarían se detectaron tres pequeñas partículas metálicas que agujerearon los timones con diámetro del tamaño de un centavo.

Los minutos pasan a velocidad supersónica y el capitán Carbó amenaza con derribar a uno de sus atacantes. Cambió la posición de sus alas para el ángulo de 72 grados y emprendió la salida del “carrusel de la muerte”. El combate había durado 6 minutos y 15 segundos con el régimen de trabajo del motor al máximo y postcombustión conectada.

El piloto Orlando Carbó todavía tiene motivos para seguir preocupado, su avión ha consumido demasiado combustible en el lance aéreo, tiene dudas de que alcance para llegar a la base de Menongue, pero con la misma seguridad con que le indicara en el combate, el navegante López Castillo, tras determinar cálculos para altura y velocidad le dice que se puede llegar a la base y que el aterrizaje será allí.

En Menongue todos están a la espera, los ojos buscan un punto que no aparece en el cielo. Ya en las cercanías del aeropuerto, Ricardo López cede la conducción a sus colegas y espera, también con ansiedad la llegada del MiG.

– ¡Allí está! – son varias las voces de quienes ven la diminuta figura del avión que se aproxima bajito, arrebatando al tiempo cada metro de un combustible que se acaba y con este la vida del motor. Las ruedas se posan en la dura rampa, el paracaídas de frenado se extiende y ya al final de la carrera, cuando el avión va a girar en 180 grados para dirigirse a su nicho, el motor se apaga en medio del asombro general.

Carbó retira su mano del bastón, se seca el sudor de la cara con la manga del overall. Entonces, una amplia sonrisa aparece en su rostro.

Un saludo para todos.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites
Book by Victor Markovsky mentions VP-50 installations on ML, MLA, MLD and even UB going to Afghanistan. Unfortunately all clear photos that I've found are MLD's. But multiple MiG-23ML pilots and technicians on many forums and Razbam discord stated that VP-50-60 launcher rack is bolt-on. MiG-29 flare dispensers are also separate bolt-on device and not part of the airframe btw.

UPD - there are photos of UB with VP-50, which is technically an MF with dual cockpit. So if can mount it on UB which is like really different from MLD, mounting to ML should be no problem at all.

 

Thank you!! I'll definitely check that out. It's very interesting that that the ML and MLA also had this retrofit. I had a heated debate with a person over whether the MLA could in fact load BVP-50-60s or not, I appreciate this information.

 

What's the name of the book if I may ask? I'd really like to read it.


Edited by EpicBlitzkrieg87

Urraaaa!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...