Harlikwin

Ah if thats the case I think I misunderstood them. One "interpolated" graph I have but don't think I can post has the 23MLA doing 14.5 dps STR at 45 sweep. It is interpolated/translated onto a western chart for comparison so I'm not sure if its correct. And if its true it "matches" what the Israelis have anecdotally said about the 23 and F4, but well, anecdotes. There is another nice one from a dutch F16A pilot that flew the MLD as well and said it outperformed the viper in BFM which is kinda eeeh, but does match what the soviets thought about it. All this being said, I think on release people will be surprised that the F4 can actually dogfight, and doubly true for the 23 since basically all of the western lore is about literally the worst first gen mig23 that ever flew, and while its somewhat accurate, its in no way accurate when discussing the ML/MLA/MLD versions. That being said I'll also say the same is likely true for optimistic assessments of how they though the 23 would fare against 4th gens. At the end of the day for DCS purposes, its all down to how well the Aero will actually get modeled, and how well the systems get modeled. Like if Jester 2.0 can pick out a gnats ass in lookdown, well thats likely a problem. Same thing if the MLA radar isn't somewhat janky but functional in lookdown. Oh one last comment I saw mentioned some issues with instability at high speed with the 23. That was a problem with early gen1 23's but it was also at high mach, like 2.0 and above. And it was solved in the 2nd gens for the most part from my understanding you can see a big difference in the vertical stab between the two.

So whats the difference between the black and red lines? And the 3/4 different graphs (is that alt?) With regards to the whole ML/MLA/MLD story. AFAIK, the ML manual is an early one, and it was revised for MLA with better data, also various things like G limits got upped between each one of those iterations, partly due to some changes in the airframes, but also from experience. From what I have anecdotally heard the 33 degree wing sweep got you like ~1-2 DPS more than the 45. Same thing for stuff like AOA limits as well. At any rate, that more or less means the F4 and 23 are relatively close performance wise for STR and ITR. Which is what RL testing from Israel anecdotally said (though they said their MLA/MLD (aerodynamically supposedly an MLA) the 23 outdid their F4. Also for all the GCI guys, while ofc the Soviets had GCI and used it doctrinally, they were basically horrified by how badly the Mid East air forces performed and basically setup their own version of Top-Gun, to teach BFM out in Khazakstan in the 70's. So more or less an analog to the US Vietnam experience. And by the early 80's you had experienced mig-23 pilots beating rookie mig29 pilots there, just like early on F15's got beat by F4's or 104's in DACT.

Yeah, but sadly not happening due to DL issues.

I hear ya. Also glad the radars on the modern jets are getting reworked to be more in line with the F15E radar model.

Yeah I get that you guys needed MT to do better cloud modeling or to have them exist in the game beyond just being a graphical shader layer. And that latest radar thing sort of hints that radar may be effected by weather so I'm hoping for progress.

Well thats good news. Clouds blocking IR and weather next I hope.

Probably not. It likely required additional features like an A/G weapons computer, possibly different hud etc. I.e. all the stuff the M got.

In that case I'd stick to US made ordnance for the F1, it carries both sidewinders and the various MkXX series of bombs as well as GBU's, which Iran did get some early GBU kits that they put to use during the iran/iraq war.

I'm not disagreeing with you. But I'm saying ED won't make a realistic naval sim because its too much work. I mean take a look at all the half done stuff that they have introduced and has fallen by the wayside. WW2 damage models, how many planes actually got one? Realistic bomb fusing? Again what % of even the WW2 stuff has this working? And my favorite, clouds and weather.

Yeah fox1 fights will be interesting. The Mig should be able to see the F4 from a pretty good distance, 70+ km is a detect distance for 3m2 target for the N003, and of course the F4 has a larger RCS 6-10m2. As for the fuel situation its interesting, the 23 had pretty good range performance especially up high, and given that it could very rapidly accelerate I don't forsee too many "bingo" problems for it. But yes only 2 big sticks means the most likely tactic will be 1 pass haul ass.

I mean honestly while I hate the fact the naval model is bad, I also have done the mental excersize of what a decent "naval" damage/missile/radar model would entail, and then multiply that by the 50 or so ships we have in DCS, so its no small task. OOF thats bad, I haven't tried bombing submarines...

Lol no it doesn't at least not for the MLA/MLD. And certainly not in look down. Also don't forget the flogger has decent IRST set as well so depending on the speed of mr Phanter and aspect it could see it from quite a ways away.

LOL none of that applies to the 23 that we will get in DCS. The MLA was 8G capable and turned better than a slatted phantom. The 23MLA handles better in terms of BFM than a 21bis.

I mean given how sporadically and generally badly modeled DCS naval stuff is, IDK that I care too much. You still have the Rb-04 and Rb-15 basically being laser guided to this day. And there is huge variability in damage done by anti ship missiles, despite relatively similar warhead sizes etc.

Nope, never used on any of the models they are developing. We'd need like an EQ-4/6 versions that iraq operated for that. Either one of those would be super based as well as they got all the goodies.

They concluded that it was better than the phantom, which also had poor cockpit visibility, poor ergonomics etc. And also the 23 had a better radar in terms of look down at least. The interesting bit there is that at higher altitudes they concluded it wasn't so bad vs a viper which is interesting. I mean in its context of gen3 vs gen3 the 23 seemed to do fine vs the phantom. And obviously neither did well vs gen4 stuff. Clearly the south African F1 and other pilots shot down by mig23s were crap then, by western standards at least. Also the Angolans weren't exactly using peak soviet GCI/lazur at that time. Yeah, aside from Smyh's acceleration diatribe, there is no actual mig23 EM data there. Unless I'm blind, but I went through it 3x looking for it.

Yeah, its outdated, but well its china... So we don't get a real J-8 either.

Cool. No worries, you guys will get there. I also hope that eventually the radar model also is world class.

Be cool if they got their heads together with Aerges and Razbam, then we would at least have a few planes with working transponders. All of DCS MP would implode if it were to be actually used though.

The Iraqis had pretty much whatever they wanted from the french. When the Mirages fled to Iran IDK what they took with them. In theory Iran has sidewinders (9J/P) so that would get you covered for the basic AAM's. But I doubt they copied the 530's at all.

Are you guys going to implement the "smaller" search pattern for the magic1, it had the larger one by default and then could be set to a smaller "point" scan by using the "uncage" button. Welcome to DCS, where we actually like realism instead of warthunderisms. And yes its lame that there is alot of variability in missile modeling, especially for the older ED modules like the F5 and F86 that never seems to get fixed even when its been reported for years. With the aim9B it basically needs to see up the tail pipe. The9J/P are somewhat more forgiving but still very much rear aspect. I suppose, be glad that ED doesn't model any of the problems with the SARH missile seekers. Otherwise you'd cry alot about the 530EM.

Not seeing any 23ML data in that thread, just F4 vs 104. The revised STR on the phantom is 14dps tho vs another chart I have so the two are basically the same if the 23 is 14.5dps at the same alt. It might do better or worse at higher altitudes tho, for which I haven't seen numbers. Its interesting because the israeli commentary made it sound like it outperformed their F4 by more than a hair. I wonder if theirs was heavier or if they flew the 23 clean, cuz I'm sure the R23/24 is draggy as hell. Alternately they used the 33 degree wing sweep which reputedly bumps the STR up to ~16dps. Or the rather unlikely possibility it was an actual MLD with the additional Aero refinements. Then there is this gem from a former Viper pilot that flew the MLD that was quite impressed with its performance. null

So, honestly I'm no AeroE, nor do I particularly care to debate you on this. Maybe you're right maybe not. What I do know, and what makes sense is that the 23 is a pointy low drag dart thats been described by everyone that flew it or flew against it as having amazing acceleration. Meanwhile the F4, while having lots of thrust, also had a ton of drag and was described as a flying brick. On the maneuverability question I've seen charts (no, not gonna post em sadly because they way the are made I think violates rule 16) that put the mig23MLA STR at ~14.5dps, and ITR at like 19dps at like 5k alt (28k lbs, 2R23R, 50% fuel). Looking at phantom charts for the same alt at around 12-13 dps STR and ~19dps ITR(4x Aim7, 41k lbs) So not a huge difference, but slightly in the migs favor with a 45 deg wing sweep. I assume it gets somewhat better with the 33 deg sweep, but I've not seen any aero data for that. Yup, I agree with you here, you need accurate evaluations. All I know is that the Israelis got their hands on Syrian MLD (which in reality is aerodynamically an MLA, with MLD radar/fcs). And they concluded it outflew their slatted F4E's across the envelope. Sadly that report doesn't have any actual flight data, just the conclusion.

Yeah, DCS IR modeling is very very simplistic. But the major determinants of lock ranges from an IR standpoint are basically gonna be related to how much IR signal you are getting and what part of the IR spectrum is in (this is where what kind of seeker material you are using becomes important). But at a very basic level what you are seeing in that chart is obviously, signature from the engine (idle/mil/AB) which of course is a bigger deal from rear aspects. Then you have the airframe which when you get supersonic will get warm, but the key point everyone missies is that there is a supersonic shock wave, well what happens when you rapidly compress a gas? It heats up. I used to have a great IR image of a hornet along with the shockwave but can't find it anymore. The other thing that matters alot as well is "background" or "contrast". Its pretty simple to think about if your plane has a temp value of 100 and the background has a temp value of 0, then this is the perfect case, the signature is 100 (lets say this is the case looking up at a clear sky, which is very cold). Now in "look down" you are looking at the ground, so your plane is still 100, but now the ground is say 50. So your effective signature is just 50, so shorter range to pick you out of that. (not represented on the chart as far as I can tell) since I don't think it says what the ownship alt is (or maybe it is and I missed it). Other fun things that show up in the chart like atmospheric attenuation, so the high alt ranges are longer than the low alt ranges, because there is less atmosphere to absorb the signal. And as you can see, this is actually a major effect. Also one major thing that I don't think is really reflected in this chart are other factors such as "skyshine" or "ground shine" i.e. reflections of either the very cold sky, or the relatively warm ground that also impact IR signatures. Also, the final complicating factor being paint...

It was only used by ground crews. In DCS its an exploit to use it.