Jump to content

New DCS Mig23 and Mig-19 Project


VIRUS_AT

Recommended Posts

Since most of you on this thread are focused on the Mig-23 Flogger.I can't wait to see what they do with the Mig-19 Farmer.Any chance we will see a Shenyang J/F-6 version too with Chinese cockpit instruments.I would also love to see Razbam make some comparable fighters to go up against the Mig-19 like the F-100 Super Sabre,F-102 Delta Dagger or the Dassault Super Mystere first generation supersonic fighters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 182
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Precisely what I was thinking, but still would like confirmation, if possible. Probably too early to ask anyways, but hell, can`t hurt.

 

Would be neat if we got the X23 -> KH-66 Grom, according to my research it was capable of shooting it, and would make it a precision A-G striker as well.

 

Oh I need to supplement my Russian bird collection, give MiG 19 + 23 :pilotfly:

 

welll i mean i wouldnt consider kh23 to make a mig23 a Proper precision strike aircraft. i mean even looking at the more known bullpop, which did not have what by todays standard would be precision or effective destructive power. they are just radio guided missiles, ( or in the case of the kh66. Beam guided) kinda hard to have exact precise accuracy when you have to rely on good ol Mk1 eyball to spot stuff and make corrections.

 

But im sure itl be fun to use.


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

Since most of you on this thread are focused on the Mig-23 Flogger.I can't wait to see what they do with the Mig-19 Farmer.Any chance we will see a Shenyang J/F-6 version too with Chinese cockpit instruments.I would also love to see Razbam make some comparable fighters to go up against the Mig-19 like the F-100 Super Sabre,F-102 Delta Dagger or the Dassault Super Mystere first generation supersonic fighters.

I could see mods switching the cockpit language for sure.

 

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

Know and use all the capabilities in your airplane. If you don't, sooner or later, some guy who does use them all will kick your ass.

 

— Dave 'Preacher' Pace, USN.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vortex generators on pitot tube, additional "dogtooth" on fixed part of wing, additional 33 degree wing position, heavy modified control system.

According many russian sources with those changes MLD had turn radiuses close to MiG-29. I'm sure that 23 will suprise you.

 

I sincerely doubt that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

welll i mean i wouldnt consider kh23 to make a mig23 a Proper precision strike aircraft. i mean even looking at the more known bullpop, which did not have what by todays standard would be precision or effective destructive power. they are just radio guided missiles, ( or in the case of the kh66. Beam guided) kinda hard to have exact precise accuracy when you have to rely on good ol Mk1 eyball to spot stuff and make corrections.

 

But im sure itl be fun to use.

 

Never had a problem with beam guided, mk1 marked targets before... Hitting targets the size of tanks is easy, with enough training, even L39, which has a basic gyro-stabilized sight and unguided bombs + lower speed -> more ballistic on weapons dropped. Having done some Su25 (non T) way back, it never was a problem. If realistic, it would certainly add to my MiG.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never had a problem with beam guided, mk1 marked targets before... Hitting targets the size of tanks is easy, with enough training, even L39, which has a basic gyro-stabilized sight and unguided bombs + lower speed -> more ballistic on weapons dropped. Having done some Su25 (non T) way back, it never was a problem. If realistic, it would certainly add to my MiG.

 

 

actually is the su25 (nont) doesnt have radio guided kh23, it has the laser guided s25l and kh25.

 

OI find beam guided is not accurate enough agaisnt MBTs. at all. self guidance of the kh66 required too many corrects and hard to tell if your missile is long or short of the target. and its really sensitive. Would be easier to do if it was radio guided, than beam guided.

 

and when lock on a given point with the beam from far away its hard to tell i the gunsight is directly above the target or below it until you get really close. this method is safer when you have aaa. I can ten at least fly left or right of the missile . and not be directly behind it.

 

Kh66 from the bis its good against ships or larger ground targets like building, or against lighly armored vehicles ( kill with splash damage) , but against MBTs its not that effective for a guided weapon. il generally get some pslash damage but not direct hits too often. I actually prefer bombing to it against tanks.

 

the radio guidance will be a bit better due to you not having to go into a predictable dive. but still nothing compared to laser guided or tv guided missiles, becasue those can consistently 99% of the time hit targets.


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

actually is the su25 (nont) doesnt have radio guided kh23, it has the laser guided s25l and kh25.

 

OI find beam guided is not accurate enough agaisnt MBTs. at all. self guidance of the kh66 required too many corrects and hard to tell if your missile is long or short of the target. and its really sensitive. Would be easier to do if it was radio guided, than beam guided.

 

and when lock on a given point with the beam from far away its hard to tell i the gunsight is directly above the target or below it until you get really close. this method is safer when you have aaa. I can ten at least fly left or right of the missile . and not be directly behind it.

 

Kh66 from the bis its good against ships or larger ground targets like building, or against lighly armored vehicles ( kill with splash damage) , but against MBTs its not that effective for a guided weapon. il generally get some pslash damage but not direct hits too often. I actually prefer bombing to it against tanks.

 

the radio guidance will be a bit better due to you not having to go into a predictable dive. but still nothing compared to laser guided or tv guided missiles, becasue those can consistently 99% of the time hit targets.

 

Never said radio guided, but beam rider was kinda wrong, so scratch that. Point still stands, locking up with HUD pipper and landing a missile on it is not really difficult, just takes practice. I only used KH66 a couple of times before I figured out it was unrealistic on Bis, when it was released. And with it, I did consecutively get missiles landing on top of tanks from 10-9km out. As said, it all comes down to practice. With time, you figure that the missile will undershoot slightly and how much too.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never said radio guided, but beam rider was kinda wrong, so scratch that. Point still stands, locking up with HUD pipper and landing a missile on it is not really difficult, just takes practice. I only used KH66 a couple of times before I figured out it was unrealistic on Bis, when it was released. And with it, I did consecutively get missiles landing on top of tanks from 10-9km out. As said, it all comes down to practice. With time, you figure that the missile will undershoot slightly and how much too.

 

 

well i have to agree to disagree, i have plenty hours in the mig21bis have put plenty practice into it. Ive owned it since not long after its release. and its really not worth the effort of using guidance if with same practice i can get more consistent accuracy with unguided bombs.

 

if this is how the grom worked irl no wonder it was such a short lived weapon, that was barely used by the time the Bis came into service.

 

my point still stands that missile still does not turn any platform like the 21bis or the 23 precision guided striker. necessary specialized avoinics ( like a2g radar, Targeting pods or Tv camea) , and more sophisticated laser or tv guidened weapons, makes a for a precsion guidance strike platform, at least what would pass for such in todays time.


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

well i have to agree to disagree, i have plenty hours in the mig21bis have put plenty practice into it. Ive owned it since not long after its release. and its really not worth the effort of using guidance if with same practice i can get more consistent accuracy with unguided bombs.

 

if this is how the grom worked irl no wonder it was such a short lived weapon, that was barely used by the time the Bis came into service.

 

my point still stands that missile still does not turn any platform like the 21bis or the 23 precision guided striker. necessary specialized avoinics ( like a2g radar, Targeting pods or Tv camea) , and more sophisticated laser or tv guidened weapons, makes a for a precsion guidance strike platform, at least what would pass for such in todays time.

 

Opinions might differ, but where did you get it that it was barely used? It was used to some degree during training. There were really no conflicts to make use of it, before it got upgraded (due to the time, military equipment progressed fast in research and development) and as such, was phased out before anyone came to need it.

 

Also, what you write about precision is pretty confusing. You don`t need any of the three you mentioned to have a precise weapons platform. Anything that will consecutively hit where you aim is considered precise weapons.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Kh-23(X-23) is an upgraded variant of the Kh-66 for use in the MiG-23. Their propulsion system is different, also the guidance system as well. The Kh-23 packs a stronger warhead.

 

yea a radio guided missile. in functions its basically a russian bullpop.


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

Well, I think that crucial is definition of "close" :smilewink:. Without documentation is hard to say it's true or not, but I have page from manual and there is stated that with 33/72 degree wing position aircraft have useful AOA up to 33 degrees.

 

It could have a usable AoA of 50, it still wouldn't tell us how tight a turn radius it has :-P

 

I think I have a manual somewhere on the MiG-23 I got a while back, will have a look through it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright, here's what I got.

 

MiG-23ML STR:

CJMhv6Q.png

 

A far cry from MiG-29 performance, but akin to the F-4 Phantom.

 

Now the MLD variant featured some aerodynamic & flight control improvements, but AFAIK was also 2.5 tons heavier than the ML variant. So how much better if at all it was compared with the ML I'm not sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A far cry from MiG-29 performance, but akin to the F-4 Phantom.

 

More akin to the F-4 yes, but considering all parameters equal, the MiG-23ML has a 40-70m shortest turn radius in STR and a biger G reserve. But that´s at 45º wing angle, remeber you can control this. At slightly reduced angles, angular velocities and radius for turn improve.

 

However, as you said before, it´s really a far cry from the MiG-29, being 2 Gs and around 200m better in STR.

 

I will check por ITR later.

 

but AFAIK was also 2.5 tons heavier than the ML variant

 

What is the source for this info?

 

Which RWR was the MLA equiped with? It's not the one in the FC3 aircraft right, so the same as 21 or was there an in between variant?

 

SPO-10, the same as in MiG-21Bis. Only the MiG-23MLD got an SPO-15. (the same as MiG-29, su-27, etc.)


Edited by OverStratos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Opinions might differ, but where did you get it that it was barely used? It was used to some degree during training. There were really no conflicts to make use of it, before it got upgraded (due to the time, military equipment progressed fast in research and development) and as such, was phased out before anyone came to need it.

 

If Kh-66 was of any practical use, they would have kept it or developed a successor as the FA's fighters (like MiG-21/23) could have then used it if needed; it's not like newer guided A2G weapons were developed for them to replace it.

 

Also, what you write about precision is pretty confusing. You don`t need any of the three you mentioned to have a precise weapons platform. Anything that will consecutively hit where you aim is considered precise weapons.

 

The DCS is just a game so if you manage to exploit some lack of factors present in real life and manage to hit such stuff consecutively, it doesn't mean that the results are meaningful enough to be extrapolated to real world use and label something as being precise.

 

In real life, a pilot can improve on his unguided weapons delivery to a certain point with lots of training and it takes a lot more to remain there and yet not even every pilot can become rather proficient with them. Then you have to factor in combat stress and many other factors and the hit rates go further down the drain. They wouldn't have bothered with developing LGB's if they weren't so absolutely necessary.

 

A cliché example (where even Walleye's were often not precise enough to hit key bridge points):

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thanh_Hóa_Bridge


Edited by Dudikoff
  • Like 1

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

More akin to the F-4 yes, but considering all parameters equal, the MiG-23ML has a 40-70m shortest turn radius in STR and a biger G reserve. But that´s at 45º wing angle, remeber you can control this. At slightly reduced angles, angular velocities and radius for turn improve.

 

I'm looking at both 16 & 45 deg sweep settings though, up until ~ mach 0.62 the 16 deg setting offers the highest STR, after that the 45 deg setting is better due to the AoA limit.

 

However, as you said before, it´s really a far cry from the MiG-29, being 2 Gs and around 200m better in STR.

 

Oh yes. Haven't checked the MiG29 figures yet myself, but it sounds about right - except maybe for the radius.

 

What is the source for this info?

 

Admittedly not the best since I can't locate a MLD manual, but wiki lists a loaded weight of 15,700 kg, which is 3 tons heavier than the ML on the chart.


Edited by Hummingbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Admittedly not the best since I can't locate a MLD manual, but wiki lists a loaded weight of 15,700 kg, which is 3 tons heavier than the ML on the chart.

 

 

Then i would suggest that either the Wiki is wrong or they are looking at different states.

 

Since i find it EXTREMELY hard to believe that the MIG-23MLD is 3 tonnes heavier considering the limited number of changes done to the airframe.

 

 

And since most Mig-23MLDs (all of the soviet ones)

where upgraded from Mig-23ML/MLA standard i doubt they would add 3 tonnes of weight during the upgrade...

(since i doubt any changes done to the airframe could justify that weight increase and also make it more agile etc.

 

I would be surprised if the Mig-23MLD was significantly heavier then the ML/MLA (a few hundred KG at most).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then i would suggest that either the Wiki is wrong or they are looking at different states.

 

Since i find it EXTREMELY hard to believe that the MIG-23MLD is 3 tonnes heavier considering the limited number of changes done to the airframe.

 

 

And since most Mig-23MLDs (all of the soviet ones)

where upgraded from Mig-23ML/MLA standard i doubt they would add 3 tonnes of weight during the upgrade...

(since i doubt any changes done to the airframe could justify that weight increase and also make it more agile etc.

 

I would be surprised if the Mig-23MLD was significantly heavier then the ML/MLA (a few hundred KG at most).

 

The one on the chart could be 50% fuel, and it only carries two missiles, so that could be one reason. The ML was lighter though, but by how much is the question.

 

As for the effect on ITR & STR that the dog tooth wing glove and modified flight control had, who knows. But it would be a far cry from the MiG-29 regardless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Kh-66 was of any practical use, they would have kept it or developed a successor as the FA's fighters (like MiG-21/23) could have then used it if needed; it's not like newer guided A2G weapons were developed for them to replace it.

 

 

 

The DCS is just a game so if you manage to exploit some lack of factors present in real life and manage to hit such stuff consecutively, it doesn't mean that the results are meaningful enough to be extrapolated to real world use and label something as being precise.

 

In real life, a pilot can improve on his unguided weapons delivery to a certain point with lots of training and it takes a lot more to remain there and yet not even every pilot can become rather proficient with them. Then you have to factor in combat stress and many other factors and the hit rates go further down the drain. They wouldn't have bothered with developing LGB's if they weren't so absolutely necessary.

 

A cliché example (where even Walleye's were often not precise enough to hit key bridge points):

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thanh_Hóa_Bridge

 

Replacement of KH-66 was just a natural means of research. With KH-66 you had to fly directly at the target (point radar beam) guide the missile. With it`s followup, X23 you could fly level while still steering the missile at the target. Just because we have newer weapons today, doesn´t mean that the old ones were bad for their time, or at all. Su17 used the KH-66 much, and they were training in it`s employment as well. MiG21/23 had the capability, but only as a last resort. They were first and foremost interceptors/fighters.

 

As to guided munitions, I`ve read that the reason why they exist is really a different one. It`s not because unguided bombs were inaccurately deployed, they used to do the job. Problem was, the accuracy was in direct correlation to how close from the target you were dropping them. The further away, the more inaccurate. And as such, to be able to strike targets from distances where they would be unable to strike back at you, you needed precision. All this because of wind, temperature, earth`s rotation, and many many other factors. (which guided munitions neglect to some degree)

 

A good example to the above would be the Thanh Hóa Bridgei that US couldn`t hit for squat. Having done multiple bombing raids (11 if I recall), only with guided weapons. But why all this trouble? Because they wanted to bomb it from an altitude that they were sure no AAA from around would be able to return fire at their aircraft. After all, if it wasn`t for this, it would be no problem for a single aircraft to get close and drop it`s bombs from a closer distance, with the exception that the aircraft would likely be lost before even getting so close.

 

Notice how many strike aircraft today still use unguided bombs often, as with even more modern ballistic computers, the altitude from which you can efficiently drop bombs with an accepted precision has increased. And this is very well simulated in DCS. If you fly as if you had one life, believe me your heart will beat a tad faster when you imagine what could be lying beneath you, and you have to get close to drop precisely.


Edited by zerO_crash

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Replacement of KH-66 was just a natural means of research. With KH-66 you had to fly directly at the target (point radar beam) guide the missile. With it`s followup, X23 you could fly level while still steering the missile at the target. Just because we have newer weapons today, doesn´t mean that the old ones were bad for their time, or at all. Su17 used the KH-66 much, and they were training in it`s employment as well. MiG21/23 had the capability, but only as a last resort. They were first and foremost interceptors/fighters.

 

 

 

 

well considering the american counterpart to the Kh23 radio guided missiled , the agm12 bullpop series had been developed and put into service more than a decade earlier, yea the kh66 and Kh23 were a bit late for thier time, if not arguably obsolete when they entered service.

 

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'm looking at both 16 & 45 deg sweep settings

 

16º in a turn radius chart? Can you post that chart?:noexpression:

 

up until ~ mach 0.62 the 16 deg setting offers the highest STR

 

No doubt about that, you amost fly like a small Cessna in that setting. I´m just not sure if any pilot would like to be with a 16º wing at more than 700km/h under 4000m (13000ft), and also take such a penalty in acceleration.

 

That´s why most charts for combat perfomance are for 45º and 72º only.

 

Pilots had the best results in between 33º-35º positions. That´s why a 33º position was added to the MLDs.

 

but it sounds about right - except maybe for the radius.

 

You think so? I think I was too gentle.

 

but wiki lists a loaded weight of 15,700 kg

 

That´s what I thought.

 

i find it EXTREMELY hard to believe that the MIG-23MLD is 3 tonnes heavier

 

It´s not.

 

But don´t quote me on this, I´m still doing my research.:D

 

The one on the chart could be 50% fuel, and it only carries two missiles, so that could be one reason.

 

That´s for an 12 750Kg aircraft. Full internal fuel is about 3700Kg and a combat loaded aircraft weights about 14 800Kgs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did MIG-23 Pilots adjust there Wing Sweep in a combat Fight regards the Speed? After the Sweep adjust takes a while i assume they set one angel 45 or 72 Degrees In Expectation of the Enemy they Face and keep Going?

Once you have tasted Flight, you will forever walk the Earth with your Eyes turned Skyward.

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

9./JG27

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16º in a turn radius chart? Can you post that chart?:noexpression:

 

It's on the sustained load factor chart I posted, 16 deg sweep is the first curve.

 

No doubt about that, you amost fly like a small Cessna in that setting. I´m just not sure if any pilot would like to be with a 16º wing at more than 700km/h under 4000m (13000ft), and also take such a penalty in acceleration.

 

It depends on the situations, in a WVR angles fight speed can quickly drop below 700 km/h.

 

That´s why most charts for combat perfomance are for 45º and 72º only.

 

Considering the pilot had to change the sweep manually and that IIRC the aircraft couldn't be under high G load during this (I believe the F-14 is the only aircraft that could alter sweep at any G load), then before the 30 deg angle was made available in the MLD the 45 deg angle made the most sense most of the time, as like you said it would make sure acceleration didn't suffer too badly like at 16 deg whilst lift also wouldn't be sacrificed as much as at 72 deg.

 

Pilots had the best results in between 33º-35º positions. That´s why a 33º position was added to the MLDs.

 

Makes sense, 33 deg sounds like an optimal position really.

 

You think so? I think I was too gentle.

 

Hehe, well like I said I didn't double check :)

 

 

That´s what I thought.

 

That´s for an 12 750Kg aircraft. Full internal fuel is about 3700Kg and a combat loaded aircraft weights about 14 800Kgs.

 

Ok, so the actual difference is more like 900 kg? Still quite a bit of weight, but not a massive 2.5 tons at least.

 

What's then interesting is how big an effect the added dog tooth wing glove design (or vortex generator if you will) had on the STR & ITR, and wether or not it was enough to make up for the 900 kg weight creep.


Edited by Hummingbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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