MiG-23 really?

[Harlikwin]

Official?

 

Edited January 25, 2021 by Harlikwin
Removed inappropriate content

[Kumabit]

Holy shit Mig-23??? Yooooooo let's goooooooo XD

[МаксиM]

16 hours ago, Kumabit said:

Holy shit Mig-23??? Yooooooo let's goooooooo XD

yes MiG-23, but not soon)))

[DmitriKozlowsky]

Somebody please explain this thread to me. I dongitit. Use small words.

Edited December 11, 2020 by DmitriKozlowsky

[Lime_Acid]

Who knows what the development is? I'm really looking forward to this module.

[TotenDead]

So, can we reliably deal with sparrow F-15s and Hornets in this Mig? Can we outturn F-15/16?

[QuiGon]

17 hours ago, TotenDead said:

So, can we reliably deal with sparrow F-15s and Hornets in this Mig? Can we outturn F-15/16?

No

[Dragon1-1]

MiG-23 is a fast interceptor. It's meant to get in, launch its missiles in one pass, and get out. It's all right in a dogfight, but it won't outturn the modern birds.

[TotenDead]

4 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

MiG-23 is a fast interceptor. It's meant to get in, launch its missiles in one pass, and get out. It's all right in a dogfight, but it won't outturn the modern birds.

I suppuse if MiG-23 was an interceptor it wouldn't have had swept wings and would've looked much like MiG-25

[razo+r]

Interceptors can have different designs...

[Dragon1-1]

It has variable sweep wings because of the STOL requirements. Oddly enough, the first version actually had lift jets to facilitate that. MiG-23 was a lightweight, short range frontline aircraft, meant to replace the MiG-21. It was meant primarily for intercepting tactical bombers and strike fighters.

 

MiG-25 was a long range heavy interceptor, with no short field ability. It replaced the Tu-28, and was meant for intercepting strategic bombers.

[Jarlerus]

--

Edited December 15, 2020 by Jarlerus
I didn't read the most recent post well enough :P

[rossmum]

The MiG-23 is not an interceptor. It is a light frontline fighter (NATO: tactical fighter), like the MiG-21. Neither of them were interceptors but both were adopted by the PVO in specific interceptor variants (in this case MiG-23P, essentially an ML but without ground attack capability). I don't know where this myth about all MiG fighters being "interceptors" came from but it has no basis in fact and also conveniently ignores that the Soviet GCI system really isn't hugely different in purpose from the NATO AWACS system except in one being airborne and the other not.

 

Soviet interceptors exclusively served in the PVO, not the air force, and were incapable of delivering air to ground munitions.

 

As for out-turning F-15s and 16s: not likely. The MiG-23ML was a 1970s update of a 1969 aircraft, don't compare it to a 2000s update of a mid/late 70s aircraft and expect it to win in a neutral merge 1v1 WVR scenario. That is not how the jet was intended to be used.

Edited December 16, 2020 by rossmum

[Dragon1-1]

MiG-23 did serve in PVO, specifically the MiG-23P. It was quite numerous in there. Also, it was an interceptor in a more general sense, in the same way the F-4 was. It was fast, with maneuverability as a secondary concern, and its primary role was air to air. Of course, such aircraft were called "light frontline fighters" in Russian service, but they were interceptors. 

 

Yes, this means many aircraft over the years that we think of as "fighters" were interceptors. Basically, the idea of a highly maneuverable fighter fell out of favor during Vietnam years and came back in full force shortly thereafter. MiG-21 and MiG-23 were both a product of the era (and all post-F-8 US planes, except the F-5), and it didn't really change until the F-15 and MiG-29, where maneuverability was once again put in forefront. 

[Mr_sukebe]

I'm with Dragon on this one, in believing that the Mig23 / 21, was very much an inteceptor, in the same way that the Phantom, Lightning and similar were.

[NightFlier]

On 12/14/2020 at 4:27 PM, TotenDead said:

So, can we reliably deal with sparrow F-15s and Hornets in this Mig? Can we outturn F-15/16?

 

Sometimes It seems that people is looking solely and exclusively to "win the race" when playing DCS.

This is a simulator, it means that you can recreate scenarios or invent one by yourself playing as a superior role or an almost loser role just for the fun of simulating.

 

If win or outturn someone was the main purpose, you should only be able to play with 2-3 modules and all the rest should be AI.

 

The real fun is creating a scenario where, even if you know you are inferior, there are Rules of Engagements to comply with, good coordination with your wingman and your GCI/AWACS and use the module as a real plane (with checklist and procedures, including start-up, taxi, takeoff etc. This is always a bit overlooked by a lot of people, taking off from taxiways or starting the engines with auto-start, not planning a course of action with a briefing etc.).

Sometimes the fun is...creating fun for everyone, even your adversaries as you, as an human enemy, can do things that AI couldn't do to see if they are able to deal with some unforseen circumstances.

[TotenDead]

18 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Oddly enough, the first version actually had lift jets to facilitate that.

Nope, that was a modification of MiG-21, it was called MiG-23 but it had nothing common with the serial plane

[Dragon1-1]

It wasn't a modification, far from it:

 

It had more in common with the MiG-23 than with MiG-21, though it wasn't terribly close to either. Most notably, it was much larger than the MiG-21. It did have a similar aerodynamic layout, but that's about it.

[TotenDead]

8 minutes ago, Night Flier said:

 

Sometimes It seems that people is looking solely and exclusively to "win the race" when playing DCS.

 

Well, guess why ED decided to make as modern 16/18 as possible? People like to play and win, not play and suffer. Need a proof? You could check online servers

 

8 minutes ago, Night Flier said:

This is a simulator, it means that you can recreate scenarios or invent one by yourself playing as a superior role or an almost loser role just for the fun of simulating.

 

What is a simulator, DCS? Sure, but it's still just a game and people can do here anything they want, not only seemewlate. As the matter of fact, it's pretty hard to simulate anything in DCS due to the lack of planes and ground units. Well, except of late WW2 period stuff, ww2 is nice.

 

8 minutes ago, Night Flier said:

If win or outturn someone was the main purpose, you should only be able to play with 2-3 modules and all the rest should be AI.

 

Didn't ask about that, i was just curious how maneuverable is the MiG-23ML and is it worth taking it into dogfight

8 minutes ago, Night Flier said:

 

The real fun is creating a scenario where, even if you know you are inferior, there are Rules of Engagements to comply with, good coordination with your wingman and your GCI/AWACS and use the module as a real plane

 

 

Maybe so, but noone plays on such servers. And offline is just a parody on a crutch simulation we have in online nowadays

 

[Mr_sukebe]

Toten>

 

There is a difference between PVP and other server scenarios.

PVP does require a degree of balance, I get that. 

 

However, there's only a small % of the playerbase actually playing PVP online.  
Players choosing to play pre-built scenarios are not there for balance.  

Lastly, you have squadon missions.  They're built to simulate whatever is desired and that is down to the preference of the squadron.

[DmitriKozlowsky]

On 12/14/2020 at 7:27 AM, TotenDead said:

So, can we reliably deal with sparrow F-15s and Hornets in this Mig? Can we outturn F-15/16?

Eh... no.  Wait its not just a no, its a hell NO, it wont go. Mig-23MDL was decent and as good as Soviets could make Mig-23. Israelies, who got some export copies courtesy of its Arab neighbors, were unimpressed with its maneuverability, but were impressed with its fire control and radar interface. Mig-23 pioneered plan radar contact projection onto HUD. They concluded that MIG-23MDL had fire control advantage over early F-16A (armed only with AIM-9P/L and gun no ECM), if it stayed in high speed fight, and began fight at higher altitude. Note that to date no Western type has HUD radar contacts projection in plan view. Only tracked targets for SA and engagement.

Mig-27K is a tactically much more valuable aircraft due to its accuracy with guided weapons delivery. Both hold current record for the most complex 3D articulated landing gear ever put into aircraft. Its titanium, steel, and aluminum technological origami.

Wings Of Red Star: Swing Wing Solution episode is excellent documentary.

[rossmum]

4 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

MiG-23 did serve in PVO, specifically the MiG-23P. It was quite numerous in there. Also, it was an interceptor in a more general sense, in the same way the F-4 was. It was fast, with maneuverability as a secondary concern, and its primary role was air to air. Of course, such aircraft were called "light frontline fighters" in Russian service, but they were interceptors. 

 

Yes, this means many aircraft over the years that we think of as "fighters" were interceptors. Basically, the idea of a highly maneuverable fighter fell out of favor during Vietnam years and came back in full force shortly thereafter. MiG-21 and MiG-23 were both a product of the era (and all post-F-8 US planes, except the F-5), and it didn't really change until the F-15 and MiG-29, where maneuverability was once again put in forefront. 

 

I already noted that the PVO adopted the 23P, as they had also adopted some 21s. In the case of the 23P it was fast and lookdown capable, which nothing else then in the inventory was capable of until the 25PD (whose entire sensor fit was essentially an upscaled version of the 23's).

 

I don't buy the "if speed is the primary concern it's an interceptor" thing. What the aircraft was designed as and what it was primarily intended to be used as definite its role, not whether it mostly flew in straight lines or not while doing it . Per the Soviet definition an interceptor exists to quickly catch intruders over friendly airspace on short notice and, if necessary, destroy them - it does nothing else and is either not wired for air to ground ordnance at all, or even if it is of a type that can otherwise deliver it, it is never loaded with any. By arguing that the 21, 23, etc are all interceptors regardless of service branch or variant, you're essentially saying that fighters simply ceased to exist for a good 20-30 years. If we take it further and apply the logic that the Phantom was an interceptor first and foremost, that ignores that its design role was a fighter-bomber able to conduct interception duties as necessary. It was meant to be a bomb truck from the outset. The Lightning literally was a true interceptor and only carried air to ground ordnance in specific export versions, having being designed to protect V-bomber bases.

 

The switch in emphasis from agility to speed doesn't mean that everyone suddenly decided fighters were obsolete, it means the technology finally arrived to reach higher speeds than had previously been possible, and most countries took away lessons from WWII and Korea that climb rate and speed were king since being agile didn't matter if you were being swooped by something you couldn't possibly hope to retaliate against. The added bonus of being able to perform interception if necessary factored in, sure, but it doesn't mean that the Soviets were wrong to call the 23 a frontline fighter. It was designed to fly over the frontline killing other aircraft or performing light ground attack, exactly like the 21. You could stretch 'interceptor' to mean any aircraft that engages and destroys an incoming enemy aircraft but at that point the term loses all meaning and every aircraft with air-to-air armament becomes an interceptor.

 

Maybe this is a cultural thing that I somehow missed out on, but to me, an aircraft is not an interceptor unless that is its sole design role. The Soviets would apparently agree, and when talking about Soviet aircraft that is what actually matters.

[TotenDead]

3 hours ago, DmitriKozlowsky said:

 They concluded that MIG-23MDL had fire control advantage over early F-16A (armed only with AIM-9P/L and gun no ECM), if it stayed in high speed fight, and began fight at higher altitude. 

Welp, they had only 23ML, not MLD

[Dragon1-1]

1 hour ago, rossmum said:

By arguing that the 21, 23, etc are all interceptors regardless of service branch or variant, you're essentially saying that fighters simply ceased to exist for a good 20-30 years.

Yes, I am, at least if new designs are concerned. Note that the older ones, like F-8 and MiG-19, continued to fly in that period, and indeed, their victories over the newer interceptors in Vietnam were a rude awakening that proved the "fighters are obsolete" concept was dead wrong. The Phantom, for instance, started out as a fighter-bomber, before being abruptly switched over to a fleet defense interceptor... and then proceeded to grow back into the fighter-bomber role it has been intended for at its conception. MiG-23, likewise, was not designed for ground attack, and neither was MiG-21. MiG-23 grew into that role with the MiG-23B and later the MiG-27, while MiG-21 was never particularly good at it.

 

Also, you'd be hard pressed to find a plane that could not carry any air to ground ordnance. MiG-25, the poster-boy interceptor, could not only load bombs, but it set some records thanks to its normal missiles weighing about as much as the bombs, allowing it to drop them at mach 3 from extreme altitudes. This made for some impressive stand-off drops, even if it wasn't the best bomber around. Famously "not a pound for air to ground" F-15A could carry dumb bombs, and early on, the pilots trained with them (the Israelis still do). Practically every combat aircraft since WWII had an option to strap bombs to it, and some early interceptors (like the aforementioned Lightning) carried quite a few rockets, because they could also be used for air to air against bombers. 

[Wizard_03]

On 12/14/2020 at 8:27 AM, TotenDead said:

So, can we reliably deal with sparrow F-15s and Hornets in this Mig? Can we outturn F-15/16?

Nope and absolutely not, might do ok against the F-4E, and F-5Es though 

Edited December 16, 2020 by Wizard_03