Any news on the Mig-23?

[Mainstay]

2 hours ago, Krez said:

What are you basing that fear on?

MiG-19, personally that still feels for me like a module that was not given the same love as the Mirage, Harrier and the Strike Eagle  

 

I hope I am wrong though

Edited December 31, 2023 by Mainstay

[pepin1234]

13 hours ago, Mainstay said:

MiG-19, personally that still feels for me like a module that was not given the same love as the Mirage, Harrier and the Strike Eagle  

 

I hope I am wrong though

 

Mig-19 it's a great module. I hope Mig-23 module come on the same level.

[tryphon77]

15 hours ago, Mainstay said:

MiG-19, personally that still feels for me like a module that was not given the same love as the Mirage, Harrier and the Strike Eagle  

 

I hope I am wrong though

 

I have the same feeling flying this bird. I love this bird though. I Really hope the floger will get enough work on it 

[Pavlin_33]

On 12/30/2023 at 8:05 AM, Kazansky222 said:

The Soviets had the 1521st Aviation Base which had their elite Aggressor squadron, you can think of it as their "Topgun" or "Fighter Weapons School"

But when they operated Mig-23ML variants they were known to outfly their students flying the Mig-29.

I have no doubt they did, but if the instructor was behind the 29, there's not much they could do in a 23.

[FlankerKiller]

On 12/6/2023 at 12:17 PM, Art-J said:

It's going to be the only post-1960's era Red side full fidelity fighter module available in DCS in forseeable few years future.

Well that aged well. We’re about to have the whole MiG lineup. If you look at say 1986 as a possible Cold War gone hot there would have been a lot of mig-21s, a lot of 23s, and a few 29s. Something we’re going to get to play with. 

 

Edited January 6 by FlankerKiller

[Art-J]

Damn right  . Can't complain ;). Although I'm more of an oldschool guy and I'll still probably go for the -23, Fulcrum is going to be a milestone for DCS community, even if "only" in 9.12A version.

Edited January 6 by Art-J

[FlankerKiller]

On 1/6/2024 at 4:56 PM, Art-J said:

Damn right  . Can't complain ;). Although I'm more of an oldschool guy and I'll still probably go for the -23, Fulcrum is going to be a milestone for DCS community, even if "only" in 9.12A version.

 

I’m going for both. The 23 covers a ten year gap before the 29. And would still have been the backbone in the 80s. If missions or campaigns are designed properly the 21, 23, 29 will all work together. I love the Soviet stuff, and this jet is classic Soviet. 

[WinterH]

1 hour ago, FlankerKiller said:

I’m going for both. The 23 covers a ten year gap before the 29. And would still have been the backbone in the 80s.

To be fair, I think the MiG-23MLA we're getting went into service in (really) late 70s, and MiG-29 early 80s, the gap between the two variants really isn't that much in my opinion.

I will probably get both, but 23 I will almost certainly though, it is a lot worse an aircraft, but also something I find a lot more interesting, and from a generation I like more to play with in flight sims.

[FlankerKiller]

Same, they should be about equal before the merge. Really in that era, the 80s, it was all about pointing and shooting after the merge. The 29 will dominate that. But an MLA could get lucky. IRL there were more 23s than 29s especially early on. So that’s a factor too. I like military aircraft. The 23 should stack up well against the F-4, and F-5. Against the Cat it’s going to be tough. But tough can be fun. 

[Bremspropeller]

I think the -23 will take most blufor people by surprise. Especially when the loadout is restricted to nothing but Sparrows as big sticks.

The F-4 might have a sliver of an edge in WVR when just comparing ITR and STR, but the -23 can blow through the fight at Mach 500, regain energy pretty easily and it has the gas to stick around. BVR will not be a happy place fo an F-4E, when the opfor is flying late Floggers.

[WinterH]

1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

BVR will not be a happy place fo an F-4E, when the opfor is flying late Floggers.

Yeah, the radar is more capable than APQ-120, and R-24 is supposed to be better than even AIM-7F as far as I know. For memes and shenanigans there's also the IRST and R-24T. I think, among the possible modules we have, MLA will be one of the best in BVR for a late 70s-early 80s setting among the 3rd gen aircraft, and still at least a contender vs 4th gen ones.

[tryphon77]

The main drawbacks of the flogger would be it's playtime once airborne. Without any refueling solution and designed for Soviet QRA tactics, it will be extremely limited in its ability to CAP, commit, shoot, merge, win the fight on AB and back for CAP again. Whereas the phantom can hold it's ground a little longer. 

Edited January 12 by tryphon77

[Кош]

19 минут назад, WinterH сказал:

Yeah, the radar is more capable than APQ-120, and R-24 is supposed to be better than even AIM-7F as far as I know. For memes and shenanigans there's also the IRST and R-24T. I think, among the possible modules we have, MLA will be one of the best in BVR for a late 70s-early 80s setting among the 3rd gen aircraft, and still at least a contender vs 4th gen ones.

R-23 is a monopulse seeker. R-24 is a monopulse seeker with INS(but no midflight correction like R-27) Which makes them like 7M with shorter range but faster.

[Bremspropeller]

25 minutes ago, tryphon77 said:

The main drawbacks of the flogger would be it's playtime once airborne. Without any refueling solution and designed for Soviet QRA tactics, it will be extremely limited in its ability to CAP, commit, shoot, merge, win the fight on AB and back for CAP again. Whereas the phantom can hold it's ground a little longer. 

The -23MLA has half the engines but about 2/3 the fuel of the F-4E. Internal, that is. I'd expect an F-4E with the 600gal CL tank to be roughly on par with a -23MLA with the 800l tank. That's not accounting for L/D in the hold for the CAP, but just fuel going through the motors.

Combined with it's variable wing geometry, the -23MLA should be able to CAP fairly efficiently.

[Кош]

2360km with 3 tanks at economic speed. Bear in mind you can have 3 tanks and 6 AAM's.

[vanir]

On 1/12/2024 at 7:45 AM, WinterH said:

To be fair, I think the MiG-23MLA we're getting went into service in (really) late 70s, and MiG-29 early 80s, the gap between the two variants really isn't that much in my opinion.

I will probably get both, but 23 I will almost certainly though, it is a lot worse an aircraft, but also something I find a lot more interesting, and from a generation I like more to play with in flight sims.

The initially exclusive Soviet variant, -23M started deliveries to the VVS in 1973 and the lightweight variant followed right on behind them from 1975, in fact the -23ML avionics is identical to the -23M except for the improved, lightweight fire control set mainly to do with the original set using valve electronics and a switch to solid state, which in the late-60s were considered still unreliable and prone to failures for high powered systems, compared to valves so those had persisted in Soviet materiel. Basically, solid state Phazetron N003 Sapfir for the ML and N006 Ametist for the P and its datalink. As far as I know the -23MLA designation actually refers to the radar set and not the aircraft, which is a -23ML and the late version with the ECM and another fire control and systems update is the MLD or "ML-Doribortannyy, derivative/modified" as it makes changes to the aircraft itself and has a different, newer radar again. The -23ML has the N003 or Sapfir-23ML and MLA fire control systems which differentiates a change in cockpit panelling, so I assume they're referring to this layout for the RAZBAM -23ML, the later -23MLA N003 setup. The MLD uses N008 or -23MLA2 Ametist which has a datalink and core improvements, can use R73, etc., although almost all the VVS -23ML were actually updated to -23MLD standard from 82.

Now the interesting thing here is the early production MiG-29 also used the Phazetron N008 before it got the N019. It's still a little different, more advanced to the -23MLA but in the BVR and detection/tracking phase it's the same avionics package as a MiG-23MLD basically the main frontline type at the time of introduction. Still you'd have to say the MLA remains pretty early 70s and the early -29 pretty late 70s on the avionics side, or about ten years behind in tech deployment. Their information handling was terrible, lookdown/shootdown is more of a hopeful circumstance. Soviet avionics lagged by holding onto valve and vacuum into the 1970s, whilst American warplanes had solid state reliability issues in the 60s the Soviet ones ran like a quartz watch but the payoff was American processors were increasingly outstripping Soviet ones in the late 70s-80s and right during a paradigm shift in electronics capabilities in aerial warfare, whilst keep in mind the USSR was a closed state of isolated development. Only dedicated projects like the MiG-31 were bringing them up to speed but these were hugely expensive and difficult projects, like a mini-space program but that did give them AESA in the 80s where the Valkyrie gave the Americans honeycomb/composites. It's all such an expensive game, a Cold War but damn if the military deep states don't love the power.

[Volator]

How do the 'negotiations' between ED and RB affect the MiG-23 project? With the difficulties at hand, will the MiG-23 ever be introduced to DCS?

[Ala13_ManOWar]

2 hours ago, Volator said:

How do the 'negotiations' between ED and RB affect the MiG-23 project? With the difficulties at hand, will the MiG-23 ever be introduced to DCS?

Doesn't look like any time soon .

[addman]

Two weeks

[CarbonFox]

14 hours ago, vanir said:

Now the interesting thing here is the early production MiG-29 also used the Phazetron N008 before it got the N019. It's still a little different, more advanced to the -23MLA but in the BVR and detection/tracking phase it's the same avionics package as a MiG-23MLD basically the main frontline type at the time of introduction. Still you'd have to say the MLA remains pretty early 70s and the early -29 pretty late 70s on the avionics side, or about ten years behind in tech deployment. Their information handling was terrible, lookdown/shootdown is more of a hopeful circumstance. Soviet avionics lagged by holding onto valve and vacuum into the 1970s, whilst American warplanes had solid state reliability issues in the 60s the Soviet ones ran like a quartz watch but the payoff was American processors were increasingly outstripping Soviet ones in the late 70s-80s and right during a paradigm shift in electronics capabilities in aerial warfare, whilst keep in mind the USSR was a closed state of isolated development. Only dedicated projects like the MiG-31 were bringing them up to speed but these were hugely expensive and difficult projects, like a mini-space program but that did give them AESA in the 80s where the Valkyrie gave the Americans honeycomb/composites. It's all such an expensive game, a Cold War but damn if the military deep states don't love the power.

Man, would still love to see the MLD variant come to DCS. Hopefully it does eventually with the Mig-29 being developed my ED.

[Mig Fulcrum]

16 ore fa, vanir ha scritto:

The initially exclusive Soviet variant, -23M started deliveries to the VVS in 1973 and the lightweight variant followed right on behind them from 1975, in fact the -23ML avionics is identical to the -23M except for the improved, lightweight fire control set mainly to do with the original set using valve electronics and a switch to solid state, which in the late-60s were considered still unreliable and prone to failures for high powered systems, compared to valves so those had persisted in Soviet materiel. Basically, solid state Phazetron N003 Sapfir for the ML and N006 Ametist for the P and its datalink. As far as I know the -23MLA designation actually refers to the radar set and not the aircraft, which is a -23ML and the late version with the ECM and another fire control and systems update is the MLD or "ML-Doribortannyy, derivative/modified" as it makes changes to the aircraft itself and has a different, newer radar again. The -23ML has the N003 or Sapfir-23ML and MLA fire control systems which differentiates a change in cockpit panelling, so I assume they're referring to this layout for the RAZBAM -23ML, the later -23MLA N003 setup. The MLD uses N008 or -23MLA2 Ametist which has a datalink and core improvements, can use R73, etc., although almost all the VVS -23ML were actually updated to -23MLD standard from 82.

Now the interesting thing here is the early production MiG-29 also used the Phazetron N008 before it got the N019. It's still a little different, more advanced to the -23MLA but in the BVR and detection/tracking phase it's the same avionics package as a MiG-23MLD basically the main frontline type at the time of introduction. Still you'd have to say the MLA remains pretty early 70s and the early -29 pretty late 70s on the avionics side, or about ten years behind in tech deployment. Their information handling was terrible, lookdown/shootdown is more of a hopeful circumstance. Soviet avionics lagged by holding onto valve and vacuum into the 1970s, whilst American warplanes had solid state reliability issues in the 60s the Soviet ones ran like a quartz watch but the payoff was American processors were increasingly outstripping Soviet ones in the late 70s-80s and right during a paradigm shift in electronics capabilities in aerial warfare, whilst keep in mind the USSR was a closed state of isolated development. Only dedicated projects like the MiG-31 were bringing them up to speed but these were hugely expensive and difficult projects, like a mini-space program but that did give them AESA in the 80s where the Valkyrie gave the Americans honeycomb/composites. It's all such an expensive game, a Cold War but damn if the military deep states don't love the power.

As far as I know the MLA N003 radar bring to the Mig-23 the capability of carry R-24R instead of earier R-23R

[Кош]

В 07.04.2024 в 03:15, vanir сказал:

The initially exclusive Soviet variant, -23M started deliveries to the VVS in 1973 and the lightweight variant followed right on behind them from 1975, in fact the -23ML avionics is identical to the -23M except for the improved, lightweight fire control set mainly to do with the original set using valve electronics and a switch to solid state, which in the late-60s were considered still unreliable and prone to failures for high powered systems, compared to valves so those had persisted in Soviet materiel. Basically, solid state Phazetron N003 Sapfir for the ML and N006 Ametist for the P and its datalink. As far as I know the -23MLA designation actually refers to the radar set and not the aircraft, which is a -23ML and the late version with the ECM and another fire control and systems update is the MLD or "ML-Doribortannyy, derivative/modified" as it makes changes to the aircraft itself and has a different, newer radar again. The -23ML has the N003 or Sapfir-23ML and MLA fire control systems which differentiates a change in cockpit panelling, so I assume they're referring to this layout for the RAZBAM -23ML, the later -23MLA N003 setup. The MLD uses N008 or -23MLA2 Ametist which has a datalink and core improvements, can use R73, etc., although almost all the VVS -23ML were actually updated to -23MLD standard from 82.

Now the interesting thing here is the early production MiG-29 also used the Phazetron N008 before it got the N019. It's still a little different, more advanced to the -23MLA but in the BVR and detection/tracking phase it's the same avionics package as a MiG-23MLD basically the main frontline type at the time of introduction. Still you'd have to say the MLA remains pretty early 70s and the early -29 pretty late 70s on the avionics side, or about ten years behind in tech deployment. Their information handling was terrible, lookdown/shootdown is more of a hopeful circumstance. Soviet avionics lagged by holding onto valve and vacuum into the 1970s, whilst American warplanes had solid state reliability issues in the 60s the Soviet ones ran like a quartz watch but the payoff was American processors were increasingly outstripping Soviet ones in the late 70s-80s and right during a paradigm shift in electronics capabilities in aerial warfare, whilst keep in mind the USSR was a closed state of isolated development. Only dedicated projects like the MiG-31 were bringing them up to speed but these were hugely expensive and difficult projects, like a mini-space program but that did give them AESA in the 80s where the Valkyrie gave the Americans honeycomb/composites. It's all such an expensive game, a Cold War but damn if the military deep states don't love the power.

Where did you get N008 on 9-12?

[lmp]

7 hours ago, Кош said:

Where did you get N008 on 9-12?

From what I once read, an unfortunately I don't have the source anymore, there was an idea for an interim variant using the N008 (or some derivative) that never went into production. By the time they sorted all the other issues with the airplane, the N019 was ready.

To be fair to Vanir, he never said anything about 9-12 specifically, but to the best of my knowledge no production version ever had the N008. 

[F-2]

1 hour ago, lmp said:

From what I once read, an unfortunately I don't have the source anymore, there was an idea for an interim variant using the N008 (or some derivative) that never went into production. By the time they sorted all the other issues with the airplane, the N019 was ready.

To be fair to Vanir, he never said anything about 9-12 specifically, but to the best of my knowledge no production version ever had the N008. 

Yes this was the original plan for the export variant but they had trouble getting the radar to fit in the fulcrum nose and needed all hands on deck getting the domestic version in service.

[BalticDude]

RIP MiG-23ML..

You will be missed