WIP: Mig-23
-
Ya, Id like one too. I think its actualyl a very popular request, but I heard (dont quote me here) that its very hard to model variable swept wings so its often abandoned on launch.
See Molni’s post. Doesn’t have much to do with variable wing geometry. The wing sweep angles are built into the models/flight model and the characteristic is modelled according to the particular position of the wings (or any other moving surfaces) so that is one of the ‘lesser’ problems :).
-
Just for the sake of argument: learning to utilize the “old” red jets effectively is the name of the game. Properly flown as currently modeled, the MiG-23 can trash most any AAM fired from 10nm and out. The MiG-21 with its small RCS can get in close and wreak havoc, the trick is just getting close in the first place.
I’m sure most everyone reading this thread has been frustrated by the Flogger trashing an almost certain Slammer shot, and also been left wondering exactly how those Fishbeds got so close without being noticed…
-
You simply cannot model well these old AC. They did not have MFD, MiG-23 did not had even radar scope, on the HUD was displayed that radar data.
Even if you fly with F-16C cockpit you can experiance how inferior MiG-23 even against only SARH 4th gen fighters. Just imagine with real cockpit model and avionics features. I have to say on red side modeling any cockpit for older AC than MiG-29 9.12 and Su-27 is totally pointless and does not worth the effort. Anytime I can name an AC which should has higher priority.
Even the areo modeling is impossible, in RL MiG-23 (maybe except MLD), the wing sweep settings was manually set… —> FM simply cannot handle such cases because FM is a fixed data to a certain wing sweep settings.
From my asepct on red side the “most wanted” cockpit is Su-27S. Even many protos during '90s had almost the same cockpit and MiG-29 9.12 also had very similar.
I dont know if thats a fair comment. I fly the MIG21bis in DCS a lot and I can tell you its a great experience despite no modern avionics.
I can tell you personally as a real life pilot, modernising the cockpit can actually remove some of the joys of flying; which is important to remember because BMS isnt just a combat sim, but also a flight sim.
Lets also not forget that the F4 Phatnom only has 1 MFD and has a similar analog style cockpit. I would love to have a flyable MIG23 MLD (or MIG27K) with cockpit for an 80s Campaign.
-
I dont know if thats a fair comment. I fly the MIG21bis in DCS a lot and I can tell you its a great experience despite no modern avionics.
I can tell you personally as a real life pilot, modernising the cockpit can actually remove some of the joys of flying; which is important to remember because BMS isnt just a combat sim, but also a flight sim.
I think what Molni wanted to say is : in BMS DCS does do it nicely. Which has some truth to it, considering stuff like radar scope, HOTAS concept, MFDs, ICP to interact with radios, etc… are all modern F-16 like for every AC in BMS.
-
There is plenty of upgrades Russian birds that could exist in BMS…
Mig 21 Lancer C
Sukhoi 25 Scorpion
Mig 27 H/DARE
Mig 29 SMT
Many options to make modern soviet era stuff flyable in BMS!
-
http://i.imgur.com/SeSg24T.jpg
Mig 27 H/DARE
Many options to make modern soviet era stuff flyable in BMS!
This would be really nice to have….
-
This would be really nice to have….
In RL they are marginal. IHMO AC should be picked what are relevant from core or/and any 4rd party theater. Same result as above, anytime I can pick jets which should have higher priority.
F-15A/C. USAF, ISDF, IAF use it.
F-16A. It is THE Viper to me.
F-15E.etc.
ON red side literally only MiG-29 9.12/9.13 and Szu-27S or some later not protos are worth the effort.
-
In RL they are marginal. IHMO AC should be picked what are relevant from core or/and any 4rd party theater. Same result as above, anytime I can pick jets which should have higher priority.
F-15A/C. USAF, ISDF, IAF use it.
F-16A. It is THE Viper to me.
F-15E.etc.
ON red side literally only MiG-29 9.12/9.13 and Szu-27S or some later not protos are worth the effort.
Priorities have a very little relevance in fact, as people always do what they want to achieve… BMS team itself focus on F-16C series, which is rather understandable, while some other people like me have a little bit more wide feeling about BMS, for patriotic or sympathy reasons. These projects are always something apart, on the side… To go back on your statement, the fact is that nobody as far as I know, want to spend time to make an Eagle A/C because you would need to recode everything from the begining, and, nobody can make something relevant about Eagle E, because there is no recent public information available ont he topic, except generalities…
About F-16A, I would like to make one, one day. But here is the problem :
How can I do that??? Many people want the Legacy Falcon, but it’s impossible to simulate what is depicted here as greenish squares, until somebody want to code everything, which would take months and months, and possible problems of stability.
Let’s go back on the topic. It was intended to talk about Russian fighters here and especially Mig-23/27 series, US birds are totally off-topic, let’s do not have the “yankee” come back relfex everytime somebody talks about non-US stuff. This is rather tiring.
Regards,
Radium
-
In RL they are marginal. IHMO AC should be picked what are relevant from core or/and any 4rd party theater. Same result as above, anytime I can pick jets which should have higher priority.
F-15A/C. USAF, ISDF, IAF use it.
F-16A. It is THE Viper to me.
F-15E.etc.
ON red side literally only MiG-29 9.12/9.13 and Szu-27S or some later not protos are worth the effort.
That’s ofc, your opinion. Which is fine and legitimate.
But surely if the A model F16 is “the” model, then the proportional adversary should surely be a MIG23, given that these were the primary aircraft of both the VVS and the PVO for the longest time, as well as operational in basically almost every threatre that all the AORs we have.Again, what is a “should-have” is entirely subjective, what I would like to convey is that we shouldn’t be so dismissive of the Flogger because its not as fancy or high-tech as the other BMS aircraft in the works (such as the Tornado and Viggen)
-
That’s ofc, your opinion. Which is fine and legitimate.
But surely if the A model F16 is “the” model, then the proportional adversary should surely be a MIG23, given that these were the primary aircraft of both the VVS and the PVO for the longest time, as well as operational in basically almost every threatre that all the AORs we have.Again, what is a “should-have” is entirely subjective, what I would like to convey is that we shouldn’t be so dismissive of the Flogger because its not as fancy or high-tech as the other BMS aircraft in the works (such as the Tornado and Viggen)
Just for the recorcd.
MiG-23 never was primary of PVO and especially not the longest time. In fact most of MiG-21 AND MiG-23 operator thrashed out MiG-23 before or long before MiG-21…
VVS? Maybe, but MiG-21bis still was by used in '80 while first MiG-29s arrived and 23 also was in service. I would not say MiG-23 was primary.F-16A was uses in 1000 scale in USAF and European NATO countries in '80s. It fits well in BMS universe except some analouge and very old not “screen” type display. And of course it has AFM while rest of AC literally does not have even a good second line FM…
-
That’s ofc, your opinion. Which is fine and legitimate.
But surely if the A model F16 is “the” model, then the proportional adversary should surely be a MIG23, given that these were the primary aircraft of both the VVS and the PVO for the longest time, as well as operational in basically almost every threatre that all the AORs we have.Again, what is a “should-have” is entirely subjective, what I would like to convey is that we shouldn’t be so dismissive of the Flogger because its not as fancy or high-tech as the other BMS aircraft in the works (such as the Tornado and Viggen)
I don’t fully agree…
F-16A = Mig-29A = Mirage 2000C
F-4A~E = Mig-23 = Mirage IIIE
This is my very own point of view… F-16A is much more advanced technologically speaking than a Mig-23.
-
I don’t fully agree…
F-16A = Mig-29A = Mirage 2000C
F-4A~E = Mig-23 = Mirage IIIE
This is my very own point of view… F-16A is much more advanced technologically speaking than a Mig-23.
It is definitely. Im looking at this from more of a chronological perspective
-
This is my very own point of view… F-16A is much more advanced technologically speaking than a Mig-23.
Agree. F-16A is one generation in front of the MIG-23 in any fighter generation classification you choose. Nevertheless, n8d0g has a point regarding non-western acfts. We are biased here with western fighters in this forum.
-
This is my very own point of view… F-16A is much more advanced technologically speaking than a Mig-23.
Yes, it is even comparing to MLD.
-
Just for the recorcd.
MiG-23 never was primary of PVO and especially not the longest time. In fact most of MiG-21 AND MiG-23 operator thrashed out MiG-23 before or long before MiG-21…
VVS? Maybe, but MiG-21bis still was by used in '80 while first MiG-29s arrived and 23 also was in service. I would not say MiG-23 was primary.F-16A was uses in 1000 scale in USAF and European NATO countries in '80s. It fits well in BMS universe except some analouge and very old not “screen” type display. And of course it has AFM while rest of AC literally does not have even a good second line FM…
You dont get MiG-23 importance and you are biased by propaganda. Flogger was one of the most important cold war era fighters.
Some operators trashed it mainly because of maintenance cost …Fishbeds remained for cheap air policing…
-
You dont get MiG-23 importance and you are biased by propaganda. Flogger was one of the most important cold war era fighters.
Some operators trashed it mainly because of maintenance cost …Fishbeds remained for cheap air policing…
This is right.
Mig-23 was a very important fighter aircraft in the cold war, mostly because it was the first look down beyond visual range air defense aircraft.
Regards,
Radium
-
BTW the combat effectivness of Mig23MS compared to Mig23MLD is like F-16-79 vs F-16MLU…
-
You dont get MiG-23 importance and you are biased by propaganda. Flogger was one of the most important cold war era fighters.
Some operators trashed it mainly because of maintenance cost …Fishbeds remained for cheap air policing…
Bro, Hungary used many different versions of 21 and 23MF. Is no propagande here… Actucall my father worked on all 21 variants for almost 20 years and his colleguas also on 23. (He did not worked on 23 because worked on Mi-8/17/24 either, never assigned and trained for 23.)
Dogfight performance until MiG-23MLD was weaker than MiG-21bis. Yes, '23 had fantastic climb and horizontal accel capability, better climbing and longer range, but its cost/capability ratio was totally horrible as well as the reliability of combat avioncs. For Hungary MiG-23MF price was 6 times (! ) higher compariong to MiG-21bis. Did it replace 6xMiG-21. No, it did not even BVR capability. Ehm…
It was thrashed not only because of maint. cost, the planned airframe life span was only 1800 hours. Was a bad joke.
-
BTW the combat effectivness of Mig23MS compared to Mig23MLD is like F-16-79 vs F-16MLU…
You example is false. F-16A Block 1 in late '70s had a small, but state of art radar while MS had the radar of MiG-21bis… Also F-16A Block 1 had AIM-9L while MiG-23MS had much worse AAM… You compare to and upgraded jet with almots 20 year diff. Block 1 and MLU in their era were top tier jets in ther category while MiG-23MS was a downgraded crap jet for 3rd world…
-
Bro, Hungary used many different versions of 21 and 23MF. Is no propagande here… Actucall my father worked on all 21 variants for almost 20 years and his colleguas also on 23. (He did not worked on 23 because worked on Mi-8/17/24 either, never assigned and trained for 23.)
Dogfight performance until MiG-23MLD was weaker than MiG-21bis. Yes, '23 had fantastic climb and horizontal accel capability, better climbing and longer range, but its cost/capability ratio was totally horrible as well as the reliability of combat avioncs. For Hungary MiG-23MF price was 6 times (! ) higher compariong to MiG-21bis. Did it replace 6xMiG-21. No, it did not even BVR capability. Ehm…
It was thrashed not only because of maint. cost, the planned airframe life span was only 1800 hours. Was a bad joke.
You still dont get what is MiG-23 about.
….
@molnibalage:You example is false. F-16A Block 1 in late '70s had a small, but state of art radar while MS had the radar of MiG-21bis… Also F-16A Block 1 had AIM-9L while MiG-23MS had much worse AAM… You compare to and upgraded jet with almots 20 year diff. Block 1 and MLU in their era were top tier jets in ther category while MiG-23MS was a downgraded crap jet for 3rd world…
You are mixing all Floggers into one performance, while you are showing strong feelings for various F15/16 subversions…
I told you, the combat performance gap between MiG-23MS vs MiG-23MLD is as big as gap between F-16/79 vs F-16MLU
MiG-23MS : heavy with weaker engine, downgraded avionics and radar, atoll missiles
MiG-23MLD :new airframe with aerodynamic enhancements, additional swept angle, stronger engine, better fuel economy, much better radar(with new dgfght mode) and RWR, advanced R-24 missiles with new seekers etc., better short IR missiles R-73, R60MBoth ACs are totally different in combat performance.
F-16/79 : It was downgraded F16A with older and weaker engine - F-104,Phantom etc. (export version, rejected by customers)
F-16MLU : standard engine, upgraded avionics, BVR missiles, new Sidewinders etc. etc.Again both versions are very different.
Just imagine a 1990 scenario, where new SU-27s (drilled for EU scenario, with A50 support and in numeric advantage) engage few F-16-79s armed with AiM-9Bs in high-JAM pro Rusky scenario…few 79s are downed, 9B winders were not used or missed…and make conclusion F-16 is a piece of crap