WIP: 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
-