MLA
2 Likes
[âŠ] it will eventually evolve into a 27.
In the FB comments
Kind of odd as the 27 has no radar and is subsonic, so youâd think it would be easier to start with the 27 and evolve it into the 23.
Of thereâs also the BN which is the schizo Flogger.
Buahahaha! They might as well had said MiG-25⊠no way were missing out. Come to think of it, the '23 will be more interesting than the Foxbat.
1 Like
The key to this success will be whether RAZBAM models the Soviet âdomesticâ version or the Export version. The difference being the radar. Without revealing anything I know from my previous life in naval intelligence (@Navynuke99, insert oxymoron joke here) , suffice to the domestic version has a better radar.
I will also be looking forward to see how they model the AA-7 missiles that were paired with this jet. Like many Soviet (and now Russian) AAM designs, the AA-7 came with a SAR variant and an IR variant. I donât recall the actual typical payloads but I think it was something lake a couple of AA-7 (possibly a mixed SAR / IR load) and up to 4 AA-8 Aphids.
BTW, yes, it was my Tomcat squadron - VF-32 - that splashed those two Libyan MIG-23âs in the late 1980s.
3 Likes
From a flight modeling aspect I think you are correct. However, the 23 is a pure fighter - pretty much AAMs only (OK, they might be able to hand a couple rocket pods on it) - Air-to-Air only simplifies the weapons (AA-7 and AA-8) and avionicsâŠa 1970âs clunky Soviet radar. The 27 can employ a number of dumb bombs, rockets and several of the soviet Air-to-Surface (AS- ) missile types. A bit more robust weapons avionics suite.
That said, I would think that once set get the flight model down (variable geometry wings may be a bit tricky) for the 23 the Mig-27 should follow on its heals. I definitely want to fly the Mig-27.
1 Like
I think the issue may be that making a good representation of an old 70s radar is harder than a more modern one. Making a digital model of an analog system vs a digital one.
The RWR was the same for all those Soviet birds, so they can just reuse that.
The Soviet practice of making new missiles for each new plane was an odd choice, it created more development troubles than just reusing old missiles and creating new ones for all their planes like the West did. Only the 25 used the AA-6. Only the 23 used the AA-7. Only the 31 used the AA-9 (although there are indications the Su-27 used them during its test program). Since they shared a radar, the Su-27 and MiG-29 both got the AA-10.
The ripple fire practice also meant the Flogger could effectively engage only one target before they were left with nothing but Aphids, which were only good for fighters. I certainly wouldnât want to go after a .50-armed B-52 with one!
1 Like
Also the flogger was a really crappy aircraft. It would wallow on the ground, wallow after takeoff, wallow at transonic speed and wallow nearing max speed. All those great big fins notwithstanding. Reading about them in the red eagles book, I am really looking forward to flying a simulated flogger and not a real one lol.
2 Likes
Donât forget the landing gear that made the Hornetâs look straightforward and a manual wing sweep. The Tomcat will be auto and largely out of mind, but youâll need to be more vigilant with the Flogger.
1 Like
The Red Eagles as far as is known only flew the MiG-23MS which was a special and totally crap version of the MF sold to most 3rd world countries.
The MS had a MiG-21 radar and could only employ short range IR missiles and was prone to flat spin if the pilot went over 24 degrees AoA. Egypt supplied some of these to Red Eagles after they only used it in service for about 2 years - Gail Peck stated it had comparable turn to the âhard wingâ F-4E but had better acceleration M0.95 to 730KIAS below 10,000ft than all US aircraft it was flown against.
The MiG-23MLA is a very different flogger that had not only fixed a lot of those early problems was also lightened with a higher G airframe and had about 3,000 lbs more thrust.
It had a better radar over the M/MF/ML and should be able to employ most of the Bombs, rockets and tactical nukes.
The R-24 was said to be a lot better than the R-23 (The R-27 was developed from R-24)
2 Likes
The Soviets didnât like selling their best gear to other nations. There was usually a less capable âexport versionâ
For the Flogger, look at the radar nose cone. If itâs a small thing, thatâs the export version with the crappy radar. If it is large, halfway-ish to the canopy, thatâs the âdomestic versionâ with the better radar that can shoot AA-7s (SAR and IR varients)
That said, the Soviets did sell some of of the domestic Floggers to Libya and possibly other countries like East Germany.
Thatâs right and there were quite a few Export versions - only the MS has a smaller nose cone.
The MF is the export version of the M that went to a lot of countries all with internal differences.
The ML, MLA and MLD were exported and they usually break them down into sub types at a higher level.
So the MiG-23MLD for example:
Type 23-18 Full up Soviet with unique Soviet changes to airframe and FLCS
Type 23-22A Bulgaria - MLA airframe & FLCS with Soviet MLD avionics
Type 23-22B Syria / Libya - MLA airframe & FLCS with downgraded MLD avionics
1 Like
Once the later planes were out and the 23 was the previous generation they had fewer problems with selling the âfullâ version. They were selling 23âs well into the 80s if not the 90s and once the 29s were out they were hardly concerned about top-of-the-line early 70s radars.
I was in a fighter squadronâŠwhen it came to threat training, âBig nose cone=Badâ, âSmall nose cone=Less Badâ was about as much as many could absorb. 
2 Likes
I tend to agree with that theory.
4 Likes
3 Likes
I wonder what that story isâŠ
1 Like
Thereâs a pill for that.
1 Like
I use ⊠A friend of mine uses a lotion.
4 Likes
âRelax, all right? My old man is a television repairman, heâs got this ultimate set of tools. I can fix it.â
2 Likes