Was the MiG-23 any good? We hear a lot about the MiG-21, -25,

File: mig23pd-3.jpg (55KB, 600x385px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 600x385px

>>33578214
>Was the MiG-23 any good?
Good god no. The MiG-23 was a poor attempt to create a frontline fighter with better takeoff performance than the MiG-21 and the ability to use radar guided missiles. The result was a sub-par fighter with a horrifically high pilot workload and numerous design flaws. Engine issues on many models meant that pushing the aircraft to its limit would have fan blades shear off and kill the engine, and with the pilot responsible for not just flying the plane, but
>managing swing-wing mechanism
>managing workload-heavy radar/missile system
it's no surprise that the MiG-23 suffered from a pretty poor accident rate and service record. The Ethiopians, for example, had arguably the best trained air force in Africa when they received their first MiG-23s, and almost immediately started crashing them once they entered service. The only positive combat reports I've ever seen about the MiG-23 were over Angola, where Angolan Floggers had all-aspect IR AAM and the SAAF Mirages didn't, so they could fire off missiles as they closed without any real threat to themselves.

The MiG-27/23BN was a bit better from what I understand, with the variant coming about after many of the kinks of the MiG-23 were sorted out. It also greatly simplified the design and ended up being a slightly higher-tech complement to the Su-17. However, once the Su-24 came out, it ended up in this unique niche where the Su-17 did "dumb" bombing cheaper and the Su-24 did long-range precision strike much better,

>>33578214
Swing wings were all the rage.

Then people noticed that they tend to be a bit more trouble than the benefits given.

That and the 23 is pretty mediocre compared to the comparable US and Soviet planes before and after.

File: russian baltic fleet.png (886KB, 1837x2153px) Image search: [Google]

886KB, 1837x2153px

>>33578214
>dat canopy, dem tires.
Even by russian maintenance standards that's depressing.

>>33579347
>Even by russian maintenance standards that's depressing.
Its Romanian, and had been out of service for several years when that photo was taken.

File: d936ea3f-14d9-4329-a376-a2c9ea47cd91.png (2MB, 1600x1236px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1600x1236px

>>33578214
No, MiGs are slavshit

>>33578214
mig 23 was a mistake for having swing wing and mig 29 was a mistake for having 2 engines the ussr just needed to improve the mig21 like the chinks did with the j-7

>>33579347
>that whole story

Is this why Russians have absurdly high losses in every war?

File: Mikoyan-MiG-23PD.jpg (291KB, 1041x464px) Image search: [Google]

291KB, 1041x464px

>>33580136
>mig 23 was a mistake for having swing wing
The other option was lift jets.

File: mig-27k.jpg (2MB, 4000x2161px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4000x2161px

>>33578324
MiG-27K was a wonderful frontline attack aircraft though. Like Su-17 on a lot of steroids.

File: E-8_111.jpg (28KB, 524x382px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 524x382px

>>33580817
How about the Ye-8? IIRC it had much better take off performance than the MiG-21PF. Adding a double delta with like on the J-7G would increase performance even further.

>>33578214
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FNPvMmwAsk

oh jesus

>>33580897
Ye-8 was worse than MiG-23 in every regard. It was like MiG-21, only new. No purpose whatsoever.

File: ye-8 & eurofighter.png (630KB, 1448x957px) Image search: [Google]

630KB, 1448x957px

It's still fun to troll yropoors with it though :^)

File: screenCap.png (15KB, 994x175px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 994x175px

>>33580909
>there were two Gulf of Sidra incidents
>Libyans got shot down in both

wew

>>33581002
military homo's didn't fuck around in the 80's they were ready to fight the endwar

>>33581002
Where's Libya and where's the US. Did you sincerely expect something else?

File: Mikoyan-Gurevich-Ye-8.jpg (57KB, 1052x436px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 1052x436px

>>33580863
It was definitely good, I'd just argue that it wasn't worth operating another airframe for something marginally better when you had the Su-24.

>>33580897
The canards probably helped, but there's only so much they can do without an entirely new wing. A lot of the problems they had with it were the result of using a flat delta, which tend to have shit performance at low speeds. The easiest way to address that is through things like
>wing twist
>adding slats
>conical camber
Beyond that, the best choice would really be something like the JF-17 uses.

Overall though the Ye-8 just wasn't a good idea. It didn't offer the takeoff performance the Soviets wanted (they fell for the same STOL meme that NATO did a couple times), and it wasn't enough of an improvement for what the VVS needed in a MiG-21 replacement.

>>33581002
>starting shit over "territorial claims"

Damn things must have been even more tense during the 80s than i imagined. Makes me almost mad that i missed being an operator during cold war era America.

File: Trapped.jpg (183KB, 1600x715px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 1600x715px

>>33578214
>Was the MiG-23 any good?

It flew nicely and had decent avionics set for the time for good combat capability. The slight problem was that Soviets were about decade behind west in avionics when it came out, automation of weapons system was insufficient as result pilot was unable to fly it and fight with it at same time. Once its issues were solved, cold war ended and almost all users got rid of theirs in favor MiG-21s due to cheaper running costs and MiG-29 due to better capabilities.

There is a good reason why Americans didn't build single seat versions of F-4 phantom about decade earlier.

>>33580794

They have their fair share of nepotism when selecting commanders and lack fucks given about casualties in wars.

>>33580985

MiG-21 with room for proper radar set in nose.

>>33580996

Aerodynamically it is obviously closer to F-16.

>>33578324
But they had more than enough time to polish the flight and the workload.

>>33581132
don't worry anon trump will give you a chance to die in syria

for their children

and israel

>>33581178

By the time MiG-23 got actually decent fighter cold war was almost over and most of major battles where MiG-23 were used had already happened. Late production MiG-23 were better planes than its combat results and reputation implies.

>>33581178
By the time the issues with the MiG-23 had been resolved, the next generation of fighters had already entered service. Had the aircraft worked as promised (it didn't), it would have just barely been able to hold its own against the F-4. But only a couple of years after the MiG-23 had entered service, the West already was coming out with planes far better than anything the Flogger could ever hope to be:
>F-14 - IOC 1974
>F-15 - IOC 1976
>F-16 - IOC 1978

And even when you ignore the biggest shortcomings of the MiG-23 and look to areas where it did excel, it's pretty underwhelming. MiG-23s over Angola did present a major threat to the SAAF, but only because the SAAF was stricken by embargoes and only had short-ranged rear-aspect AAMs, as opposed to the all-aspect radar and IR AAMs Angolan Floggers had.

Plus, for all the talk of "fixing" the Flogger's workload issues, I've got serious doubts about just how well MiG managed that even the MiG-29's cockpit was an absolute clusterfuck until very recently when MiG started revamping it for new export variants.

>>33580863
>MiG-27K was a wonderful frontline attack aircraft though.
Theoretically. In practice it was piece of hangar queen totally outclassed by Su-17M3/4. Nothing in the MiG-27K worked.

File: mig-21i.jpg (43KB, 700x500px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 700x500px

>>33581089
>I'd just argue that it wasn't worth operating another airframe for something marginally better when you had the Su-24.
I agree that unification should go in every field, but I don't thing Su-24 had something like Kaira. That is besides the point that Su-24 was for its time a high performance treetop frontline SEAD aircraft, while MiG-27 was more like "here we have a towelhead camp, let's rekt it with PGM".
>It didn't offer the takeoff performance the Soviets wanted
This. It was like almost F-16, but not really there being a decade too early.
>>33581170
>MiG-21 with room for proper radar set in nose.
I don't recall anything about Ye-8 radar, could you provide some info?
>Aerodynamically it is obviously closer to F-16.
It really was not there yet, same as that French prototype, like Nord-1500 or something like that was its name. All the more so knowing that later MiG-21I testbed was a thing around that time.
>>33581947
>Nothing in the MiG-27K worked.
That's a rather bold statement. Care to prove the inefficiency of Kaira?

>>33582867
>Kaira
What exactly was that? An electro-optical targeting system or something like that?

>MiG-27 was more like "here we have a towelhead camp, let's rekt it with PGM".
Initially that may have been a good niche, but the Su-17 fleet has since been integrated with a lot of PGMs.

File: Griffon II.jpg (64KB, 615x385px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 615x385px

>>33582867
>Nord-1500
The Griffon was a completely different concept than the Ye-8 - a high-performance turbo/ramjet interceptor. In fact, it's about as old as the MiG-21 itself.

File: mig-27 (2).jpg (271KB, 1475x995px) Image search: [Google]

271KB, 1475x995px

>>33583009
Kaira is a TV/laser guidance system, and a really good one. Su-24M upgrade was fitted with the same system about 3 years later, but it still leaves a niche for MiG-27 I believe. IDK, I have a thing for this aircraft, it's so aesthetic.

File: ye-152 (2).jpg (123KB, 1236x783px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 1236x783px

>>33583032
But that's what Ye-8 was too: an interceptor akin to Ye-15X that later became MiG-25?

File: Mikoyan-Gurevich-Ye-150.jpg (131KB, 994x387px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 994x387px

>>33583166
The Ye-8 was intended as a next-generation MiG-21, which would have acted as a frontline fighter.

Parallel to the MiG-21 and similar frontline fighter programs, MiG also had a bunch of high-performance interceptor projects, dating back to the competition that resulted in the Su-9 (I-7, I-75). The Ye-150 series was the next stage of that. It looked a hell of a lot like the MiG-21, but that's the result of everyone working off of the same TsAGI research.

File: AA_19720120_LWF_Config_503_1267828237_6198.jpg (451KB, 2400x1241px) Image search: [Google]

451KB, 2400x1241px

>>33582867
>I don't recall anything about Ye-8 radar, could you provide some info?

Same Safir-23 that ended up being used in MiG-23. MiG-23 inherited a lot from Ye-8 when it comes to avionics. Fun fact the guy who ejected from Ye-8 at almost mach 2 and never fully recovered from his injuries, fucked off from military after being stuck behind desk for few years, he became travel agent and sold tickets for Aeroflot in Finland and Sweden.

>It really was not there yet, same as that French prototype, like Nord-1500 or something like that was its name

F-16 that ended up being produced was one of more conservative proposals when it comes to aerodynamics, they didn't really trust digital fly-by-wire back then, so they picked one of more stable alternatives. The parts where F-16 really made a leap in tech was materials and avionics. Tin-foil hatter inside me suspects that USAF picked YF-16 over YF-17 because it had more tech risks compared to YF-17. They wanted it to fail so they would get more F-15's.

>All the more so knowing that later MiG-21I testbed was a thing around that time.

It was for testing Tu-144 wing.

File: Boeing-908.jpg (41KB, 750x330px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 750x330px

>>33583290
>Tin-foil hatter inside me suspects that USAF picked YF-16 over YF-17 because it had more tech risks compared to YF-17. They wanted it to fail so they would get more F-15's.
That would definitely make sense, considering the Navy seemed to have the same attitude when it came to evaluating the LWF contenders.

File: su-7b (1).jpg (270KB, 1600x1114px) Image search: [Google]

270KB, 1600x1114px

>>33583264
I was under impression that MiG-21 was first and foremost an interceptor. It is rather ironic that Su-7 ended as a fairly good bomber, at the same time serving as a start point for Su-17.
So do I get this right, Ye-8 was a separate development from Ye-152 aiming at... what exactly, a high performance (for its epoch naturally) frontline fighter?

File: t-6-1.jpg (145KB, 663x890px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 663x890px

>>33583290
So essentially MiG-23 won due to the modern fashionable swing wing thing?
>F-16 that ended up being produced was one of more conservative proposals when it comes to aerodynamics
>Tin-foil hatter inside me suspects that USAF picked YF-16 over YF-17 because it had more tech risks compared to YF-17
That's kinda contradictory, don't you find? Generally military tends to chose a less revolutionary project due to exactly the risks. I wonder how would F-16XL preform tho, it's sexy as fuck.
>It was for testing Tu-144 wing.
I know, that's why I brought it up. They clearly had the idea of such a wing's, not sure for it is called in English, advantages. Yet it only found its place in the 4th gen aircraft years later. I believe it was due to the swing wing hype, same as with Su-24 that originally was essentially a land attack Su-15.

File: Sukhoi-Su-7IG-1024x436.jpg (95KB, 1024x436px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 1024x436px

>>33583362
So Soviet fighter development of the time was a clusterfuck, but it was something like this:
>Su-9 as missile-armed interceptor for the PVO
>MiG-21 as frontline fighter for VVS
>Su-7 originally designed for roughly the same role as the MiG-21, but it ended up being repurposed as a tactical fighter to replace the MiG-17

The Ye-8 was a development of the MiG-21 for the VVS, intended to allow it to fit a new radar and use the newest missiles. The Ye-152 was a much larger plane - it weighed more empty than a MiG-21 did loaded - and was intended to be a super-fast interceptor for the PVO using the state-of-the-art Uragan-5 fire controls system.

Also fun fact - the Su-17 started out as nothing more than a swing-wing Su-7. The original prototype was the latest Su-7 model with swing-wings thrown on it.

File: su-17m4 (7).jpg (153KB, 1439x883px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 1439x883px

>>33583529
Oh I get it now, thanks.
>Su-17 started out as nothing more than a swing-wing Su-7
That's a little-known fact makes it even sexier. Like a milf that tries to compete with yourn girls and sort of succeeds in it being more experienced. God I love Su-17, such a sexy babe.

File: mig21pd_8.jpg (41KB, 954x371px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 954x371px

>>33583501
MiG-23 won because there wasn't enough room in the MiG-21 design to meet requirements. The VVS wanted shorter takeoff rolls, and at the time that meant your options were
>Swing wings
>lift jets
Neither of those options were doable with a MiG-21 airframe, although lift-jets were demonstrated on a MiG-21. A similar line of thinking resulted in two wildly different prototypes for the Su-24 (one swing wing and one lift-jet) and gave us the swing-wing Su-17.

As for the Tu-144 wing, that wing really isn't good for much beyond supersonic cruise. Cranked deltas are amazing for supersonic flight, reducing the center of pressure shift and usually making the plane stable enough that you don't need a tail, but they have even more low-speed problems than a conventional delta wing, mostly stemming from vortex lift from the inboard section stalling the outboard section.

IIRC the MiG-21I was mainly a low-speed demonstrator, and it'd take such a serious redesign to get that wing working well on a MiG-21 that you'd be better off building an entirely new plane. As for the F-16XL, it performed incredibly well. NASA even got it to supercruise during laminar flow experiements. Unfortunately it just competed against the F-15E, which was even better.

>>33579493
>AMRAAM
>Boyd

>>33578324
They did fix issues though, but it was done on MLD i the 80s when 4gen was already dominating.

>>33579493
>Wasting your life to create image for shitposting
KYS

File: SCAMP.jpg (340KB, 2400x1266px) Image search: [Google]

340KB, 2400x1266px

>>33583353
>That would definitely make sense, considering the Navy seemed to have the same attitude when it came to evaluating the LWF contenders.

US navy wanted two engine plane, that is why they went forward with YF-17 derived F-18. Initially they weren't sure could computers handle all proposed roles in one avionics config, so if that failed, backup plan for Navy was building separate A-18 and F-18. Same airframe with different avionics and option to switch from one type/ mission set to another during maintenance.

>>33583501
>That's kinda contradictory, don't you find? Generally military tends to chose a less revolutionary project due to exactly the risks.

It is contradictory if you look it from conventional stand point, but perspective of a USAF general that wants more F-15's its perfectly rational line of thinking. Especially if there is post retirement career prospects with McDonnell-Douglas, position as consultant or some executive might have nice paycheck.

Good documentary from 1979... it is creepy how similar mood was back then with F-16 and now with F-35. Blatant McD shill at 12:20 or so and at 44:00. Whole thing is worth watching as there is ton about politics involved in getting a plane built. Also kinda fishy how much certain people at USAF sandbagged F-16's avionics development after it was already in serial production, they delayed AIM-7 Sparrow integration for almost fucking decade. F-16 fired sparrow first time in 1977, first serial production plane capable of firing Sparrow was F-16ADF, it entered service in 1987.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkrtxDdaWuM

>I wonder how would F-16XL preform tho, it's sexy as fuck.

Lower payload than F-15E, but probably a lot cheaper.

File: Nord 1500 Griffon - 1955.jpg (65KB, 671x549px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 671x549px

>>33580996

It's even funnier to troll vatniks with this. ;^)

>>33581132
>Damn things must have been even more tense during the 80s than i imagined
it was a foregone conclusion that we were all going to die in a nuclear war.

File: Firefox_Screenshot_2017-04-09T12-27-00.941Z.png (102KB, 471x464px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 471x464px

>>33584350
Nice, thanks for the link.
>>33584568
:^)

>>33585629
kek

>>33585193
>tail emblem

McDonald's sells MiG-23s now?

File: xLTV LWF V-1100 drawing.jpg (113KB, 1000x702px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 1000x702px

>>33584350
>US navy wanted two engine plane
That's what I meant - the twin engine decision had no real basis in reality, given that the Navy seemed to have no problem flying single-engined fighters even with first-generation jets.

>>33586229
Jej

>>33587679
the two engine demand had ho basis in reality, some admiral(s) decided they needed two engines and had that written into the requirements. now it's ingrained into Naval Aviation culture and wont go away.

>>33588550
Because god forbid we use "the other guy's" planes.

File: vatnik bugurt.jpg (37KB, 604x483px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 604x483px

>>33585629
>>33586116

Wow, we've reached a whole new level of slavaboo butthurt. Report sent to Google. ;^)

>>33585629
>that pic
huh it's real I wonder how they memed that

>>33579493
When did an F-16 ever lose at A2A?

Did the Joos lose one?

>>33580909
>Shoot him!
>I can't, I don't have a fuckin' tone!
>WeeewwwewrBRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

I always loved that

>>33589929
Turks lost one to the Greeks IIRC.

>>33589844

Some butthurt slavaboo either created a free Google My Business entry with that "information" or added incorrect information to one of the other sources that Google pulls its Google Knowledge Graph information from. It could be Wikipedia or Google+, just to name a few. It's fairly easy, especially for a lesser known target like an obscure French aircraft.