Only Soviet and export MLD used
then i presume it was like an unguided version of the GBU the A-6E got last patch?
germans used the aim 9j in the US during training with the f4f, thats the official reason they got it
well then you just have to show proved it officialy used them easy
1 Like
I mean, I just load gun pods and have an amusing enough time with those. It’s a 9.7 supersonic that gets to bully 8.7 aircraft on a full downtier.
im not against the CM, but the issue is people have tried that in the past, and Gaijin said they don’t plan on adding that to the BN, as it was specifically removed on the German model, however they seemed open to the idea of AAMs, anything that moves the BN up in BR and gives it more capabilities is something im open too, since 8.7s facing a supersonic 9.7 is pretty crazy.
trying, however finding documentation at all is hard more so in English and photos of a MiG-23BN armed in German service is even harder, a lot of stuff like that is lost to time or not online which makes things harder…
My opinion is that even if the Germans never armed their BN with air to air missiles, it was still capable of doing it, this is confirmed by the fact that that ability was never removed, and in Soviet service ive been told they actually used them on board, we know the pylons to mount them were available since other MiG-23 aircraft that we already have in game in the German tree existed in German service… thus mounting a Missile we ALSO know exists in German service to a pylon we know exists to an aircraft we know it can fit on makes sense…
its just about weather or not Gaijin wants to add it, now that Air and Ground BRs are different, and there has been some decompression of top tier, i feel a up tiered MiG-23BN with AAMs is justified, it moves supersonics further away from sub sonics and gives the MiG-23BN more use ability, i am to understand the MiG-23BN in German service had the CM specifically removed, and thus i have no intent to ask for that, but i feel missiles are different as they are not officially stated in anything i have come across as being removed or not able to be mounted.
2 Likes
It wasn’t
1 Like
i wish i could read that, sadly i only speak English but ill assume it proves your point.
What does it say to the left of the Photos shown?
It did actually use R60 and R73 missiles but not in german service
not like this has ever stopped gaijin stares at f5c
1 Like
technically the manual doesnt say it cant mount AA missiles tho
That’s gaijin type excuse for fictional weapons in game, if it’s not listed → it can’t be used, as shrimple as that
1 Like
stuff like that im actually okay with, if it gets added for Balance reasons i don’t see issue, so long as it was Capable of doing it!
MiG-23/27 Flogger in action (page 36) by Hans-Heiri Stapfer, Perry Manley, Don Greer
That’s just author’s fiction and lack of actual sources
2 Likes
oh…
AAMs at the time were highly classified and photos were not allowed to be taken of AAMs mounted on Warsaw Pact aircraft. That’s why it’s so hard to find historical images of even aircraft such as MiG-21s fitted with AAMs.
Id actually be interested in this I only feel that it should receive r3s or aim9js only 2 because a t2 equivalent in the Russian tree would seem okay
some CM would be nice, even with less number, have is better than none
1 Like
Going to link to my old post on the other topic,
Linked in it is this comment, which I so far haven’t been able to verify.
But, we can kind of “common sense” it.
Firstly, both the MiG-23BN (left) and the MiG-23MF (right) use the same “upper half” of the wing pylons.
When mounting R-3S on the MiG-23MF, the “top” of the pylon doesn’t change, only the bottom half. Same for R-13M1 (and presumably R-13M as well).
In theory, it should be possible to swap the wing pylons on the MiG-23BN to the APU-13 and put R-3S/R-13M/R-13M1 on them. I am unsure about the R-60/R-60M, on either the APU-60-1 or APU-60-2, but I can’t imagine it would run into much difficulty.
Potential missile hardpoints marked in red.
Since the APU-13 and/or APU-60-1/-2 can be mounted on the MiG-23BN, it could in theory use the R-3S/R-13M/R-13M1.
The issue we run into then is not that the plane couldn’t mount them, moreso that the plane couldn’t launch them. The fire control on MiG-23BNs was not wired for A2A missiles (iirc), which would mean that although it could carry them, and likely launch them, the “lock” sound that would be present on other aircraft equipped for air to air wouldn’t exist here.
However, realistically speaking, it would not be hard to wire a BN for air to air missile capability. Given that both the pylons could be mounted and the aircraft could “use” them, it should be possible to wire in the correct commands to the missile and “launch” button in the cockpit to have the missile go off the rail.
Of note, in 1995 the Czechs tested the R.550 on a MiG-23ML. During the test, it took one day for the pylon to be wired and recognize the missile as “a missile,” and thereafter it was functional.
Presumably, in a hypothetical PACT-NATO war, MiG-23BNs would/could have been rewired with the ability to carry R-3S. It probably wouldn’t have taken very long, just like it did with the ML and the Magic. The missile just has to be able to turn on (start seeking) and launch (off the rail), which in theory could be accomplished by convincing the FCS that it was a Kh-XX missile. So it would be a semi-historical addition assuming they actually do it.
1 Like