Is it time we consider moving the 11.0 MiG-23M in USSR and 23MF in Germany/Italy to 10.7?

Game Discussion Realistic Battle
,
1

Personally I would like to hear the communities thoughts as I believe its time that we take these aircraft, probably one of the worst fighter aircraft BR for BR and considering taking them to 10.7 where they might be somewhat usable and enjoyable to fly, here’s my reasoning.

These 11.0s have one of the worst radars around this BR and no access to ACM mode, making it the worst MiG-23 radar available. If your radar doesn’t see the enemy or scan quickly enough, you’re not getting a lock. Abysmal radar missiles, R-23Rs these missiles are not only incredibly slow and have a very high drag, they also have a 1.7 second guidance delay. Almost a full two seconds before they will guide themselves into the target making the actual window of opportunity you have to launch the missile is less than ideal.
A kilometer too soon and it will be slow, unable to pull G’s and very easily notched/multipathed or simply rolled given an agile enough aircraft. A kilometer too late, and your target will fly right past the missile before it even has time to start guiding itself. So you will likely be relying on a combination of R-60M(x6 max), R-13M1(x4 max), R-23T(x2 max) and it should be mentioned that this aircraft is unable to take R-23T and R-23R at the same time unlike the later MiG-23s that can take x1 R-24R and R-24T along with the additional x4 R-60M or x2 R-13M1.

Typically its not even worth using the “Long range” R-23T, they are heavy, slow and easier to flare than the R-13M1 from rear aspect as they need to stay in the air longer to hit optimal speed and have a seeker FOV of 2.6 degrees compared to 2.5 on the R-13M1. Both the R-13M1 and R-23T have 20G max overload, but the real issue is the 23T has a 35 second guidance time compared to the 13M1 that has a 60 second guidance time. So firing this missile on a enemy that is 8km+ away while you are above them rear aspect as they are flying away from you will almost always results in a miss due to the missile not having enough time to guide itself, and this missile is only “all aspect” within a distance of 2km. If you are going to start firing from even 5km or closer you may as well be using the lighter, faster to accelerate, harder to flare R-13M1 especially as you get closer as you are only more likely to give away your position resulting in them noticing your launch and flaring your missile.

One of the biggest issues at the BR of 11.0 with an airframe and weaponry this weak is the limit of twelve large countermeasures that must be equipped via a external pod mounted under the fuselage, a majority of the time its best to just take all flares, hug the deck and pray a SARH missile doesn’t track.

To top it all off it has the worst airframe and engine out of the MiG-23s having almost the identical R-29-300 engine as the 23BN(R-29B-300), and only slightly beating the turn radius of the 9.7 23BN by only a degree or so at almost all speeds.
Keep in mind that’s if both jets are at 100% fuel and no payload, and again the engine performance on the 11.0 M/MF is only slightly better than the 23BN, something to the tune of .3-.4 meters a second of higher acceleration and 200-300 more kg of thrust due to the more aerodynamic airframe, but the 29B-300 engine has more thrust and the 23BN has a slightly heavier, less aerodynamic airframe leading to a overall net negative in performance.

This is the end of my personal experience i’ve collected from spading the aircraft in Air RB, the next segment will be raw data about the aircraft flight performance calculated using Statsharks FM calculator to give readers an unbiased look at this 11.0 aircraft comparatively to the other MiG-23s based on its airframe and engine performance alone. Thank you if you have read this far and please consider leaving a comment on why or why not you believe the aircrafts BR should remain at 11.0 or reduced to 10.7!

On this chart what is being displayed is the turn rate measured in degrees at different speeds ranging from 400km/h to 1300km/h at a constant altitude of 4000m for all MiG-23 models.

For reference: Orange line is 23BN, Blue is 23M, Green is 23ML and Red is 23MLD

SEP stands for Specific Excess Power, which describes how much extra energy the aircraft has available at certain speeds and turn conditions.

SEP = 0 ft/s the aircraft is in an energy-neutral state.

  • It can maintain that speed and turn rate indefinitely without speeding up or slowing down.

SEP > 0 ft/s the aircraft is gaining energy.

  • Can accelerate, climb, or tighten the turn while still building speed/energy.
  • This is “sustained turn condition”.

SEP < 0 ft/s the aircraft is losing energy.

  • It may achieve a higher instantaneous turn rate, but it’s bleeding speed and cannot sustain it.

MiG-23 Turn Performance
MiG-23 Turn Performance2522×1222 382 KB

The next chart below displays the engine performance of the same MiG-23s in the last chart, using the same color coordination.

Here you can see each aircrafts “AMAX” or your Maximum Acceleration which is simply at what point the aircraft has hit its peak acceleration rate for the current conditions (Weight, Drag from equipment on hardpoints if any, Altitude).

  • The fastest the MiG-23M can accelerate while at 100% fuel and no payload at 2500m is 4.93m/s² roughly around the 765km/h~ range

  • The fastest the MiG-23BN can accelerate while at 100% fuel and no payload at 2500m is 4.63m/s² roughly around the 755km/h~ range

  • and finally the MiG-23ML/MLD can accelerate 5.50m/s² while under the same conditions roughly around the 840km/h~ range.

Next is the “VNE” or Velocity Never Exceed this is the speed at which an aircraft can travel at its current altitude before there is structural damage

  • 23BN: 950.31 km/h TAS at 2500m

  • 23M/ML/MLD: 1009.14 km/h TAS at 2500m

Lastly is “VMAX” or the theoretical Maximum Velocity, this is less important as it is just the theoretical limit of the maximum kilogram-force (kgf) that the engine is able to output at its given altitude and airspeed. But it gives you an idea of just how similar the engine on the 23M and 23BN actually are.

  • 23ML/MLD maxes at 1119 km/h at 2500m

  • 23M topping out at 1099 km/h

  • 23BN at 1094 km/h

MiG-23 Engine
MiG-23 Engine2545×1090 300 KB

1 Like
2

Sorry for ruining the mood but
Does the MiG-23 need to be lower BR than the heavier MiG-27 or the Su-24 in Air RB?

3 Likes
3

MiG-27M/K no, this is another aircraft that is over-tiered and really should be a 10.7 max in my opinion, but you must keep in mind a lot of Gaijins balancing choices revolve around SL/RP earned a match and the MiG-27M/K can very easily hug the deck with its powerful engines, 60 countermeasures and take out 1-2 bases with the ZB-500 Incendiary as well as taking either x4 R-60M or x2 R-13M1s leading to inflated statistics about its earnings.

The MiG-27s also have 300 rounds of the extremely potent 30mm GSh-6-30 that has superior ballistics, velocity and fire rate compared to the 200 rounds of 23mm GSh-23L that has a lower fire rate, worst overall ballistics, slower velocity and nicknamed “The squirt gun” for how often it will leave targets mostly unharmed if the HEF rounds dont hit just right. Not to mention the MiG-27K in particular with its built in optics can utilize its laser guided AGMs, the Kh-25ML as a secondary air to air missile that does not set off RWR and cant be flared/chaffed and must be kinetically evaded allowing for a total of 6 AAMs with the Kh-25ML’s literally being a more viable option than the R23R when used correctly as you are not relying on a radar that hardly functions.

As for the Su-24M, I believe 11.3 is a fair BR for this aircraft, it has an extremely advanced RWR for its BR along with MAWS that features auto C/M and 96 Large Countermeasures that can be toggled on/off while targeting bases, leaving you to have to worry about unseen attack a lot less often, and again with its built optics the laser guided S-25LDs, Kh-25ML, 29L or the TV guided Kh-29TE and Kh59M you can carry upwards of 9 air to air missiles (x4 R-60M, x4 S-25LD, x1 Kh-29L/Kh-29TE).

This aircraft also has the potential to single-handedly take out 3 bases with its Incendiary’s alone and still carry x2 R-60M or if you really want to push the limits you could take out all 4 bases using x7 Incendiary +1 KAB-1500Kr (2 Incendiary per base and then 1 Incendiary+Kab for the last).
This aircraft also features plenty of other guided ordinances that keeps you out of harms way while also having the potential to earn you RP/SL without breaking a sweat in particular the FAB-500M-62 UMPK glide bombs.
These bombs are GNSS guided and have a guidance time of 400 seconds, thats 6 minutes and 40 seconds of glide time these bombs have to hit a base, you can literally mark a target point on your map as you spawn in, side climb to 9000m send them to a base and land and repeat it all again. I cant think of any other aircraft that has that sort of potential at 11.3

The Su-24M also has the 23mm GSh-6-23M a verrryyy different beast from the 23L found on previous aircraft with a ROF of 9000 rounds a minute it turns the “squirt gun” into a 23mm Vulcan and I haven’t even mentioned the turret this aircraft has, sure its sort of a niche gimmick weapon but this gun literally follow your cameras FOV, what over aircraft in the game has a turret that is controlled the same way as your main weapons allowing for you to shoot aircraft that nose of your aircraft isn’t even pointed at? Combine your main gun, the turret and the two fixed gun pods that mount to your wings all of which are the same GSh-6-23M and now you suddenly have the highest burst mass out of any aircraft in the game at a staggering burst mass of 105 kg/s when taking into consideration a single cannon fires 9,000 rounds per minute, producing a one-second burst mass of 26.25 kg.

So yes I would argue the Su-24M is at a fair BR given its technical abilities that other aircraft dont have until beyond 12.0+ and even then a majority of aircraft can not do what the Su-24M can. As for the MiG-27M/K I do think they could personally see a lower BR of 10.7 as well but given their ease of use as a base bomber to inflate their SL/RP earnings I dont really see that happening.

I think its also important to take into consideration that im primarily talking about fighter aircraft and specified as such for this very reason, knowing how Gaijin ranks vehicles by BR using SL/RP earnings as one of the main factors that determine placement, its very hard to compare the BRs of bombers/strike aircraft to the BRs of fighter/interceptors due to their inherently different playstyles that directly influence what BR they are placed at.

In my opinion its much more accurate to Compare the MiG-23M to aircraft such as the recently added MiG-25PD at 11.0, J-7D at 10.7, J-7E/J-8B at 11.3, the abundant amount of F-5s at 10.7-11.3, F-4s at 11.0-11.3, the MiG-21SMT/bis, Saab J35XS, JA37C, Mirage IIIs at 10.0-10.3-10.7, the MiG-23ML/MLD/MLA only .7 BR higher

All of these aircraft are far superior fighters and are either below the MiG-23M/MFs BR or just slight higher at just .3-.7 more for a whole lot more bang for your buck.

4

I believe that it is quite questionable that MiG-23M has only a 0.7BR difference from MiG-23MLD, but

If we need to adjust the BR of soviet jets, and if we really need to do with lowering the BR
then maybe Su-24 or MiG-27 feels more urgent than MiG-23M,

Because…
We both know that gaijin adjust BR by silly SL reward netting, and those rules rationalise the general overrating of base bombers.
While we both also know that base bombing capability gives ZERO affect of dictate win or lose, and only A2A affects the victory of Air RB.

Then, back to MiG-23M itself, it may need adjustment, but it needs to be the way of send undertiered shits up, not the way of send her down to 10.7.

Joke take: Gaijin believes that MiG-27 are figher jet, look at that silly Gaijin’s classification :kekw:

5

The in game “classification” means very little other than a title, you and I both know if it was truly a fighter, it would not be in the strike aircraft/bomber line.

Feel free to make your own post about the MiG-27M/K or Su-24M this post is about the MiG-23M and its BR not for you to attempt to push my suggestion behind and prop yours up first, if you’d like to discuss the MiG-23M you are more than welcome but at this point we are getting off topic going back and forth about specific aircraft you feel are unfairly placed.

6

What I meant about MiG-23M was

MiG-23M might need to have a larger gap with MiG-23ML than currently she has

But it needs to be the way of sending MiG-23ML and other overperforming counterparts higher via decompression

not the way of send MiG-23M lower for further compression.

IMO, she might need adjustment, but not as urgent as these

MiG-23M facing F-4S sounds dumb
But Harrier GR.3 or T-2 facing MiG-23 sounds also dumb.

1 Like
7

I take it you’ve never flown the MiG-23M and probably dont have much experience in the T-2?

Because having spaded the 23M, and 830 matches in the T-2 early I can confidently say the T-2 is a better aircraft than the MiG with the only edge the MiG has over the T-2 being able to carry more missiles and 12 counter measures.

But if im basing it purely on the airframes and capability to get rounds on target? The T-2 smokes the MiG-23M any day of the week.

The T-2 faces the J-7D a far superior fighter to the MiG-23M.

8

This’ll be controversial but I think 12 flares are only.a minor issue. Seriously, even with a 50/50 chaff split how often do you get fired upon 6 times in a single match? Most of the time a single flare can decoy stuff thrown at you.

Only played the Hungary one a little but I believe it’s quite fast and holds speed well at 0 sweep. Even if radar weaponry is poor it still has mti and irst which you can use and then swap modes to fire it fast. I think it’s fine at 11.0 but I haven’t played it too much.

I the fact that it’s at a rating that used to constantly fight 11.7 and 12.0 premiums probably influences perception of it. I might be entirely wrong on some points; I only played it until it was fully upgraded; ajd it seemed simply okay.

9

many times actually, it’s part of the reason why the Su-22M3 sucks

1 Like
10

Su24 being higher than m21bis even after they added separate tanks and plane battles rating is really weird. Worse in every department is it not? Guess that auto aim turret is just too powerful😝

11

Again, there is more that Gaijin takes into consideration than a aircrafts KDR, especially when a single aircraft has capabilities to take out every base on the map with a single loadout and a RWR/MAWS with 96 large CMs that even top tier aircraft dont have.

But yes, just ignore all of that and compare it to one of the most used fighter jets that’s found across several nations in the game to prove your nonsensical point.

12

So, J-7D staying 10.7BR rationalises sending MiG-23M down from 11.0 to 10.7? nonsense.
if J-7D a far superior fighter than MiG-23M, then we need to send J-7D higher than MiG-23M.

THE ONLY REASON WHY J-7D IS STAYING 10.7BR is that it cannot carry napalm bombs, unlike other Fishbed variants, while MiG-23M can be equipped with a single pair of ZB-500 napalm bombs, which is capable of destroying a single base (YES I KNOW THAT MIG-23 doesn’t have CCIP/CCRP to support that but Gaijin only looks average reward netting when balancing things as you know.)

Yes? But I don’t think the current 9.7BR jets require facing MiG-23M in their full uptier.

With 6X R-60M? 10.7?
Mate, A-10A with 4x AIM-9L remains 10.7 because nothing but AIM-9L.
SHAR FRS.1 with 4x AIM-9L staying 11.0BR because nothing but AIM-9L
Both of those are subsonic jets, and SHAR had role of fighter jet in FAA so I am trying to stay with fighter jets.

if we really need to send MiG-23M down to 10.7BR, then it might need to lose R-60M.
Imagine about Su-22M3(Syria and Hugnary) which stays 11.0BR, same 6x R-60M, same amount of countermeasures(12LCM), and worse fuselage. if Su-22M3 needs to remain 11.0BR along with 12LCM, then there is no way to send MiG-23M down to 10.7BR without losing R-60M.

What is your next step, mate, ‘Su-22M3 is ground attacker so it is off topic’?

What I meant is,
1- MiG-23M NEEDS ADJUSTMENT
2- BUT WE SHOULDN’T SEND HER DOWN DIRECTLY.
3- LOOK AT COUNTERPARTS

13

I personally would have no problem with it losing the dual R-60Ms pylons if it was brought to 10.7 though I dont think it necessarily needs to happen, but that is a change I would be willing to have if it meant the aircraft going to 10.7

and Su-22M3 is another aircraft that is clearly over tiered and should be moved to 10.7 as well, again this post is directly about the MiG-23M, that doesn’t mean I disagree with other aircraft also being over tiered but if changes are to be made, a conversation has to be started. Just because one aircraft is over BR’d does not mean others of the same rating cant also be too high of a BR, at this point we are just comparing several aircraft that are over BR’d primarily because they are forgotten vehicles that no one really plays because they are clearly in the wrong BR with much better options all around.

I agreed with you about the MiG-27s being over BR’d I agree with you about the Su-22M3 being over BR’d, I personally disagree with the Su-24 due to its bombing capabilities and advanced electronics. All of this can be true at the same time as the MiG-23M also being over BR’d, the point im trying to make is it is silly to attempt to hold a vehicle from a proper BR because vehicles you see as too high BR sit in the same bracket, im not saying the vehicles you suggest to be too high BR shouldn’t be moved as well but thats not what this post is about, those sorts of comparisons and using other vehicles over BR’d as a form of leverage is what leads to vehicles getting stuck at BRs unfit for the vehicles capabilities as players go back and forth with whataboutism when the reality is multiple vehicles within the same BR can be overtiered.

14

I think full removal of R-60M or limiting them to 2 would sound more fair, but we might need more data after removing the dual pylon for R-60M (6->4).

it is straightfoward that sending her down to 10.7 without any adjustment is nothing more than more compressions.

If removing R-60M (some or all) works for MiG-23M, we could apply it to Su-22M3 too; both are quite strange planes.

Seems mediocre to keep them on the current 11.0BR, but cannot send them down to 10.7BR because of 6x R-60M.

Prefer decompression, but oh well…