Is it just me or is it taking pretty long for gaijin to correct the RWR of the ML and MLA to the spo-10?
But anyway it’s great that you’ve opened this topic @MiG_23M
But anyway it’s great that you’ve opened this topic @MiG_23M
2 Likes
No, I do not care, I keep bringing it up as a joke and make fun of you by highlighting how you must spend your free time and where in your mind lies as priority and what little you must have for the actual.
Additionally, I do think it’s interesting that this very small, insignificant belief bothers so much that you felt it required to meme it. I did not even know many people thought this to the point it required one.
I guess I can now see why people heard the word intake, instead of mechanization of, and seeing that they look alike and state the whole thing itself exact copies though. Being that the F-4 is a two-engine aircraft requiring differing airflows.
Anyway, still looking for the book, even my laptop.
ML(A) also have BVP-50-60 they never had was only found on the MLD, tho if gaijan doesnt want to cut down their CM count to 12, Syrian and Iraqi MLs had ASO-2s on their backs
1 Like
Russian MiG-23ML was fit with the MLA upgrades but never called “MLA” in Russian service. It also equipped the upgraded chaff / flare launchers. Another common misconception.
yes this is true
No the BVP-50-60 was only MLD aircraft, you are thinking of PKVP-23 which started with the MLD but was later retrofitted to other MiG-23 variants
I don’t think so, I’ll pull up sources when I’m back from dinner.
BVP-50-60 needed structural modifications and also a new management and interface in cockpit because it has a panel that indicates system state, remaining flares and buttons placed at the throttle
which is why its only found in MLDs (and I think tested on a single UB?)
Later Russian MLs may have received these modifications and also ASP-17ML gunsight among other features.
ASP-17ML was already found in ML aircraft it was part of the 23-12A upgrade and I believe most older 23-12 aircraft were converted to this standard since you rarely see MLs with ASP-23DTSM
I think sustained turn rate should be the same at the higher (optimal) speeds, as unless AoA is very high (which usually is not the case when rate fighting in an aircraft with high aspect ratio wings) slats won’t increase efficiency (MiG-29 polar diagrams i posted about a week or 2 ago on the MiG-29 thread show this very well, how slats are making the aircraft more efficient only at higher AoAs, that in the MiG-29 case are reached but probably not on the MiG-23 case).
I’ll also take a look at the ML/MLA str rate charts, because current performance seems to good to me compared to 4th gen fighters given the difference in thrust to weight. Although it has everything else going for it for being a good rate fighter (high aspect ratio wings and low wing loading).
2 Likes
I’d very much like you to look into it. The leading edge slat matters because it reduces departure qualities during tighten-downs and at low airspeeds improves sustained turn rate thanks to the fact that it often requires more AoA in those regions.
We won’t know for certain about MLD until the manual is scanned and uploaded by the owner (unlikely).
2 Likes
Yes parts were interchangeable. Not the actual gun. Again, Soviet doctrine dictates many working parts can be used in maintaining the mechanization of weapon systems. This doctrine is not limited to Frontal Aviation of the Soviet Union either. Many parts were made small parts of systems are interchangeable as advantage in large scale war.
Hmmm perhaps the pilot mentioned parts and the article miswrote. Not a possibility? I know you take a lot of old interviews copied from magazines and place them as official source instead of interview like the Matra interview regarding the Magic. I suspect you are hyper focusing again on the small insignificant again and your tick kicks in and will then block out any evidence to the contrary. You and I know once that little tick gets going, there is literally no convincing you otherwise.
Btw what is the “giant book to this day” ? What is the name and why would the US feel its needed to provide misinformation regarding a top-secret program evaluation years AFTER the fact about a insignificant fighter jet that was quite literally a failure in the technological, historical and tactical sense?
It is hilarious that some video gamer on the internet is acting like the program failed in understanding the Mig23 though it was a black program and infinitely funded at the height of the cold war with the one purpose of determining maximum capability of the Russian and Chinese fighters they had.
You know this reminds me of the time you said you actually know more than the US AF about their weapons systems. Remember that? lol.
Waiting for you to share your sources but the live video of him making a ton of false claims is on YouTube.
nah fr hes been looking for this book he keeps mentioning for over an hour
2 Likes
Until you post that source it’s @Ziggy1989 and not the USAF talking.
And even then one needs to see WHO made the source.
For example an official, declassified document is a way better proof than some dude who claims he was told the things he is saying by some member in the USAF.
Not to mention they got cheap export models, the MF was probably the best example they got. They got some with used engines, and could not maintain them very efficiently. There were no compatible parts that they could use so they had to manufacture stuff on their own and jerry rig things to keep it operational. The primary purpose was to show the US pilots how the aircraft looked and to give them a basic idea of how it might perform.
1 Like
they never even got the MiG-23MF only the MS and BN so they got a more unstable MiG-23M with avionics ripped from a MiG-21 and a mostly defenseless bomber
That’s the real problem for the perception of Soviet military technology in general and the MiG-23 in particular.
Most MiG-23s that fought were downgraded into oblivion to make them cheap, from abysmal G-limit, to MiG-21 avionics… and when people see how it performed they just immediately go “MiG-23 bad” ignoring that it fought most of its battles firing freaking R-3S against top notch F4s or 4th gen fighters that costed many times more.
There’s a reason why the Soviets built (and retired immediately) about 100 MiG-23S and instead built over 2000 MiG-23ML/MLA.
Not to go off topic, but this is something I had sent to SlowHandClap when he was saying Soviet technology was never comparable to the west because the US GDP and spending were a lot higher… that’s a common misconception about the USSR economy being bad in general, as this article (declassified CIA report) proves https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000498181.pdf .
Soviet GDP was always between 55% and 70% of the US one and their military spending was often higher (especially in the 80s).
I believe in general that document is a very interesting read.
(Before someone starts freaking out, what i mean with this is that the USSR had the money and resources to support the development of advanced military projects, something that, for example, modern day Russia seems to be lacking)
3 Likes
Yes, the rwr looks correct in the cockpit but I meant that it works like the spo-15 in game
It would help if Gaijin reappraised their implementation of variable sweep control autonomy. With Soviet-style manual control systems such as MiG-23/27 and Su-17/22, it’d be nice to see the automatic setting removed and replaced with keybinds to move to the indents replacing the auto setting, with switching to the manual setting keeping the set wing sweep and allowing fine tuning across the range between the indents
I.E. on indent setting inputs cause the wing sweep % to snap to a higher or lower indent, while on the manual setting it works like it currently does
2 Likes