Are you sure it is the MLD addition to the ML manual?
Look here: Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-23 'FLOGGER' - History, Design, Performance & Dissection - #410 by _Fantom2451
The pages you had linked are 73 - 84, which there are the Radar pages within the regular 23ML section.
Also, those pages do not discuss the new modes that N008 on the MLD has, namely ББ, МПХ, and ПСЦ:
3 Likes
I am absolutely not xD
I only vaguely remember what someone wrote in the distant past.
1 Like
Wowowowow, where is this from? Do you have more pages?
Where’d you get the source for the 16-5 K/D? I’d like to use it.
The ML+ variants generally had a pretty good K/D of like 1.5-2:1 depending on which side you believe and omitting the monkey models as they say of course the loss rate is one of the better ones as far as MiGs go.
No source you find on it will ever be good enough to win an argument against someone who is claiming the contrary.
One of the MiG-23 docs from page 11 or 12 from here: Книги по матчасти | Страница 11 | Aviarestorer.ru
This PDF I have above only has that info on the modes, nothing on their workings.
It seems like these links don’t work for me, every document I try to click redirects me to a non existent WayBackMachine page.
Maybe you could send the pages with pics?
Don’t click on the links, copy the link text.
Actually, NVM, found the link that is that doc - 23-22 дополнение к РТЭ книга 3.pdf — Яндекс Диск
1 Like
That’s cool, but damn that is really not a whole lot of pages.
Thx for the link anyways
I want gaijin implement R-60 to replace R-60M on MiG-23M and reduce BR to 10.7 in the next major update
That would be a downgrade from the MiG-21bis. You trade superior armament and flight performance for reduced CM’s that is what makes it special.
Personally, MiG-23M/MiG-23MF BVR better MiG-21Bis
MiG-21Bis BVR inferior to MiG-23M because carried R-3R only like MiG-21S, MiG-21SM and MiG-21SMT
In fact MiG-23M/MiG-23MF it’s definitive of 1st gen MiG-23 but pre R-60M service
MiG-23M/MiG-23MF low calibre countermeasures
If you want a BVR on a lower BR, ask rather for the Su-15. It is a better option than moving the MiG-23M down in the BR with limited armament.
https://ruslet.webnode.cz/technika/ruska-technika/letecka-technika/p-o-suchoj/su-15-flagon-a-d-/
3 Likes
The Su-15TM had the option to carry 6x R-60 and 2x R-98 which was a very good loadout and offsets the otherwise poor performance. The Su-15TM also had improved aerodynamics courtesy of a double delta wing. The enhanced radar and missile gave it BVR capability similar to the R-23R.
So yes, this would be quite a good aircraft. Too bad it hasn’t been added (yet).
5 Likes
16-5 is an aggregate value from the kills that can be confirmed with reasonable confidence. I didn’t use an individual source as there are no comprehensive sources that can safely be taken at face value. 20-5 is taking any source I had that I wasn’t 100% sure was incorrect, 16-5 is from sources I was fairly confident were trustworthy, and 7-5 is taking the most pessimistic interpretation I could come up with on sources. 16-5 is the highest value I feel comfortable giving and I feel I should clarify that I feel that if the kill ratio is not 16-5, it is likely somewhat lower, not somewhat higher, as most of the confusion comes from Iran-Iraq where both sides had issues after action with overestimating their fighter’s effectiveness and underestimating the effect of their AA; thus while I do feel I managed to filter out the overestimation when I was looking at the kills case by case, if I made a mistake it is more likely that it was from being too generous than too pessimistic. I don’t have them saved ATM but I could track them back down if you’d like.
my problem with this argument is that it means that we never get a representation of Flogger at different points in time. we have the MiG-23 airframe of the early 70s (M/MF), mid 70s (ML/MLA), and early 80s (MLD), but they are all equipped as they were in the early 80s. because of this they’re all crammed into the same rough BR in spite of dramatic performance differences, which both prevents us from being able to fly a MiG-23 with any historical armament besides the early 80s weaponry, and prevents us from having any MiG-23s we can fly at a BR that isn’t shared by every other version of the same plane including several better ones. it’d be like if every model of F-4 got the same armament of AIM-9Ms and AIM-7Ms, and all were placed at 12.7, except for F-4C, which would be at 12.3. it would suck and the way they currently balance MiG-23 sucks for the same reason
The MiG-23M was produced from 1972 but the definitive use of the aircraft was not until 1977 when the 5G limit was removed. These airframes were already equipped with R-60M and in fact a MiG-23M was the test bed for Russia’s first HMS. It makes no sense to give it worse armament than the aircraft before it. No sense at all.
3 Likes
Biggest problem for MiG-23 is people believe in stories from Cold War about it’s record, which aren’t backed up by facts.
The losses of a half dozen 23BN bombers to F-15’s doesn’t show anything about an ML.
2 Likes
Was it also able carry R-60M or only basic ones (I mean historically)?
Thats why MiG-23MLD should get R-73, R-24MR (of course with fixed radar) and go up in BR. For low BR can we get again for example MiG-23S. So we have representations of MiG-23 in different ages.