You have nothing. That’s correct. I’ve shared proof that the constant peg pilots have no idea what they’re talking about, not a good look for a test pilot to be saying you can fire NATO 20mm vulcan from the Gsh-23.
I’ve been sharing sources, you have been sharing (really bad) opinions. That’s what’s happened so far.
Hmmm, what was one single crazy idea and reason behind it that I have provided?
That the Soviets had a doctrine in place during the cold war that was to design the harder to replace and maintain units with some captured NATO pieces as to cut down logistics in the idea that a
large scale war with the West was imminent? That the Mig23 shares various parts that can be replaced as it was in the Soviets War planning that they would capture a large number of NATO airbases?
Or that the US government had an effort in a CIA black project to secretly procure Soviet and Chinese fighters shipping them to Nevada and test and evaluate full capability as well as develop an intense years lasting training program and offered only to best pilots of each branch?
Guess I am pretty crazy yes. Maybe I should write a book with this creation.
Youtube interviews is not a source, neither is magaize interviews. I do like just typing and narrating sources in my own words. It makes me feel like I am smart and how upset you get by no having a duty to provide everything I ever known backed with a source on the spot lol.
You must really have a hard time keeping people around in your personal life with this hyper focus on the tiniest irrelevant discrepancies. In this case you are fixating on a single misspoken statement of and old pilot that was in the program?
You know how long ago the program was? My dad cannot even remember certain characteristic like round type of the M60 because he went off to live a whole life after. Same with these old pilots, they move on and get old forgetting irrelevant small details like exact round type the fighter used that had that the test pilot did not actually shoot other test pilots or trainees with lol. Give the old dude a break. You’ll get there one day.
He may have meant to say that parts can be interchangeable as that was a discovery during the cold war by captured doctrinal war planning and actual evaluation programs like constant peg.
Not a good look? To who??? Its a YouTube interview my guy. The dude is not on trial before congress.
We are all just asking you to source information, especially if it’s some wild and wacky claim like the MiG-23 uses common parts found on NATO fighters and that they 1:1 copied the Phantom’s intakes etc… which are commonly known myths.
Instead we get personally attacked, not sure what’s up with that.
All I see are a lot of words with nothing backing them up man you claimed to have a source yet you refuse to share it at this point you should understand why everyone thinks you’re just making stuff up
The monkey models stuff is a bit of a misnomer. I wouldn’t say it’s very true that it fought “most” of its battles against non-peer opponents. Outside of the misinformation spread by US “evaluations” of the type, I think the primary reason the MiG-23 is generally percieved poorly as a fighter is due to online perceptions of the type’s K/D ratio, which, of course, idiots on the internet think matters for some reason. The online perception of this metric for the MiG-23 comes from various avenues, but it always seems to come down to the same source: MiGFlug’s combat statistics article
This article is deeply flawed in general, but there are two primary causes of MiG-23’s low ratio here.
One of them is, indeed, primarily due to downgraded export models in combination with poor tactics and planning in combination with an opponent who was both the most competent in the world at the time, and armed with the best fighters in the world at the time, both by a pretty good margin. This is the article’s “1:30” record for the Israeli invasion of Lebanon.
But it’s always struck me wrong that people, because of this, claim that the MiG-23’s export history is the reason for its poor perception, because the whole “downgraded export model operated by a substandard air force against the best equipped and trained air force in the world” story repeated so often is literally only true for this one instance, which is almost entirely the result of a single highly successful SEAD operation over the course of one day, because that was one day.
It absolutely was not most of its battles, the vast majority of fights the MiG-23 was presented with throughout its career were against, relatively speaking, peer opponents; F-4s, F-5s, Mirage IIIs, Mirage Vs, and Mirage F1s. It universally showed itself well against these. Even the MiG-23MS, downgraded to apocalyptic proportions, showed itself well against Iranian F-5s. You mention “top notch” F-4 variants, but the MiG-23 at no point ever had to fight these. Invariably, outside of Recce and EW variants, the MiG-23 faced down F-4Es and only F-4Es. Even compared to an F-4S, the MiG-23’s only real disadvantage is the smaller BVR weapons load; the Sapfir-23 was broadly comparable in performance to the AN/APG-59, and the MiG-23 was generally either as agile as or more agile than an F-4, depending on which variant of which plane. Compared to the Mirage F1, the only genuine “Western” contemporary to the MiG-23, the situation was similar, outside of the fact that the MiG-23’s radar was flatly better than the Cyrano set.
The more significant reason for the perception of the MiG-23’s record is the way low-quality sources group the MiG-23 family. Without fail, sources such as the MiGFlug article group the entire family together; anything labelled “MiG-23” is a MiG-23. This is despite the fact that the MiG-23BN is not a tactical fighter, but instead is a strike aircraft with no A-A provisions of any kind unless fitted, according to some sources, with R-3S.
According to MiGFlug, the MiG-23’s record in the Iran-Iraq war was 16-56. Taking this at face value, if you remove the MiG-23BN, this figure is instead 16-5. Being as generous as possible, the MiG-23M scored a record of 20-5, while being as conservative as possible it scored 7-5 in this conflict. Either way, the effect this has to pollute the record is hard to overstate; even taking everything else on the list at face value (do not do this, it’s a horrible list), it literally doubles the MiG-23’s losses. And that’s on top of those losses already having been more than doubled by the losses over Lebanon to Israel. And that’s on top of those losses already having been significantly inflated by losses to the coalition in Desert Storm.
The MiG-23 was widely exported and very successful, and most of its service was against peer opponents. Against these, it did very well, having a markedly low loss rate and a high effectiveness in air combat. While the MiG-23MF did see good export and combat success, the MiG-23ML, MLA, and MLD all did as well, and a very significant portion of these exports was these “full spec” ML+ variants. It’s a misnomer to say it fought most of its battles in downgraded form piloted by subpar air forces against the best the world had to offer; it fought two of its battles (not counting Gulf of Sidra, which was not a battle but an unprovoked attack on MiG-23s that were not there to fight) like this, and the vast majority of the rest of them were fair fights it showed itself well in.
The perceptions run afoul of this in terms of ratio by focusing on the disproportionate losses of the fights against newer and better opponents, and then on top of that failing to recognize the MiG-23B’s distinction as a type from the MiG-23M, being better grouped in with the MiG-27.
Also I don’t think you need to be defensive about implying positive things about the USSR. The USSR saw an unprecedentedly long period of peace and stability in a region historically prone to constant violence. It was undemocratically dissolved, and its dissolution saw an apocalyptic humanitarian disaster in the region. Russia loves to pretend it was responsible for that, loves to imagine it once had an empire, but the USSR was an internationalist project, and equating Russia and the USSR does nothing but make Russian nationalists who want to take credit for its achievements happy. It especially erases the myriad scientific and industrial achievements of the Ukrainian SSR, which was a center of huge developmental efforts for much of its life
This is a well wrote reply if I’ve ever seen one! I’ll make sure to point this out in the OP when I flesh it out.
I will provide where is benefits me and most rewarding. You do the same even here. What is that books name btw? the “Gigantic one to this day”? See, everyone can do it.
You are right Draco, and as much as I like you, at the end of the day your belief is not worth anything to me in the slightest.
Everyone? See this where you are resorting to pettiness and now attempt speak for everyone as if you know what everyone believes. The mind reader Draco here. Yeah, some believe what I say, and some do not. I do not care to the level what other think such as you both do, and I share source with individuals I deem worthy of my time and research.
Some believe me because it makes sense or read the same sources and history. Some do not believe, as in your case where it is required that the exact documentation must be attached and conveniently placed in front of you without doing the research themselves.
You are now attempting to downplay and lump the entirety of the community in everything I ever said ever as no one believing anyway because you are upset that I refuse to provide you the exact sources as if your belief or unbelief means anything to me.
I asked you to point to one “crazy thing” I have said this evening beyond the realm of reality or possibility or any of the reasoning behind them that I explained.
If you can’t provide a source as a basis for your opinions on the design and performance of the aircraft please just stop sharing them. I think it’s not very useful to the discussion and these weirdly long rants / insults focusing on people’s character aren’t welcome.
Oh for the OP would be ok adding in a expandable list a list of MiG-23 bug reports including fixed ones (but have them crossed out if fixed)
something like:
Radar:
Missing passive interference modes
Incorrect Vertical scan on the MiG-23MLD
[M̶i̶G̶-̶2̶3̶ ̶s̶h̶o̶u̶l̶d̶ ̶h̶a̶v̶e̶ ̶I̶F̶F̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶M̶V̶ ̶m̶o̶d̶e̶] (fixed)(Community Bug Reporting System)
longest “I dont have a source” ever if I ever read one
like 23M said if you dont have a source thats fine but everything youre saying at this point is just mindless rambling
Yes we can do a bug report list or something on the bottom. That would be cool, or I can include it in the second “placeholder” comment I left.
So, it should be easy to point to one thing I said that makes no sense. Right? Unless you have zero knowledge about the Mig23s design history as well? You made the claim I am crazy. Back it up with a source stating otherwise.
Hell, I did not even ask you to back up that statement with source, but simply asked what any of I said was crazy and did not make sense, you could not even do that. Now I am supposed to provide source? When cannot you understand the content in the first place? Fascinating
With your standard. A childish one, a person cannot speak or claim anything on this forum without providing a source attached to it because you two said so? Anything said will be considered as mindless rambling? That’s your logic. Where is the guidelines on that one.
Like I said, I rather enjoy how oddly upset this is making you two. However, I will attach files and pictures etc. when I feel like it. Don’t be too upset about it.
We have, for some time now…
It is not a childish standard to expect someone to back up a claim about something with a source… that’s the standard expectation for the discussion. We are here to discuss the history, design, and performance of something and not your opinion of it. We can’t do that with solely your opinion and might I add… they are WILD.
Lol then why do you keep pinging me to come to your topics!! LMFAO!!!
You invited me here silly, to converse with you after I made it clear I have no interest. You actually thought, fora second that you were going to ask me to come discuss with you in your 23 topic and it would be productive? That we are will share sources together and play patty cake? That is kind of pathetic.
You keep inviting me to all of your created threads. So, you sure as hell love hearing what I have to say about any given topic!
You made a claim, sounded interesting and I wanted to know if you had a respectable source… you do not, no further discourse is necessary. If you had something worthwhile I could add it to the OP.
Never knew that. Would be nice to see a MiG-23ML (Early) in the TT w/ R-23s and R-60s
He literally then proceeds to ignore the fact that he invites me to every thread even after I made it clear, I have no interest ever in discussing anything with him especially sit there provide my research and sources.
To top it off the guy runs off to cry & complain, saying I was bullying him, and still thinks it’s a good idea to invite me to his new topic like it’s now going to be sunshine in rainbows? Fascinating, and sad.
He obviously loves to hear what I have to say about any given platform and my opinion of them.
No? I said you saying MiG-23M had no source for something he was saying was crazy because you yourself have been saying a bunch of wacky stuff without providing any source to make it not wacky stuff.
everything you’ve been saying and to defend yourself is “dude trust me it makes sense to me”
You’ve been going on a borderline tantrum over people pointing out “hey man do you have anything to back up what you’re saying” listen man if you dont have any proof thats fine but drawing this out by doing everything except either providing evidence for what you are saying or humbly admitting you were misguided on something is just childish
Even the Airforce of Belarus equipped the MiG-23MLD with the R-73 in active service for quite some time.
