Compared to the ASP23D(Export) of MiG-23MF the ASP-17ML(Export) of the MiG-23ML was provided, amongst other things, with two very helpful features for close air combat.
With the introduction of the R-60 or R-60M a short ranged dogfight missile was available with a off-boresight angle of about +/- 12° respectively +/-20° (different to their predecessors R-3S or R-13).
Normally the seeker head could be steered by either the radar, the IRST or it was used in boresight mode, which were not helpful in close dogfight. With the ASP-17ML an additional possibility was introduced.
The pilot could steer the seeker head manually by using the knob normally used to control the X-23M missile (left on the stick) to shift the aiming circle onto the target (+/-20°). Needless to say that this provides some elbow-room while in a turn fight. A very small step in the direction of HMS.
I don’t know.
On the F-15, it was possible to switch between AIM-9 missiles to the one with the best view of the target. The pilot could tell by the strength of the audio tone
I was pretty sure it was also in the F-4s, but I couldn’t remember where I saw it. Wasn’t it only on the F-4s as a predecessor to VTAS, and in game have that? Or was it more widespread?
Depends heavily on the specific configuration of F-4 and the Sidewinder variant in question for compatibility, but as far as I can confirm it seems to be specific to USN F-4 (and derivatives) & AIM-9G and later Sidewinders .
Sparrows on the other hand could be manually targeted via auxiliary radar / illuminator modes against literally any target the radar could be pointed at (including Surface targets, with the only requirement that they have an appreciable radar signature, though this was not a hard requirement)
The main issue with doing so is that the only reference point that could be used to derive the antenna train angle was the radar screen so necessitated that the RIO be head down, unless the radar was boresighted so the pilot could fly the missile home, which made precision targeting (and practically requires a specific flight profiles to execute properly so can’t be done without a permissive threat environment) difficult to say the least, and the fact that the Sparrow’s warhead isn’t really optimized for non-aircraft targets so is underwhelming and so other ordnance would be better suited to the task where available.
I’ve tried the MiG 23MF/ML and it seems to me that the plane loses speed unrealistically slowly after the throttle is pulled back. Am I alone ?
I also tried some AoA characteristics and the plane has a buffet, above 30 units AoA I went into a spin that was difficult to recover from but it was possible.
Overall, I’d say the MiG 23 in WT is probably unrealistically too good in higher AoA and the flight model energy retention is also unrealistic.
You want me to sit and waste 30 minutes of my time fact checking some youtuber I’ve never heard of before’s opinion of the flogger? :/
ouch 😭
also its not much of an opinion, more of a in depth guide to every flogger ingame + short history of each variant irl. I used multiple sources and i list some of them in the video (i.e the Yefim Gordon book or a section from a Syrian MiG-23BN manual)
also wild how i found this thread a few months later while looking for sources to bug report the KDS-23 missing its wet pylon capability lol.
