I’m curious, would it hurt to equip the MiG-23BN with the PKWP-23 flare/chaff pylon? Should it get them, or another flare/chaff dispenser?
I’m personally of the opinion that if they ever decide to add semi-historical R-3S/R-13M1 to the MiG-23BN, and it is consequently moved up in BR, the chaff/flares might be useful, chaff especially for countering radar guided missiles/SAMs.
But regardless even a few flares from the PKWP-23 dispenser would be nice because I don’t think the MiG-23BN, or any MiG-23 for that matter, could carry the underfuselage SPS-141 (need to double check that). Another thing I saw was that it could possibly mount a KDS-23 dispenser on the wing shoulders, but have found no proof of that so far. But that one specifically could also help the standard MiG-23M/MF. There is this post talking about statements of Czech MiG-23BN pilots regarding both countermeasures and AAMs, but no sources so I can’t really glean anything from it. There is also a post on the DCS Forums mentioning Iraqi MiG-23s with ASO-2 dispensers, and this post on CombatAce with pictures (although I can’t see the dispensers) of an Iraqi MiG-23BN. Another post on Key Aero where a former German MiG-23BN pilot mentions that “[their] BN’s were unable to launch infra-red decoys against anti-aircraft missiles,” which I think is why Gaijin has been (in the past) reluctant to add countermeasures. That being said, they have bent the rules on stuff before, and this one seems a lot less egregious than some others. Another thing is that the National Defense University of Ukraine says the MiG-23BN can equip P-3S (R-3S) missiles, maybe there was a limited use modernization for some Ukrainian MiG-23BNs that wasn’t used anywhere else.
In general, I think that flares/chaff for this plane, even if limited in quantity, could still be useful. As for the missiles, ideally I’d want it to use the R-3S/R-13M1, but given that it is not supposed to (with no proof otherwise so far), it would be up to the developers. Giving it the R-3S/R-13M1 would probably make it 10.3/10.7 level, leaving it at just the R-3S is probably like 10.0. It would be a decent buff to a plane that, while not really needing it, would make it more viable in things like air RB or sim.
Well if it was an Iraqi BN it could get ASO-2 as some were fitted with them later in life (picture is a potato but you can just barely see them up above the wings)
They also tried to put Mirage refueling probes on them at some point, quite a few wacky mods came out of the ME for the 23 family.
Potato picture precludes a… something. Countermeasures are countermeasures, this could make the semi-historical flare cutoff if need be. Same model aircraft, and all.
I read about this one while trying to find information for this lmao (I believe it’s the combat ace link), iirc it was a proto modification or something, they didn’t do it more than a few times
Here is one Syrian MiG-23MF with flare dispenser:
Syrian MiG-23 (unknown variant) with canopy without central pylon (can be useful for simulator - better visibility from cockpit):
I made a suggestion on the old forum & the new forum and both got deleted. The suggestion moderators said that images without documentation is useless.
I found images of bar-less canopies for every single variant of the MiG-23 with the exception of the MLD iirc.
I found for MLDG but its broken (iz. 23-57) so I cant 100% say if its bar-less canopy.
Btw exist historical option how increase number of countermeasures (chaffs) of all MiG-23 (and even MiG-21 and maybe also older planes). Exist variants of S-5 and S-8 missiles which have chaff warhead as S-5P/P1 and S-8P/PM. Of course, it will be necessary to sacrifice missile pylons to carry these countermeasures depending on the number. This is especially useful now that the radar missiles in the game are much more powerful than they were in the past.
You can see S-8PM in middle:
S-8PM destription by Rosoboronexport:
For example MiG-23M could carry an additional 32 chaffs to the 12 flares if he sacrificed one R-23 or 16 chaffs if he sacrificed a pair of R-60M.
yeah i believe those ones are the hind dispensers they modified and fit on the 23s
As an aside the Su-22M3 in Syrian service also got extra dispensers yet for some reason they aren’t added to the one we have in game.
As an aside the Su-22M3 in Syrian service also got extra dispensers yet for some reason they aren’t added to the one we have in game.
Idk if they are not those ones like on this Su-22M4 or some variant of it:
Didn’t S-5 one was used for night striking?
It is questionable that it has massive heat signatures that can allow to dodge IR missies.
They’re talking about the chaff warheads, not the illumination flare ones.
This seems like something that would have absolutely no documentation no matter how hard you looked. To me it seems like it might be a MiG-21 canopy modified to be a replacement for a MiG-23 canopy, for whatever reason.
It’s not a MiG-21 canopy, I believe it simply restricted operating flight speed by altitude for structural reasons. The top speed in-game is not a structural limitation of the body but rather a real world limitation of the canopy. The aircraft had more in it… but almost never needed it.
The canopy without the bar? I was saying it looked like a MiG-21 canopy because it didn’t have a bar. I’m not quite sure I understand what you’re saying, sorry.
First MiG-23 variants had bar-less canopies (like for example MiG-23S), but due to structural limitations they started to give them (from MiG-23M) canopies with central pylons. Arab countries probably used canopies from older MiG-23s as spare parts for newer ones.
Soviet MiG-23’s could be seen equipping these even on MiG-23MLA.
Hi!..We discussed it on the old forum…
- Lanterns with bindings were introduced in order to reduce the cost of production and such a lantern of two halves is easier to break by a pilot in an accident…
2 On combat MiG-23 MiG-25, some Su-27 series used glazing made of special heat-resistant fluorinated glass E-2, but then they turned away from it due to serious environmental difficulties in production and switched to organic glass AO-120. Over time, it turned out that, among all other problems, the glass from E-2 turns very yellow in the open sun… - In particular, in Arab countries, lanterns with bindings were installed during repairs, because by that time in Russia, cabin lights for the MiG-23 were no longer mass-produced…
4.MiG-23MLD(23-22B) of the Libyan Air Force under repair in Kubinka 2006/2007-the original lantern without binding / 23-22A Bulgaria cockpit lantern with binding…
So, kinda a Flogger enthusiast, and I was wondering that, ever since the historical FM changes to the MiG-23s, how can an MLD rate worse than an ML/A when it has many airframe improvements for this specific thing, like the extra dog tooth vortex generators at the wing root, and the leading edge flaps at high AoA, shouldn’t all of these things make the MLD a better rate fighter than the earlier ML/As?
The MiG-23MLD has better yaw stability when pulling equal AoA to the other models due to the changes but the vortices generated create additional drag. The only place it should have better energy conservation is at angles of attack that cause the leading edge flaps to drop.
The improved stability should make it possible to beat the other MiG-23’s in high alpha flight especially when wings are forward more than 45 degrees but with instructor these instabilities are never shown or seen and the additional AoA is not realized.
The reason it should rate better than the others is because it would generally be capable of turning with the wings at a more forward angle of 33 degrees without fear of flatspin or stall.