All probably.
You’d be surprise how many gens are overperforming in this game.
Performance stuff aside, anything stopping us from getting ‘gun flares’ from tu95 on GSH23 for Mig23M/MF ?
Technically, no. AM-23 ammo fully compatible with GSh-23 canons. But gaijin will probably not do that.
The radar and weapons systems were inferior
To the F-4? lmao
The MiG-23 did get gun launched chaff though, but I doubt Gaijin will ever add it
Would be cool, but with how current belt system works you will pretty much sacrifice your gun for countermeasures.
The sustained turn rates are superior to the majority of Phantoms, it isn’t bad. There are few third generation fighters with better sustained turn rates and the F-5A, E, and F-20 are all considerably overperforming by comedically large margins.
There is also the matter where the wings sweep back for most sustained turns at higher speeds and pilots needed to be cautious of wingtip flutter causing instabilities which is not modeled in-game.
In an ironic way the only ones that aren’t are the MiG-29’s. The rest are absurd for the most part, but I have not looked too much into older ones like the F-14 in a while as the charts are hard to test / read due to auto wing sweep and other factors.
Yes, the later model F-4 phantoms have better maneuverability and weapons systems and depending on the experimental models were also capable of being faster, longer ranged, and so on. The Phantom received a lot more love than the Flogger. Russia moved on rather quickly to develop their fourth generation aircraft.
The proper pulse doppler radars on the Phantoms are superb, the MiG-23’s unique weapons systems were good in the early 70s but quickly surpassed by the American counterparts. The missile itself (R-23 / R-24) was technologically ahead of the AIM-7E but the raw power of the AIM-7F put it ahead. The R-27 series kept Russia ahead of America in missile technology and performance until the Soviet Union dissolved and the AMRAAM entered service.
There was the AIM-54 of course but it was large, expensive, and not intended initially for use against fighters (although it was very capable).
2 Likes
Yes, the later model F-4 phantoms have better maneuverability
Compared to MLD?
MiG-23’s unique weapons systems were good in the early 70s but quickly surpassed by the American counterparts
I would argue in terms of actual usability the MiG-23s were far ahead of the F-4 and in certain aspects to advanced jets too, there is a reason the F-4 was a two seater and not a single cockpit. MiG-23s CGI capability was also unmatched at the time (unless I am misremembering)
The missile itself (R-23 / R-24) was technologically ahead of the AIM-7E but the raw power of the AIM-7F put it ahead
While true you cannot forgot that the US also just didnt have an IR counterpart to the R-23/24T same with the IRST system. F-4/F-15/F-16 all lacked those and it was an important part of the doctrine of the MiG-23s
False
The Harrier Gr.1 from 1969 will out rate in at medium and slow speeds while having 4 times more fuel time.
I would like to add some context to this that I I feel like is missing. I don’t think the turn charts are true maximum turn ability ones because:
In the MiG-23MF manual it states that
here is table 4/1
How exactly does the ML take for a full turn (Max afterburner/45 degrees wing sweep start at 800kmh alt 5km) 65 seconds when MF with more weight takes (Max afterburner/45 degrees wing sweep start at 800kmh alt 6km) 52 seconds? (2x26 seconds for a full 360)
I know the math isnt perfect but those things do not add up to me. Please correct me if I made an obvious mistake but I am not sure right now, also need to consider that it probably could perform it with a higher load factor for an even quicker turn
These are for steady state turns at no more than 3G this has little to do with maximum performance.
So you just didnt bother reading at all, great.
Again reread it.
We dont know what the pages before the charts that kizvy sent are, they could outline different procedures. Maximum turn can mean a lot of things for different purposes
Lmao except those bottom ones are not for sustained turns
Neither are the ones in the MiG-29 manual.
What those are is fastest possible turning time pulling to either the AOA limiter or the maximum allowable G.
These are not sustained G he already posted a chart for sustained G.
This Redfor stupidity needs to end
What those are is fastest possible turning time pulling to either the AOA limiter or the maximum allowable G.
And you base this on what? Again we dont know what the pages before say at all, so we dont actually know what the charts are refering to except for the little description which is quite meaningless
And please do explain to me how a maximum allowable G/AOA limiter turn is slower than a sustained 3G turn (OF A WORSE AIRFRAME TOO)
Different charts Cinderella
But that’s what it’s for like it or not
This is the sustained G chart this dictates sustained G and therefore sustained turn rates.
Different charts Cinderella
Again I know that, You just lack reading comprehension and show hostility when there is no need. I simply found it strange that a sustained 3g turn on a worse air frame would be quicker than an instantiations turn of a better air frame.
Bluefor kindness is as always not to be found
Aerodynamics are not my field and I do not claim to be an expert there, my original comment was a question not a statement
1 Like
Look at your reading comprehension
Your chart goes to a maximum of 180 degrees of turn vs 360
It’s not even comparable like I said several replies ago
Which I had said in my comment if only you had read it. I took the 180 degree time and multiplied it.
Bluefor reading comprehension is reaching an all time low in here