- Yes
- No
- Tech Tree
- Premium
- Squadron
- Event/Gift
- I don’t want it added
MiG-23ML
Adding maneuverability to the MiG-23
MiG-23ML of the LSK
Background
Following the introduction of the MiG-23M, and related MF, it was realized that the aircraft needed to undergo many improvements. Back in the Soviet Union, design work had already begun on a considerable redesign of the aircraft.
From the MiG-23M, the redesign sought to address airframe stress, reliability, engine performance, maneuverability, and radar performance.
Firstly, to address stress and maneuverability issues, the airframe was lightened by 1,250kg by removing the number 4 fuel tank that was positioned around the engine. This change not only lightened the aircraft, but also shifted the center of gravity more towards the middle of the aircraft. A redesign of the landing gear, combined with the reduced weight, led the aircraft to sit differently on the ground; whereas the old versions were somewhat “nose high,” the new version was more parallel with the ground. Structural weakness of the aircraft, in particular the wing-sweep mechanism, were corrected. These changes allowed the aircraft a G-overload of 8.5G at slow speeds and 7.5G at higher speeds.
The engine was changed for a lighter, yet more powerful, Tumansky R-35-300. Compared to the original R-29-300, the new engine allowed for an improved non-afterburning thrust of 83.82kN, and 128.08kN afterburning. This was a considerable improvement over the original engine, and the new aircraft had a TWR of 0.83, substantially better than the original MiG-23M/MF’s TWR of 0.77.
New avionics were installed under the S-23ML standard system suite. Included were the Sapfir-23ML radar, TP-23M IRST, improved navigation, datalink, flight control and radar altimeter, and the SUV-2ML FCS. The SUV-2ML allowed the use of both types of R-23 at the same time, enabling the aircraft to carry one of each. The Sapfir-23ML was incapable of guiding the R-24R, however the SUV-2ML FCS allowed the use of the R-24T as it did not utilize radar guidance.
In theory much of the upgrades substantially improved the combat effectiveness of the MiG-23, and the new aircraft was known as the MiG-23ML. East Germany would end up operating 28 of the type, with an unknown number of those aircraft being late production models, otherwise known as the MiG-23MLA.
Specifications
| General Information | ||
|---|---|---|
| Length | 16.7m (54ft 8in) | |
| Wingspan | 13.97m (45ft 10in) spread | 7.78m (25ft 6in) wing folded |
| Height | 5m (16ft 5in) | |
| Engine | 1 x R-35-300 | 83.82kN non-afterburning |
| 128.08kN afterburning | ||
| Empty Weight | 10,230kg (22,487lbs) | |
| Fuel Capacity | ~6,875L (~1,816.183 US gal) | Estimation, 5500kg of fuel |
| + 3*820L Drop Tanks | ||
| Hardpoints - 4 + 3 | 2 under-wing & 2 under-fuselage | + 2 Wing & 1 Centerline Tank Hardpoints |
Ordnance
| Ordnance | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Internal | |||
| GSh-23L | 200 23mm rounds | ||
| Air-to-Air | |||
| IR | |||
| R-3S | Should be stock | ||
| R-13M | |||
| R-13M1 | |||
| R-60(K) | |||
| R-60M(K) | |||
| R-23T | |||
| R-24T | Can be omitted if necessary | ||
| Backwards compatible with older radars | |||
| Radar | |||
| R-23R | No R-24, older radar could not guide it | ||
| Air-to-Ground | |||
| Bombs | |||
| FAB-100 | (GP/Frag) | ||
| FAB-250 | (GP/Frag/Parachute-Retarded) | ||
| FAB-500 | (GP/Frag/Parachute-Retarded) | ||
| ZB-500 | (Napalm) | ||
| RBK-500 | (Cluster) | ||
| Rockets | |||
| S-5 | FFAR | ||
| S-8 | FFAR | ||
| S-24 | |||
| Missile | |||
| Kh-23M | |||
| Other | |||
| Delta-NG | Targeting Pod for Kh-23 | ||
| UPK-23 Gunpod | Twin 23mm | ||
| 800L Tank | Centerline and dedicated underwing only |
| Avionics | ||
|---|---|---|
| Radar | RP-23ML | “Sapfir-23ML” |
| Detection Range of 85km, Track Range of ~55km (high alt) | ||
| IRST | TP-23M | |
| RWR | SPO-10M | |
| HUD | ASP-23D | |
| CM | PKWP-23 | Dual use CM dispenser and fuel tank hardpoint |
| Various | See below |
Countermeasures
Regarding countermeasures, there are several countermeasure dispensers that were fitted on the MiG-23 series of fighters by various countries that would make the “semi-historical” cutoff. Already noted is the PKWP-23, which came standard for all MiG-23s, but I will make an additional note here.
PKWP-23:
The MiG-23 series of aircraft could carry three drop tanks, one centerline and two under the wings. The PKWP-23 dispenser/pylon is a dual countermeasure dispenser and fuel tank pylon.
In theory, the MiG-23 should be able to receive 24 more large caliber countermeasures, if the under-wing tank pylons were PKWP-23s.
Second, the ASO-2:
In Iraqi service, MiG-23MLs were “upgraded” with the ASO-2 countermeasure dispenser holding 32 rounds per dispenser, and with four dispensers. The ASO-2 is a lot smaller than the KDS-155 (BVP-50-60) dispenser but holds more countermeasures. They take up the same area on the aircraft, so it would not be possible to mount both.
Third, AN/ALE-40(?):
Indian Air Force MiG-23/27s were fitted with an AN/ALE-40 (I think) dispenser at some point. That would add an additional 90 countermeasures to the aircraft if added to the ML.
Lastly, the KDS-155, or BVP-50-60:
These are the ones known to be fitted to Soviet MLDs and UBs, and also the ones that are currently present on the MiG-23MLA, and the Soviet MLD and modernized ML.
Any of these could make the semi-historical cutoff and be added to the MiG-23ML. Personally, I would want to see the ASO-2 dispensers, or the (potential) additional PKWP-23 dispensers.
Conclusion
I think the base MiG-23ML should be added to the tree at some point. It would provide a decent bridge between a potential MiG-23MF and/or the MiG-21 and the proper endgame MiG-23MLA. Should an MF never be added, then the ML could in theory take the place of the MF in the tree.
Overall, the ML should perform very similar to the MF, with the potential addition of R-24s. It solves most of the maneuverability issues the MF faces which would allow for an easier flight profile and general ease of use.
As for the countermeasures, my opinion is it should be fitted with the 3 PKWP-23 dispensers (assuming they can be fitted), or the ASO-2 dispensers. I think the KDS-155 should be reserved for the proper MiG-23MLA, but should it be added to the ML here, I think it would be best to allow a way to switch between the ASO-2 and KDS-155.
Regarding the missiles, I described it in my post on the R-13M, but the R-3S should be stock, on all pylons. The R-13M and R-60(K) should be the first modifications unlocked, ideally in one modification together, and then leaving room for the R-13M1 and R-60M(K), R-23s, and R-24s. Due to the Sapfir-23ML’s incompatibility with the R-24R, the aircraft cannot guide it. However, the R-24T could still be utilized by older radars as it did not need radar illumination to guide, and was supposedly designed to be backwards compatible.
One issue that would appear is that there would be no gap between the MF and ML, or ML and MLA (armament depending), which would leave one, the other, or both, with no real place.
There could be changes to fix this, like giving the MLA (and by proxy the MLD) the R-14 and R-24RM, as this could allow their BRs to be raised to “free up space” before them in the tree, thus keeping the MLA (MLD) as the “top-dog” of MiG-23s. However, these changes are outside the scope of this suggestion, and, importantly, do not pertain to the ML being suggested.
Post regarding the MiG-23MF:
Sources
Wikipedia - Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-23
Ru.Wikipedia - Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-23
Skytamer - Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-23ML
WeaponsandWarfare - Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-23ML
MikoyanMiG29 - Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-23ML
AcesFlyingHigh - Combat Jets of East Germany
SecretProjects - Sapfir-23
Ru.Wikipedia - R-23
Missilery - R-23
Missilery - R-24
SecretProjects - R-24 Guide PDFs
AereiMilitari - R-23
Ruslet - R-23/24
Edit - Clarification in conclusion, armament table removed (incorrect)
