At least the Warsaw pact and other communist allies were generally given the better available export variant of said equipment unlike other non communist allies being sold the so called monkey models
1 Like
Alright then, would you say its fair to lump Losses of the A-7 in with Losses of the F-8 crusader?
Afterall the A-7 is an attacker based off of the F-8 in design.
2 Likes
Still a MiG-23, could say the same about the F-4 since it’s an interceptor and bomber
but the name isnt MiG
Spoiler
so you are saying that this:
is the same as this:
and what about the Mig-27 then do we not need to count its loses because it isnt called Mig-23?
1 Like
A-7 and F-8 vs MiG-23 and MiG-23
It’s like counting whatever the Su-24’s record is with the MiG-23
1 Like
@quartas121 you should read through this first before speaking more about the mig-29 btw.
There is a reason why it was conceptionalized and why the Soviets barely used it - it was primarly intended for Export or for the Warsaw Pact
Clearly the same, just ignore the fact that they are completely different airframes that serve entirely different roles…
much like the A-7 and F-8
but they changed the number and the letter at the start
and not only the suffix
A7 is a F8 variant
MiG-23BN/MiG-27 is a MiG-23 variant
A7 is a CAS version of the F8
MiG-23BN is a CAS version of the MiG-23
well he is now going to ignore this because he cant say that he was wrong
Also I just wanna clarify - everything I said here is really only true for the MiG-29A
The MiG-29M 9.15 is a completly other case and actually intended to dominate and gain air superiority - unfortunatly never made it cause Soviet.exe crashed
4 Likes
The difference between the MiG-23 and 23BN/27 is much less drastic that the A-7 and F-8, the MiG’s are all supersonic while the A-7 is not and the F-8 is
this gotta be bait
so the completly different nose dosent count?
the reinforced airframe dosent count?
the extra bomb pylons dont count?
i never saw a Mig-23ML carry anything back there
Soviet.exe crash + wallet being empty for like 15 years does hurt a planes development
dont forget that its also much heavier
The F-16 was also a cheap heavily exported 4th gen and it has a 76-1 combat record while the MiG-29 is negative
F16A wasnt a good export plane - no
And you apparently arent able to read, as ive already explained that the 29A was never supposed to be good