like if there was a single 9.3 jet that can turn well
huh?
most of the time, rockets are carried in pylons where u can’t carry missiles, so u’re pretty much carrying missiles + rockets, idk what kind of plane u fly that u can’t carry all ur missiles if u use rockets.
i already explained that this isn’t true.
only bombs and ATGMs have Mach limits, rockets can be fired even at Mach 3.1 (max top speed ingame till now).
So they finally changed it… It certainly was the case for a long time. I distinctly remember struggling with it when grinding out my J35D. Which, incidentally, is a plane that can’t carry rockets without giving up an AIM-9J.
No idea what you’re trying to say here.
All I will say is that the flight performance hit on a lot of these planes it pretty substantial. Most of them are deltas (Or have delta-like handling, like the T-2/F-1), meaning they already struggle with speed bleed. Carrying a rocket pod means you sacrifice instantaneous pull (The one advantage these planes have), while also hurting acceleration. And you’re doing all of this to give them a counter to missiles they shouldn’t really be facing in the first place. You can easily counter rear aspect missiles with good flight performance and good positioning. You can even counter all aspect missiles, if they’re on slow aircraft. What is unreasonable is all aspect missiles on platforms that can just pick out a target and run them down.
I know it’s going to happen, because that’s precisely what I did when I played the MiG-21 Bis and got a rare full downtier. I’d beeline towards F-4Cs, Mirage IIICs, J35D, F-1s and just throw a missile at them for a free kill.
Eh same thing. Sorry I don’t have the game open 24/7
And thanks for roving my point by having no counter point.
R-23s are substantially worse than R-24s, which is a large reason for the sizable BR difference between the MiG-23M(F) and MLA/D.
The R-24R has 50% more overall delta V, combined with substantially lower drag and improved agility. Plus, the R-23R takes 5 full seconds after coming off the rail before it can start pulling as hard as it can, while the R-24R only requires 1 second. Also IOG.
These are not small, insignificant details. The R-24Rs are menaces that are arguably superior to even AIM-7Ps in close range engagements, while the R-23Rs are much closer to something like an AIM-7E.
I really didn’t think I had to explain that two related but distinct missile families have different performances, with the higher numbered one being better…
I think the poor performance of this plane is moreso a result of the compression at the 11.0 - 12.0 BR range. It doesn’t help it is essentially guarenteed to get dragged up to higher BRs (11.3, 11.7 and 12.0) due to these BRs featuring some of the most played premium aircraft in the entire game.
The kit it has access to is a mixed bag, and while fairly unique, can be kind of lacking sometimes. The R-23Ts are probably the better pick compared to the Rs, as they still have very potent range compared to other IR based AAMs of the BR.
The plane having access to R-60M does kind of hinder it in all fairness. And the M variant which entered production in 1972 having access to the R-60M first entering production in 1982 is bit of a question mark for me, considering the base R-60 was kind of designed for the MiG-23 in the first place. It would make more sense in my eyes to just remove it from the plane, but it’s BR placement is another question.
The 9.0 to 11.0 BR range is one of the most severely compressed in the entire game, as it generally marks the shift from sub-sonic to super-sonic aircraft. A question could be raised if such a powerful airframe like the MiG-23 should be able to face 9.7 aircraft, with missiles. It does demonstrate the incredible level of compression that an aircraft would be unfit for a lower BR while consistently facing matches it realistically can’t be expected to win.
I understand the sentiment, and would support this BR shift with the caveat of the R-60M being removed, but cannot do so because it would simply cause more issues than it would fix.
The real solution here is to finally uncompress the BR range between 9.0 and 12.0 — to give room for the aircraft at each respective BRs. Naturally that would mean addressing what is above 12.0 to create a new bracket for what is 12.0 currently, and etc.
That’s my take on this, I’ve played the MiG-23M a fair bit for some light DPRK larp, and I have it spaded. I had an okay experience, but I am not the average Air RB player who suffers from the lack of information Gaijin gives to players.
Bro just said aim 7P is arguably worse.
I’ve never heard so much blasphemy
Apart from R-73, R-27ER, and R-77-1s, most Russian AAMs aren’t all that great.
I specifically said “At close range”. Which is true. The R-24R has a more powerful initial motor burn than the AIM-7F and onwards, at the cost of no sustainer. This means it accelerates much faster off the rail, reducing the time you give your enemy to react.
It’s also manueverable enough so that you can’t just outroll it, which you can do consistently with any AIM-7 family missile.
In longer range BVR shots, the R-24R and R-27R fall behind the later Sparrows. But in close range, ~5km headon shots, they’re far superior.
I think the main problem is the lack of BVP-50-60 countermeasure equipment. For mig23m and mf ,their armament and flight performance are suitable for 11.0 br, however, the lack of countermeasures seriously harms their battle performance.It makes a problem that this plane is weak at 11.0 but may be overpowered at 10.7. In the real history, mig23m and mf never get the extra 60 countermeasures, so it is hard for gaijin to add them due to the balance issue.
