Smh smh like a better seeker can enhance a missiles agilty so on smh smh
would be it, like R-40R and R-40RD
Then it would be mentioned anywhere.
nah the R-24Ms better seeker allows it to bend time and space to make the target unable to move out of the intercept path
I found a photo of what appears to be an R-24M!! A real one!! MiG-23P, 393rd Guard Fighter Air Regiment PVOs at Privolzhskiy, Astrakhan, 1988. You can clearly see the fins tapering differently compared to a normal R-24R, matching that drawings that show the M having different fins from the R
So, I guess those drawings of it are actually real, unless this photo is fake. Either way, it’s cool to actually see an R-24M
5 Likes
Damn. What a nice finding. Didnt expect that at all today morning.
But just to be double sure…cant we somehow double check that fin angle so to be sure its not visually by perspective? Lately, I can’t believe my eyes. :D
1 Like
This photo seems to be from a gallery, some PVO Strany airman taking photos around Astrakhan Air Base one fine January day in 1988. Conveniently, comrade photographer did indeed take multiple angles of MiG-23P No. 23:
(Look how obvious the tapered fins are! It matches the drawings!!!)
And while I’m here, the rest of comrade photographer’s gallery:
Astrakhan Airfield, Russian SFSR, USSR, January 1988. I wonder if I’m the first person to notice those missiles are R-24Ms? Maybe I’m the first since the people in these photos. Ain’t history fun?
5 Likes
I was trying to measure it in Paint by protractor on both pictures and it really looks like 94° (expected fin angle of R-24M) instead of 91° (fin angle of R-24R). I always measured the opposite fins to establish a reference plane from which I could take measurements. But its not very accurate mainly in those small differences.
1 Like
Someone on a discord server I’m in shared this, it seems like the R-24M was exported - which would mean it’s fair game for the German Flogger too. It’s a much better side-on look, lining up the angles it seems like R-24R is 91° and R-24M is about 112-113° on the schematics and on the real thing
1 Like
Damn. What a finding. Now its 100% confirmed. Looks like I little bit messed angles before as I was probably in hurry, tired or combination of both :D
So question is how big change in aerodynamics of missile it made.
1 Like
probably not that much since those fins arent used as control surfaces
i could see those fins being changed due to some specific issue at certain speeds/altitude/aoa
2 Likes
I would say 95 degrees for basic R-24R and for R-24M 115 degrees from scheme after I measured it again and now correctly :D
1 Like
I agree, I don’t see this having much of an impact, but obviously it’s something. The R-23 had completely flat fins and then the R-24 added an extra 5° and went from 20 to 24G? This one went from 95° to 115°, so it could be something- but the R-24 was also a complete redesign of the R-23, new rocket motor and I think control surfaces, so probably at least a G or two
+different seeker cone, more powerful engine and probably also different weight distribution compared to R-23
1 Like
no those surfaces wouldnt increase g-pull since those fins are only lift generators
the fin aoa of the fins at the back are what dictades the g-pull
True yeah, though they wouldn’t have changed the fins if they didn’t do anything.
“The upgraded R-24 (R-24M) missile has a significantly higher efficiency. For the first time, R-24M was provided with firing at hovering helicopters and selective targeting of a target flying in a dense group. The possibility of hitting maneuvering and low-altitude targets has increased, as well as protection from combined [and] interference.”
Idk that much about rocket science, but I would guess that the fins would allow it to pull tighter AoA more efficiently even if the angle deflection angle hasn’t changed. Something something less surface area different aerodynamic profile. Could be wrong though.
this sounds more like the seeker being able to filter out ground clutter better
that would also be in line with it being better at hitting helis
since the 24r already has more than enough pull to hit maneuvering targets
1 Like
I’d rather see this missile added to a higher BR MiG-23 such as the MLDG
1 Like
Yeah MLDG would be great and would fill gap which is on BR 12.0 in Soviet TT.
1 Like
Earlier this year I went into a deep dive of Soviet vehicles and assembled a massive mockup of an “expanded” USSR tree, if it were up to me-
(Premiums):
-
going from the first series production version all the way to the penultimate version (the “D” in MLD stands for “Доработанный”, [Dorabotanniyy] - “refined”, “revised”, “perfected”) is a bit weird especially given how differently they play to each other, so let’s add some space there
-
Since the first-generation Floggers are going down to 10.7 (oh boy, how fortunate am I to be so close to unlocking the Hungarian MF), split them into “early” and “late”
-
MiG-23P: NATO name “Flogger-L”, this was an air defence interceptor variant based on the ML airframe. Same engine and flight model, but it has its own custom avionics and radar based on Sapfir-23ML and incorporating a lot of components from the MLA, which entered service around the same time. Pure air-to-air loadout, access to R-3S, R-13M1, R-60/R-60M, R-23R/T, R-24R/T/M; essentially MiG-23ML but no BVP-50-60 countermeasure dispensers (only under fuselage or underwing KDS-23, so a total of 36 countermeasures only) - and a better radar more optimised for low-altitude and countermeasure/ECM resistance. Would be cool for 11.3 or 11.7
-
MiG-23MLA: same as the current German one but in the USSR tree. The avionics need to be buffed. No R-73s, but yes R-24M.
-
MiG-23MLD: buff the radar/IRST, give it R-73s and R-24Ms, add the wing hardpoints for drop tanks/KDS-23, fix the flight model. Only ever tested with HMS, but the “Metka” system that acted as a pseudo-HMS would be cool - if it got all those things (and the “quasi-scan mode” not-technically-TWS-but-effectively-is) I wouldn’t mind it being put up to 12.0.
-
MiG-23MLDG (23-57): the radar jammer is effective against PD, CW, and occasionally PESA. Would also be effective against ARH missiles with non-AESA radars. Should have the same weapons as the MLD but with a better radar. Would be a good fit at 12.0 or 12.3.
(“MiG-25PDSL” is a test version of MiG-25PDS that has the same radar jammer pod as the electronic warfare Floggers. Other than that it’s basically the same as MiG-25PD.)
-
MiG-23-98-1: MiG-29SMT crammed into an MLD airframe. MLD airframe and engine, SMT avionics and weapons. Everyone knows this one. Would be nice for 13.0 or 13.3 now that the MiG-29SMT itself is being put up to 13.7.
-
MiG-23MLG: Production Code 23-37, this one is the predecessor to the MLDG recommended for the USSR air forces and doesn’t have HMS or R-24Ms (it was from 1985, before the R-24M entered service). Would be an interesting 11.7 event/premium/battlepass or something.
-
MiG-23MLAE No. 144: Production Code 23-22, aka an export version of the “MLD” (which aren’t actually MLDs). This one would be a neat event vehicle for 11.7 - this plane was famously a Libyan Flogger assembled from parts cannibalised by at least three other aircraft. “Frankenstein’s Flogger” is a pretty easy shoe-in for an event or battlepass vehicle.
-
MiG-23-98-3: I don’t know if this one was ever built, but it was an offer by Mikoyan to modify the Sapfir-23 radar to fire R-77s. Presumably the offer was for MiG-23s of Production 23-19 and 23-22, so. Yk. That’s a neat gimmick for 12.7 or something like that.
-
MiG-23S: pre-production series with different wings and MiG-21-tier avionics. iirc it didn’t have R-23s either, but it was stupidly fast. It would effectively be a slightly faster, slightly more agile starfighter. Would make a cool event or squadron vehicle, if not a TT one for 10.3 or something.
Although knowing gaijin they might go “R-73s? 13.0, immediately” given their track record with the MiG-29. Although heck, if they buff the flight model and avionics enough, it might just be able to hold its own at those tiers.
1 Like
I would give MiG-23S in TT as F-4C equivalent, MiG-25BM into bomber line before MiG-27M and MLDG in tier VIII before MiG-29. MiG-25PDSL is good located but dont forget MiG-31 in tier VIII before Su-27. For MiG-21-93 and MiG-23-98 idk if those too are good for TT. Like they should be as they are most advanced variants but little bit problematic to put them there. Maybe in folder together with MLDG. Also PDSL dont have SPO-15 available compared to PD?