Infamous Mig-23/27

[ratdeath]

Someone asked why is the Mig-23/27 infamous on Steam (https://steamcommunity.com/app/1551160/discussions/0/3200365942088719523/).

From the overview page "The Soviets bring with them their service workhorses, the infamous Mig-23/27, ..."

I am a bit curious as well, what made it infamous?

[Redwolf]

Bad flight characteristics.

Just not a well developed airframe.

[The_Capt]

I saw that and despair a bit:

Bad here being a morale assessment, not an effectiveness one.  The Mig 23 and 27 are "evil" aircraft, not "bad" aircraft.  Why, well they bombed the hell out of Afgans for a start.

" As such they were only able to deploy unguided bombs and rockets against Afghan targets. Missions included bombing of supply convoys, night bombing of troop concentrations, scattering landmines with cluster munitions, and marking or illuminating targets for artillery with SAB-100 flare bombs."  from wiki.

[dbsapp]

10 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

I saw that and despair a bd here being a morale assessment, not an effectiveness one.  The Mig 23 and 27 are "evil" aircraft, not "bad" aircraft.  Why, well they bombed the hell out of Afgans for a start.

 

Does it mean that F-15 should be called "infamous" as well? 

"The US military has confirmed for the first time a 2019 airstrike in Syria that killed up to 80 people, mostly women and children.

It said the drone operators in Al-Udeid airbase were stunned when they saw the first 500lb bomb dropped by a US F-15E plane, and then a second, 2,000lb bomb dropped on the survivors".

And Apache helicopter is infamous as well?

 

 

[The_Capt]

11 minutes ago, dbsapp said:

Does it mean that F-15 should be called "infamous" as well?

Oh dear, well John should be by any minute now.  To keep it diplomatic, I will quote Obi Wan's "from a certain point of view".  Now let's keep it civil and above the belt but you are correct in no weapon of war is ever truly clean.  But in the timeframe of the game we wanted to give the Migs a level of bad-assery and looming menace.

Now if you want to honestly get into a conversation on the differences in Soviet ROEs in Afghanistan and US ROEs in Syria in 2019 I would suggest we take it offline.

[MikeyD]

Maybe the appropriate word should have been ubiquitous instead of infamous, due to the large numbers built. Unless they're claiming the MiG-23 was infamous for being so ubiquitous.

[ratdeath]

Well in fairness the Hind is famous

But I guess this sadly just leads down a rabbit hole of bad as most weapons are infamous as they are designed to cause destruction and/or death.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

MiG.23's biggest problem was Egypt. 

Hind is indeed incredibly famous.....If you type 'Hind' into Google images, you get lots of pictures of helicopters and very few of deer. 

 

[Megalon Jones]

I think the expectations for the Flogger were pretty high given how well the MiG 15/17/19/21 programs advanced VVS capabilities.

 The MiG 23 was supposed to stand shoulders above the Western Gen 3 fighters especially given it’s swept wing design and look down/shoot down Fox 2 capabilities.  It ended up kind of ‘meh.’

[MikeyD]

While we're snickering at MiG-23, lets remember in this timeframe US is still flying A-7 Corsair which makes MiG-23 look like Star Wars technology in comparison. 

[Bufo]

I found an article from the New York Times published in 1970 about the MIG-23 titled "Soviet's Swift New MIG‐23 Fighter Is Regarded as a Problem for NATO".

You can read it here: https://www.nytimes.com/1970/12/15/archives/soviets-swift-new-mig23-fighter-is-regarded-as-a-problem-for-nato.html

[Megalon Jones]

1 minute ago, MikeyD said:

While we're snickering at MiG-23, lets remember in this timeframe US is still flying A-7 Corsair which makes MiG-23 look like Star Wars technology in comparison. 

Not as a dedicated air superiority fighter.  If NATO were to use the Corsair as a fighter it would’ve meant that the war was lost.

The MiG 27 was actually a much better use of the airframe especially in airfield denial with cluster munitions.  

[Sgt.Squarehead]

16 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

While we're snickering at MiG-23, lets remember in this timeframe US is still flying A-7 Corsair which makes MiG-23 look like Star Wars technology in comparison. 

Nobody loves poor SLUF. 

Mind you, when you are named after this dude:

You have a lot to live up to. 

[Megalon Jones]

4 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Nobody loves poor SLUF. 

Mind you, when you are named after this dude:

You have a lot to live up to. 

That was my ride in IL2 1946.  Nothing could catch it in the PTO with the exception of the Ki 84.

[MikeyD]

I just looked it up, F-15 was introduced 1976 as an air superiority fighter. Its not in CMSF because the ground support E variant doesn't show up til 1988.

[IICptMillerII]

The Mig-23 was a notoriously poor performing aircraft, in any role it was put in. All of my money would be in on the A-7 Corsair. Which, by the way, was only operated by reserve units such as air national guard units by the time CMCW takes place. It also continued to be a workhorse with the Navy into the 80s, alongside the F-14 and the up and coming F-18. 

Edited November 18, 2021 by IICptMillerII

[Sgt.Squarehead]

1 hour ago, IICptMillerII said:

The Mig-23 was a notoriously poor performing aircraft, in any role it was put in.

Errr.....No! 

In the hands of Cuban pilots in Angola it made life utterly miserable for South Africa:

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/mig-23-vs-mirage-f-1-when-cuban-flown-angolan-floggers-clashed-with-south-african-mirages/

Edited November 18, 2021 by Sgt.Squarehead

[IICptMillerII]

7 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Errr.....No! 

In the hands of Cuban pilots in Angola it made life utterly miserable for South Africa:

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/mig-23-vs-mirage-f-1-when-cuban-flown-angolan-floggers-clashed-with-south-african-mirages/

1 example of marginal performance does not erase its generally poor combat record across the world in various conflicts. 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Yeah, about that.....See Egypt, as mentioned earlier. 

 

[IICptMillerII]

3 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Yeah, about that.....See Egypt, as mentioned earlier. 

 

Egypt didn't operate the Mig-23. They bought a few but they were essentially hangar queens as they spend most of their time in storage. 

Anyways, my main point was that the A-7 is far from being "outclassed" by the Mig-23, nor was the Mig-23 a technological wonder in any way. In fact, it was largely using tech that was behind the times when it was rolled out.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

37 minutes ago, IICptMillerII said:

Egypt didn't operate the Mig-23. They bought a few but they were essentially hangar queens as they spend most of their time in storage.

Where, exactly, did they spend their time in storage?

37 minutes ago, IICptMillerII said:

my main point was that the A-7 is far from being "outclassed" by the Mig-23

The A-7 is indeed completely & utterly outclassed, it wouldn't have a prayer in an engagement with a MiG-23.....It's a bomb truck with a radar designed for the air-to- ground role and p**s-poor Sidewinders.

You are just being silly making statements like that.....Is @semmes getting to you or something? 

Edited November 18, 2021 by Sgt.Squarehead

[Requiem762]

41 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Errr.....No! 

In the hands of Cuban pilots in Angola it made life utterly miserable for South Africa:

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/mig-23-vs-mirage-f-1-when-cuban-flown-angolan-floggers-clashed-with-south-african-mirages/

The Mig-23 has a kill loss ratio of 25/102 even without the context of every encounter, that is abysmal. Additionally the results of every encounter between Angola and the SAAF is contested by both participants. 

The combat statistics for all the aircraft currently in use | MiGFlug.com Blog

Your own source, aviation geek club, hosts multiple articles about the encounters between the mig23 that contradict each other, but the balance of information favors the South African accounts. Even if we take the Angolan and Cuban accounts at face value,  as Cpt Miller himself said marginal performance does not negate broad trends and the balance of pilot and crew accounts, in every other conflict the Mig-23 was involved in it suffered abysmal combat performance relative to contemporary's weather they be french, american, british, or even soviet aircraft. The Mig-23 was notorious for its high maintenance requirements due to the mechanical complexity of the landing gear and wing sweep systems, poor radar performance, utter lack of situational awareness (a problem all soviet aircraft share until the advent of  the Mig-29 and Su-27) Air crew often complained of stability issues relating to the need to operate the wing sweep manually. While the Mig-23 is a remarkable aircraft, it falls short of its contemporaries in almost all performance characteristics relevant to the era, had significant ergonomic and operational deficiencies that made its operational utility hard to justify.

 

Perhaps the most significant thing the Mig-23 Represents is the general decline and stagnation of the soviet military industrial complex, and the State. the Mig23 and  the technology that underpinned it  are fundamentally backwards look and represent the beginning of the mid-70s technological Gap  that the soviet union was never able to close. The Mig-23 is representative of design trends that were regarded as obscelenant and had already been abandoned in the west. The mig-23 would have been a serviceable aircraft had it entered service  years earlier then it actually did, and by the time of the types actual entry into service, technology and counter tactics had been developed that rendered the threat posed by the mig-23 to be minimal. 

 

What Cuban paid you to make this post?

Edited November 18, 2021 by Requiem762

[Sgt.Squarehead]

4 minutes ago, Requiem762 said:

What Cuban paid you to make this post?

ROFL! 

It was all going so well, but you just couldn't help yourself, could you? 

[Requiem762]

2 hours ago, MikeyD said:

I just looked it up, F-15 was introduced 1976 as an air superiority fighter. Its not in CMSF because the ground support E variant doesn't show up til 1988.

so I'm not going to spend too much time on this one. However its not nessisarcily correct to characterize the E model as "the ground support variant" the Strike Eagle was designed for and is used primarily as a deep strike aircraft similar to the F-111 that the strike eagle would go on to replace. The Strike Eagle is best employed striking command and control, infrastructure, muster points, ammunition and supply sites, ports, airfields... you get the picture. the closest the strike eagle will generally get to the battlefield is interdicting enemy units behind the line before they are able to reach the front

 

it would be more accurate to say the reason that the E does not show up in CMSF is because battlefield support is not a role the strike eagle would undertake unless there is a broken arrow call and a strike eagle is in the area. The one exception to this rule is in the mid to late stages of Afghanistan where the Strike Eagle was valued for its high endurance enabled by the FAST packs extra fuel capacity as well as the the high speed of the strike eagle giving the aircraft the ability to respond to a CAS call rapidly. However this is a state of affairs that are only possible in a COIN environment, and in any other context employing the strike eagle in the battlefield support role is a inefficient use of resources. For these same reasons the strike eagle shouldn't be available in black sea either.

 

also how does this have any bearing on the mig-23/27?

 

Edit: just checked, the strike eagle IS in fact in shockforce 2.

 

 

Edited November 18, 2021 by Requiem762

[dbsapp]

31 minutes ago, Requiem762 said:

The Mig-23 has a kill loss ratio of 25/102 even without the context of every encounter, that is abysmal. Additionally the results of every encounter between Angola and the SAAF is contested by both participants. 

The combat statistics for all the aircraft currently in use | MiGFlug.com Blog

Your own source, aviation geek club, hosts multiple articles about the encounters between the mig23 that contradict each other, but the balance of information favors the South African accounts. Even if we take the Angolan and Cuban accounts at face value,  as Cpt Miller himself said marginal performance does not negate broad trends and the balance of pilot and crew accounts, in every other conflict the Mig-23 was involved in it suffered abysmal combat performance relative to contemporary's weather they be french, american, british, or even soviet aircraft. The Mig-23 was notorious for its high maintenance requirements due to the mechanical complexity of the landing gear and wing sweep systems, poor radar performance, utter lack of situational awareness (a problem all soviet aircraft share until the advent of  the Mig-29 and Su-27) Air crew often complained of stability issues relating to the need to operate the wing sweep manually. While the Mig-23 is a remarkable aircraft, it falls short of its contemporaries in almost all performance characteristics relevant to the era, had significant ergonomic and operational deficiencies that made its operational utility hard to justify.

 

Perhaps the most significant thing the Mig-23 Represents is the general decline and stagnation of the soviet military industrial complex, and the State. the Mig23 and  the technology that underpinned it  are fundamentally backwards look and represent the beginning of the mid-70s technological Gap  that the soviet union was never able to close. The Mig-23 is representative of design trends that were regarded as obscelenant and had already been abandoned in the west. The mig-23 would have been a serviceable aircraft had it entered service  years earlier then it actually did, and by the time of the types actual entry into service, technology and counter tactics had been developed that rendered the threat posed by the mig-23 to be minimal. 

 

What Cuban paid you to make this post?

And on top of that - it is sinful morally bad aircraft