Sgt.Squarehead Posted November 18, 2021 Share Posted November 18, 2021 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Requiem762 said: t 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 F-15E is in CM:SF1&2 (& CM:BS).....I'm guessing you mean CM:CW? The reason it isn't in that game is the one stated above. Since we're desperately trying to ignore the biggest issue of the MiG-23, Egypt, let's get it out there: "Most potential enemies of the USSR and its client states have had opportunities to evaluate the MiG-23's performance. In the summer of 1977, after a political realignment by the Egyptian government, Egypt provided a number of MiG-23MSs and MiG-23BNs to the United States; these were evaluated under a pair of exploitation programs codenamed HAVE PAD and HAVE BOXER respectively." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-23 I wonder who paid me to write that, eh? Edited November 18, 2021 by Sgt.Squarehead 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Requiem762 Posted November 18, 2021 Share Posted November 18, 2021 3 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said: The F-15E is in CM:SF1&2 (& CM:BS).....I'm guessing you mean CM:CW? The reason it isn't in that game is the one stated above. Since we're desperately trying to ignore the biggest issue of the MiG-23, Egypt, let's get it out there: "Most potential enemies of the USSR and its client states have had opportunities to evaluate the MiG-23's performance. In the summer of 1977, after a political realignment by the Egyptian government, Egypt provided a number of MiG-23MSs and MiG-23BNs to the United States; these were evaluated under a pair of exploitation programs codenamed HAVE PAD and HAVE BOXER respectively." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-23 I wonder who paid me to write that, eh? "Egypt became one of the first export customers when in 1974 bought eight MiG-23MS interceptors, eight MiG-23BN strikers and four MIG-23U trainers, concentrating them into a single regiment based at Mersa Matruh. By 1975 all Egyptian MiG-23s had been withdrawn from active duty and placed in storage due to the Egyptian foreign policy shifting towards the West and thus losing USSR support." 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted November 18, 2021 Share Posted November 18, 2021 Yes, I know.....They switched sides and gave their new MiGs to the Yanks. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbsapp Posted November 18, 2021 Share Posted November 18, 2021 (edited) Treacherous Morally bad Technologically outdated Infamous Mig-23\27 .... Sounds so sexy and badass. Edited November 18, 2021 by dbsapp 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted November 18, 2021 Share Posted November 18, 2021 (edited) 4 minutes ago, dbsapp said: Treacherous Morally bad Technologically outdated Infamous Mig-23\27 .... Sounds so sexy and badass. Shhhh.....Be careful or the Yanks will elect it! Edited November 18, 2021 by Sgt.Squarehead 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted November 18, 2021 Share Posted November 18, 2021 (edited) Interesting article with commentary from an American who has actually flown one, apparently he rather disagrees with the forum's 'arm-chair air-vice-marshals' on a number of points: In the four years that the MiG-23ML has been in his charge, Ward says he has not come across any pilot or maintainer that didn’t “absolutely just love this airplane.” In contrast to Western fighters of the same period, which mainly relied upon more efficient turbofans, the Soviets chose to retain a turbojet. However, Ward judges it was “probably one of the best turbojets ever made,” and “magnificently reliable.” https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/39824/this-myth-busting-walk-around-of-the-soviet-mig-23-flogger-fighter-is-a-must-watch Edited November 18, 2021 by Sgt.Squarehead 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burning_phoneix Posted November 18, 2021 Share Posted November 18, 2021 The MiG-23 was very impressive technically, having a lot of "firsts" for the Soviet aviation industry but really suffered from not really having a defined role and for stretching the technological limits of Soviet engineering past their limits. It's Engine was absolutely monstrous and the swept wings were neat but a lot of its technological advantages were quickly made obsolete by upgraded Western Fighters and the newer gen fighters. Plus that dude was flying the MiG-23ML, a much lighter and aerodynamically improved variant that saw limited service outside of the Soviet Union. Probably makes it more enjoyable to fly but doesn't help it much when an AIM-120 is bearing down on it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amedeo Posted November 21, 2021 Share Posted November 21, 2021 The grass is always greener on the other side of the... iron curtain! The USAF was impressed by the fact that its planes couldn't totally dominate the air space over North Vietnam and decided to adopt a pure (no compromises for air-to-ground) air superiority fighter, the F-15A, complemented by an agile smaller (no BVR, no full all-weather capabilities) plane, the F-16A, that would best in a dogfight even the nimble older MiGs. The Soviets, on the other hand, were impressed by the fast, heavily armed, sophisticated, multirole US planes (F-4, F-111...) and wanted something similar. The MiG-23 was the first fighter aircraft in the Frontal Aviation (FA, I'm not talking about the PVO) with BVR capabilities and with sensors that made it not totally dependent on GCI. The MiG-27 was the first strike plane in the FA to be armed with a sophisticated navigation-attack computer, smart ordnance, 30mm Gatling cannon etc. Did it work flawlessly? No. Although I suspect that, in case of a general air war over Central Europe, the Floggers, with all their faults, would not have been something to scorn, considering that many NATO fighters were at the time slower, with poorer all-weather capabilities and with no BVR capability to speak of. Not every bird is an... Eagle! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted November 21, 2021 Share Posted November 21, 2021 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Amedeo said: Not every bird is an... Eagle! Some are not even birds: Or by 1981: "Are you picking on our little brother?" Edited November 21, 2021 by Sgt.Squarehead 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zmoney Posted November 21, 2021 Share Posted November 21, 2021 On 11/17/2021 at 6:03 PM, Sgt.Squarehead said: p**s-poor Sidewinders. Funny you mention this, the USSR based their air to air missiles on stolen Sidewinder blueprints. In fact I believe those USSR version sidewinders is what was equip on the Cuban planes in Angola. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halmbarte Posted November 21, 2021 Share Posted November 21, 2021 1 hour ago, zmoney said: Funny you mention this, the USSR based their air to air missiles on stolen Sidewinder blueprints. In fact I believe those USSR version sidewinders is what was equip on the Cuban planes in Angola. They didn't need to steal the blueprints, the Soviet received an unexploded Sidewinder in a plane after a dogfight between China & Taiwan. H 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bagpipe Posted November 21, 2021 Share Posted November 21, 2021 I thought the DCS World and various flight sim forums I frequent were the place for jet wars but apparently I have found my new Mecca lol This is great 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted November 21, 2021 Share Posted November 21, 2021 (edited) 3 hours ago, zmoney said: Funny you mention this, the USSR based their air to air missiles on stolen Sidewinder blueprints. In fact I believe those USSR version sidewinders is what was equip on the Cuban planes in Angola. You are missing my point, the A-7 was a mud-mover so it tended not to be first in line for state of the art air to air missiles and the proposal was taking on a MiG.23, which has BVR capabilities.....In that scenario even an AIM-9X would be a **** poor weapon! PS - The MiG.31 had (& still has) the mother of all BVR capabilities, only the the F-14 could live with it and they tended not to come inland looking for trouble. Edited November 21, 2021 by Sgt.Squarehead 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.