Best post-MiG 21 single engined Soviet/Russian fighter or bomber?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

That would be a very good start. Being civil and friendly in dicussions like this is a strenght. Not a weakness.
Thump is a keen debater and you are passionate. The public however is just wanting to read what facts you bring on the table. I like discussion. Do carry on.
 
Texnuk said:
Rewriting history again... The MiG-23 of the MLD modification could not conduct and win an air battle with the new MiG-29. Even with young pilots. The characteristics of these aircraft are very different. The MiG-29 was created as a fighter to gain air superiority. And that says it all. Yes, they fought training battles, but that's all. Tactics and techniques of conducting maneuverable combat were developed. Away from prying eyes...
the MiG-23 was created as a front-line fighter. The MiG-27 was created as a fighter-bomber. The prototype of the MiG-27 was the upgraded MiG-23BM. The differences of the new aircraft consisted in the new R-29B-300 engine and the PrNK-23 sighting and navigation system. A Type 3 wing with a new sweep change mechanism was installed on the MiG-23BM, the chassis was strengthened due to an increase in the mass of the combat load to 4 thousand kg. The composition of the armament also changed - a 30–mm six-barreled gun GSH-6-30A and new airborne radar equipment appeared.
At the beginning of 1975, under the designation MiG-27, the car was released into the series. A ventral keel was installed on all MiG-27s to eliminate stability problems, which was retracted when the landing gear was released. The flattened nose of the fuselage was characteristic, because of it the aircraft received the nickname "Platypus" or "Crocodile". In this compartment of the bow there was a laser rangefinder-target designator "Background".
On the attack aircraft, the ejection seat was placed slightly higher than on the MiG-23 and the slope of the windshield was made more gentle, which provided a better front view. Armor plates were laid along the sides of the cockpit, protecting the pilot from small-caliber weapons. The MiG-27 had several modifications. The variant with the Kaira laser rangefinder, which has a computer, was designated as the MiG-27K and was released into series in 1975. The MiG-27M is a vehicle similar in TTD to the MiG–27K, but more budget-friendly and reliable. However, in combat use, it was inferior to the 27K variant. View attachment 780706
Click to expand...
you are very wrong - i've personally witnessed mockup combat of such kind and i can you assure that MiG23 had specific qualities which may makes it dangerous opponent to the '29th. Its acceleration was significantly superior vs 29th, it had no clearly visible smoke trail behind like 29th has, Gsh 23 had higher fire rate, biggest advantage of MIG29 th over 23 in BFM condition is KOLS system (helmet mounted sight) and R73 missiles, in BVR condition MiG 23 will be easy prey unless its pilot will make series of serious mistakes..
 
J J_P_C Well, let's figure it out. I see you're a bit into the subject...)
1. What kind of combat are we talking about? As we know, there is ranged combat, medium-range combat and melee, which turns into maneuverable melee. My opponent, who hates Russia, just because she is Russia, did not even mention what kind of fight we are talking about. His argument, in the form of a link to an article by 3 authors, aviation specialists, is just a reference to tactics smeared on the wall... And why doesn't he give the previous paragraph in this article? His argument is taken out of context. He knows this and does not bring it, for some reason… And this paragraph reveals the whole essence of the dispute.
2. As you know, in Russian aviation there are such concepts as ZPS, PPS and capture on the background of the earth. For those who are not familiar with these terms, we will decipher them. The ZPS is the rear hemisphere. This is how the capture takes place, with the help of an RLPC (radar sighting system) when the target is in front. This is the best angle for launching missiles. The PPP is the front hemisphere. There is a seizure on the opposite courses. And capture against the background of the earth. The most problematic part of the capture. Because of the terrain where the battle is being fought, where you can reset the grip for a while and leave (if you're lucky). So in this paragraph, which is not given, the whole essence of the issue is revealed.
3. So in what battle does the MiG-23 have a chance of winning? It is small, but there is… Ranged combat is a loss. The average one too... But in close combat, when the enemy is searching against the background of the earth, and the Mig uses it, the Mig has a chance. But this problem of the RLPC on 29 was solved a year later. That's why this center was created in Marakh...)
4. But close combat, turning into maneuverable, is a complete loss. As we say, a mouthful of earth... and a КОLS won't help here. This was tested on complex 23-93. The tests did not yield anything. They wanted to revive it, but it would have done nothing. They were clinging to a straw…
Some historians (supposedly aviation historians) cannot read between the lines. Especially about foreign aviation and a country alien to them. That's why I wrote about rewriting history.
The MiG-29 is a front–line fighter. The task is to cover the front line of defense. That was the task from the customer. Yes, and if he hadn't been promoted very much at that time, he would never have seen the sky. It is called an aerobatic airplane.
You are a Slav, and you probably understand the Cyrillic alphabet and will read it. And I'll translate it for everyone.
1717087107048.jpeg

...Thrust-to-weight ratio, high maneuverability. When it was possible to perform an air battle, for example, with a pair of old MiG-23 fighters against one MiG-29, while on the "23rd" full afterburner, limit modes everywhere, and the MiG-29 easily maneuvers and evades pursuit, repeatedly entering the tail of these aircraft. I didn't realize this until I switched to the MiG-29 myself.

Mikhail Belyaev
senior test pilot of the MiG Corporation, Hero of Russia


By the way, the topic is not about that...)
 
I will not write or argue on this topic anymore. Especially with those who say that there was no Mig-27, but there was and was called the MiG-23BN.
 
I'm sorry, this is the paragraph that my opponent left out. And he concluded that the MiG-23 could always win the battle.

The situation in the Lebanese sky was greatly complicated by the fact that the enemy controlled the dominant mountain ranges, which limited the range of view of Syrian radars at altitudes below 3,000 m, and effectively used various types of interference, making it difficult for the radar to scout targets, thereby hiding the combat formations of its aircraft. The most "weighty" argument of the apologists of long-range battles was the fact that during the fighting, the Syrian pilots only once (June 10) observed the F-15 visually engaging in maneuverable combat, while the lighter (and cheaper) F-16, which did not have the Sparrow missile system, constantly "my eyes were sore."

However, simulations of the Lebanese episodes and conducted by the aviation group of the 1521st LTU airbase showed that there are no hopeless situations in the air, and it is too early to bury a close maneuver battle. An analysis of possible evasion techniques from launched medium-range missiles showed that the evasion maneuver by itself (without a clearly defined subsequent goal, in addition to getting out from under attack) does not make much sense, since, after the capture is disrupted, the enemy will almost certainly try to restore it and launch from a significantly shorter distance. For this reason, a maneuver designed to evade medium-range guided missiles will only be effective when the fighter hit is withdrawn not only from attack, but at the same time disappears from the enemy's information field. In this case, along with the failure of the capture, the RLPC loses its target in the review mode, which puts the enemy pilot in a difficult position. In addition, when building such an anti-missile maneuver, it is necessary to strive to reduce the distance to the enemy, which will allow you to quickly launch a counterattack from a shorter distance. The latter is especially valuable, since after a vigorous turn, even with a loss of altitude, the instantaneous speed of a fighter coming out from under attack is unlikely to increase significantly, and most likely even decrease, which most naturally worsens the starting conditions for missiles prepared for launch. In addition, it is almost certain that you will have to shoot from the bottom up, since you can effectively hide from the view of the enemy aircraft's radar only against the background of the ground and behind natural obstacles (hills, mountains, gorges).

Looking ahead a little, it should be noted that the viability of such tactics was confirmed later, when units of the Soviet front-line fighter aircraft began to receive 4th generation aircraft. To a large extent, thanks to the possession of such skills, the Maryians who flew on the MiG-23MLD repeatedly successfully "beat" the tested regiments fighting on the much more advanced MiG-29 (!), although the outcome of the fights between these machines at first glance was predetermined...
 
J_P_C said:
MiG23 had specific qualities which may makes it dangerous opponent to the '29th
Click to expand...
The MiG-23MLD was a fairly well perfected aircraft, whereas the early MiG-29s still suffered from various defects. Thus, the H019 radar on the first series of MiG-29s had a shorter detection radius than the Sapphire-23 on the MiG-23MLD. The maneuvering characteristics were rather comparable. At the beginning of MiG-29 deployment, pilots were trained according to old patterns, so they were not able to use all the capabilities of the aircraft, whereas pilots of the 2nd Aviation Squadron in Mary on MLDs were probably the most experienced pilots in the USSR. And in maneuverable close air combat at low and medium altitudes they usually won.
This opinion can be found in the publications of various contemporary Russian aviation historians (e.g., Sergei Moroz) or in the memoirs of test pilots (e.g., Boris Orlov). Unfortunately, as it follows from this discussion, some participants ignore serious sources citing only advertising slogans instead. If someone enters a discussion about MiG-23 without knowing the differences between BN and BM versions, it is hardly worth taking his opinion seriously.

PS. I hope now the reasons for my harsh reaction to the postings of one of the participants are clearer. In each post he either allows distortions of his opponent's words or blatantly lies, not being able to understand the text even in his native language.
 
Last edited:
I'm liking it. It's kind of like an impassioned debate between the Buffalo and Dewoitine D.520.
 
GrauGeist said:
Insisting that the MiG-27 didn't exist is actually quite funny.

Often times, when an airframe is extensively reworked, it becomes reclassified with a new designation.

Even the USAF did it with types like the B-29 which became B-50 and several experimental variants of the P-40, which itself was originally a P-36.
Click to expand...

And the Su-27 has spawned how many subvariants with their own designations? MiG did it with the -25 followed by the -31, too.
 
Thumpalumpacus said:
MiG did it with the -25 followed by the -31, too.
Click to expand...
The MiG-31 is not a modification of the MiG-25, despite the identical layout with the MiG-25, and was even initially called the MiG-25MP. The MiG-31 differs significantly in airframe design, aerodynamics, and is equipped with totally different engines (turbofans) compared to the MiG-25. In fact, it was a "flying S-300".
Some MiG-23MLD pilots believed that it was already a new airplane, not a modification of previous versions.
But the most striking example is the Tu-22 and Tu-22M, which have practically nothing in common, but Tupolev needed to convince the military that it takes only about the offering a modification of an already mastered aircraft, otherwise the competition for the "carrier killer" would be won in 1962 by Sukhoi.
The Soviet designation system often reflected the ambitions of leading personalities in the aircraft industry or the desire of aircraft plant directors to get additional bonuses for the enterprise.
 
J_P_C said:
Similar way MiG27 helped West to defeat Empire of Evil by useless aloction of resources...
Click to expand...
I'm afraid you have no idea how close to the truth your assumption is. But we should talk about the entire MiG-23 program. And then about the MiG-29 program, which should be cancelled, because the Su-27 undoubtedly won the competition. The MiG-29 with its very short range was a "fighter to gain air superiority over the approach NDB of its own airfield" (that's how it was characterized by some of the Soviet aviation specialists themselves when the decision on serial production was made). But the Soviet political leadership and military-industrial complex made dumb decisions on a regular basis - for example, the simultaneous production of FOUR different main battle tanks. And then they hysterically cried that it was Gorbachev who led the USSR to collapse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
Best straight wing jet fighter?
2
Replies
21
Views
884
MIflyer
M
B
A very simple test of knowledge of the post-war Soviet Air Force
Replies
14
Views
1K
PStickney
P
Dronescapes
Convair NX-2 Camal, The Story Of The Secret Post WW2 Atomic Powered Bomber Plane
Replies
1
Views
541
SaparotRob
SaparotRob
Lucky13
Death Of An Interceptor: MiG-21's Ambush F-102 Delta Daggers, Laos, 1968....
Replies
0
Views
410
Lucky13
Lucky13
A
Best plan for Argentina in Falklands War
Replies
9
Views
667
EwenS
E
Back