WI no mikoyan mig-23 flogger

Khanzeer

Banned
WI the Soviets did not field the fighter flogger versions in the 70s , have the improved fishbeds soldier on until 1985 when the fulcrum starts to enter service
In the VVS
For PVO the improved flagon F versions along with mig25pd / pds is produced in greater quantities

What effect will this have on the NATO WP airpower balance in the 70s and 80s
 

MatthewB

Banned
No MiG-23 I suppose leads to greater use of the Sukhoi Su-15. Perhaps the variable wing of the Su-17 bomber makes it onto an updated Su-15.

Has the MiG-23 ever shot down a western-made fighter? I’m not sure it would be missed or noticed by NATO. Soviet-era fighters in the hands of client states always seem like the Stormtroopers of their time, conspicuous and in plentiful supply but unable to hit anything.
 
Last edited:
Has the MiG-23 ever shot down a western-made fighter? I’m not sure it would be missed or noticed by NATO. Soviet-era fighters in the hands of client states always seem like the Stormtroopers of their time, conspicuous and in plentiful supply but unable to hit anything.
It did shoot down western fighters, in the Soviet-Afghan war against the occasional Iranian or Pakistani aircraft trespassing, and in the Iran-Iraq war and the Cuban intervention in Angola. It is claimed to have shot down Israeli A-4s and F-4s in Syrian service, but these claims are not supported by Israel or anyone else (and probably didn't happen since the Syrian military is one of the most incompetent in the world).

Soviet weapons happened to be used in combat mostly by Middle Eastern militaries (mainly Iraq, Syria, Egypt, and Libya) which were/are largely incompetent, and that's where that "stormtrooper" impression comes from. When used by North Vietnam, India, Cuba, and Egypt (the latter ironically only after throwing out Soviet advisors), they worked fairly well against their counterparts.
 

Khanzeer

Banned
It did shoot down western fighters, in the Soviet-Afghan war against the occasional Iranian or Pakistani aircraft trespassing, and in the Iran-Iraq war and the Cuban intervention in Angola. It is claimed to have shot down Israeli A-4s and F-4s in Syrian service, but these claims are not supported by Israel or anyone else (and probably didn't happen since the Syrian military is one of the most incompetent in the world).

Soviet weapons happened to be used in combat mostly by Middle Eastern militaries (mainly Iraq, Syria, Egypt, and Libya) which were/are largely incompetent, and that's where that "stormtrooper" impression comes from. When used by North Vietnam, India, Cuba, and Egypt (the latter ironically only after throwing out Soviet advisors), they worked fairly well against their counterparts.
Egypt used mig23 in action?
 

Khanzeer

Banned
No MiG-23 I suppose leads to greater use of the Sukhoi Su-15. Perhaps the variable wing of the Su-17 bomber makes it onto an updated Su-15.

Has the MiG-23 ever shot down a western-made fighter? I’m not sure it would be missed or noticed by NATO. Soviet-era fighters in the hands of client states always seem like the Stormtroopers of their time, conspicuous and in plentiful supply but unable to hit anything.
What kind of su15 ? Please elaborate

2100 flogger BG by 1982 , they will be noticed believe me
 

Khanzeer

Banned
No, I was referring to Soviet weapons in general in the second part of that post.
Sorry
In that case dont forget iraq their mig23/25 scored several kills in the iran iraq war

Infact the only airforces that routinely trounced the soviet migs were Israelis and USAF in the gulf and Libyan wars and here there was a great mismatch [ esp after 1973] in numbers technology and resources.
 
Last edited:
It did shoot down western fighters, in the Soviet-Afghan war against the occasional Iranian or Pakistani aircraft trespassing, and in the Iran-Iraq war and the Cuban intervention in Angola. It is claimed to have shot down Israeli A-4s and F-4s in Syrian service, but these claims are not supported by Israel or anyone else (and probably didn't happen since the Syrian military is one of the most incompetent in the world).
Which Iranian or Pakistani aircraft? There was one possible, which the VVS denied and the PAF attributed later to an own goal.
Otherwise, the PAF thought it was easy prey for Sidewinder equipped, GCI vectored F16A, even despite having BVR.
 
The Mig-21 had severe shortcomings in range, payload and radar capabilites. It also required proper airbases with long runways, like all the jets of it's generation. The soviets wanted something that could fix all of these problems, while also being afordable in numbers and having reasonable manouverability, as well as being able to operate from shorter, simpler runways. All of this meant the Mig-21 had to be replaced, and the Su-15 couldn't do the job. If the Mig-23 hadn't shown up, something else would.
 

Khanzeer

Banned
Which Iranian or Pakistani aircraft? There was one possible, which the VVS denied and the PAF attributed later to an own goal.
Otherwise, the PAF thought it was easy prey for Sidewinder equipped, GCI vectored F16A, even despite having BVR.
PAF thought ? Based on what ?
The MLD were equipped with BVR in that encounter? My understanding they were in strike configuration and without R24
 
The Mig-21 had severe shortcomings in range, payload and radar capabilites. It also required proper airbases with long runways, like all the jets of it's generation. The soviets wanted something that could fix all of these problems, while also being afordable in numbers and having reasonable manouverability, as well as being able to operate from shorter, simpler runways. All of this meant the Mig-21 had to be replaced, and the Su-15 couldn't do the job. If the Mig-23 hadn't shown up, something else would.

This. Even if our Mig-23 doesn't see the light of day, something else named the Mig-23 would.
 
Did the mig23 and mig29 not require proper runways ? Can they operate from improvised air strips?

If by "improvised" you mean non-paved, then no (afaik), but they do require far shorter runways than the earlier jets, and the -29 is prepared to use rougher pavement; note the air intakes rigged to avoid FOD.
 

MatthewB

Banned
The Mig-21 had severe shortcomings in range, payload and radar capabilites. It also required proper airbases with long runways, like all the jets of it's generation. The soviets wanted something that could fix all of these problems, while also being afordable in numbers and having reasonable manouverability, as well as being able to operate from shorter, simpler runways. All of this meant the Mig-21 had to be replaced, and the Su-15 couldn't do the job. If the Mig-23 hadn't shown up, something else would.
With no MiG-23 do they still have the MiG-27? If not, what has the Mikoyan-Gurevich company been doing since the MiG-21 of 1956? The MiG-25 program is nearly ten years away. They have failed attempts with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_Ye-150_family and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_I-75 but nothing else.

Is the MiG-25 program sufficent to float the company from the MiG-21's 1956 launch onwards, or has MiG closed down or been forced to merge with Sukhoi? We'll never see the MiG-29 without keeping the firm busy.
 
Last edited:
Two points. The first, are we eliminating the prototype Ye-231? If so, not only do you eliminate the MiG-23/-27, but also eliminate some of the groundwork of the Su-24. Interesting butterflies here.

The second point, as already stated, something else would arise. Either a further evolved MiG-21 as an interim type, or something else. One option would be an upgraded Su-15 (apparently offered, but declined). More interesting though was that in the early development of the -23, apparently MiG played with an up-scaled MiG-21 style tailed delta with lift jets (named MiG-23PD - check out the Wiki article on the -23). This would likely have been even worse in the manoeuvrability stakes than OTL MiG-23. In this scenario, I’d expect a more aggressive push towards the MiG-29.
 
PAF thought ? Based on what ?
The Flogger’s RADAR pictures on each jet in the formation was slightly different. The leader needed to reconcile all of them, before they could engage. While they were doing that, the F16A would manoeuvre into position and let Sidewinders loose. Also the Active homing would trigger the RWR on the F16 and Mirages , who would then evade. The Sidewinder shots gave zero warning.
The MLD were equipped with BVR in that encounter? My understanding they were in strike configuration and without R24
As I said, it’s unknown what the loss was caused by. The PAF initially said thank was due to enemy fire, but the VVS refuted it.
 
Top