WI no mikoyan mig-23 flogger

SsgtC

Banned
Could have blind bombed with them, just like Fighter Pilots did in WWII and Korea before all the fancy predicting targeting aids came into fashion.
but yes, it was done as a gag for a visiting General.
20120305030730-91b68c12-me.jpg

been posting these here for years.
IIRC, wasn't he a real stickler that his fighters were not to be used for ground missions?
 
IIRC, wasn't he a real stickler that his fighters were not to be used for ground missions?
While he was a Fighter pilot in WWII, and was shot down during a ground attack mission, he was one who really pushed for ADC to have a singular mission, stop Soviet Bombers.

So when F-102s in South Vietnam were being used to shoot at trucks with IR Falcon missiles, wasn't so happy about that use of an interceptor
 
Back to the OP, the obvious alternative to the OTL MiG-23 would have been the. MiG Ye-8. It could replace both the OTL 23 and the later versions of the 21.
 
IMO I'm not too keen on its (F-pole) characteristics in pure missile A/A combat turning combat for this aircraft, and much less with pure guns A/A engagement. Its engagement usage is properly as a gang-banger where it slashes through during a blow through attack and then escapes engagement via pure acceleration, combining a turn out with a climb as its Tumansky R-29 engine offers some zoom/boom advantage over its "western" contemporaries if it does not flameout on the poor pilot or blow up in reheat. The Mig 23 is very much a group effort bird. Slash in and down, from altitude, then volley missiles, and escape out and up using the afterburner. You dogfight with this bird especially against another plane with a better acceleration gamma and you are dead meat.

Explains why the Russians went with that dreadful cockpit look-out geometry, doesn't it? This is very much a GCI controlled ambush weapon system, perfectly in keeping with the Soviet air combat doctrine of the era. I regard it, using that doctrine, as an extremely dangerous air combat system. Cannot see its employment as intended without the supporting elements behind it.

It is a perfectly adequate ground attack platform as an ancillary. I do not see any other Russian bird in the Soviet fighter line exactly combining the two characteristics of employment as described. So what genuinely can replace it?
That is what the Soviet interceptors were designed for, although I consider the concept of short-range, high-altitude, ground-controlled intercept to be obsolete from surface-to-air missiles by the mid-1960's. If a radar station can track a target, guide a fast aircraft on a course to intercept it, and guide the aircraft to destroy it with missiles or cannons, then it can cut out the manned aircraft and guide a missile directly to the target. This is particularly the case with later ground-controlled intercept systems which directly controlled the aircraft's autopilot- at that point it's a manned SAM for all intents and purposes. I think the short-range high-altitude Soviet interceptors built after around 1965 were inferior to the SA-5 and a mistake to produce, and the F-106 was inferior to the CIM-10 Bomarc for its use as a GCI interceptor and also a mistake to produce.

But such SAMs couldn't replace long-range interceptors or interceptors equipped with look-down/shoot-down radars to hit targets out of range or line-of-sight of ground radars. The MiG-23 fit both of these roles, and so another manned aircraft has to fit in its place.
 
the F-106 was inferior to the CIM-10 Bomarc for its use as a GCI interceptor and also a mistake to produce.
But was long range and could do aerial refueling, unlike the Bomarc. And unlike Bomarc, it could go 'bang' more than once with IR&SARH missiles after the Genie

They other things it could do, was escort wandering Bears away from US and Canadian airspace when a shooting war wasn't going on, and gave ANG pilots something to fly for 20 years, doing the above job, after ADC was gutted after 1974
 
But was long range and could do aerial refueling, unlike the Bomarc. And unlike Bomarc, it could go 'bang' more than once with IR&SARH missiles after the Genie

They other things it could do, was escort wandering Bears away from US and Canadian airspace when a shooting war wasn't going on, and gave ANG pilots something to fly for 20 years, doing the above job, after ADC was gutted after 1974

The important thing the Russians realized, early, was that air space has to be patrolled by shoot-no-shoot decision-makers aloft. Robots and teleoperated systems are not very good at that kind of discrimination. We in the West, often scoff at Soviet era pilots, thinking they were just there to fly basic maneuvers as told to them by their ground controllers. Not so. Real Russian aerial tactics, such as the hammer and anvil, relied on ground controllers to big picture the situation and paint it for their pilots, but Russian flight leaders took that information and used it in the air to engage adversaries with the appropriate set piece, much as we did when we finally worked the kinks out of AWACs air battle direction. They also realized that once the situation developed, it was man/machine against man/machine. It is not too hard to see a lot of functional similarities in how the F-4 is handled and the Mig 23.

Just as we moved past the fighter wall, once we figured out the furball was inevitable, so the Russians evolved past it. Mig 29 and Sukhoi 27 can be seen as natural evolutions and extensions of Russian air combat practice and not as mere reactions to the Falcon and the Eagle. IOW, don't be blinkered by certain myths or assumptions. The Mig 23 is as part of a natural evolution of Russian jet powered air combat as the Phantom is to ours. Just a phase that anyone with good tech and good tactics passes through to the next phase beyond. That is why we call them aircraft generations. You cannot get away from a certain kind of "standardization" on how to employ technology because the way we humans are evolved, kind of dictates that our technology has to be user friendly.

So if a Sukhoi Flanker and a Boeing Eagle look similar, it is not because someone copied someone else, or the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Rafale would be cited as England copying France or the other away around, it is because in that generation, different tech trees paralleled the same "superficial looking" solutions.

We should be looking with great curiosity at the F-35 and its contemporaries. I'm seeing quite a split as various different national tech trees come up with curious functional airframe differences that are strikingly dissimilar.

Just saying; respect the effort and genius. Nobody who bends aluminum and produces a viable fighter platform system complete with supporting systems, and then trains a pilot well to use that entire system of systems is to be disrespected ever. I sure as hello will not.
 
But was long range and could do aerial refueling, unlike the Bomarc. And unlike Bomarc, it could go 'bang' more than once with IR&SARH missiles after the Genie
Actually its combat radius was no greater than the Bomarc, and aerial refueling and going 'bang' more than once are irrelevant for an aircraft under GCI (if it makes a second pass it's not much different than sending another missile).
The important thing the Russians realized, early, was that air space has to be patrolled by shoot-no-shoot decision-makers aloft. Robots and teleoperated systems are not very good at that kind of discrimination. We in the West, often scoff at Soviet era pilots, thinking they were just there to fly basic maneuvers as told to them by their ground controllers. Not so. Real Russian aerial tactics, such as the hammer and anvil, relied on ground controllers to big picture the situation and paint it for their pilots, but Russian flight leaders took that information and used it in the air to engage adversaries with the appropriate set piece, much as we did when we finally worked the kinks out of AWACs air battle direction. They also realized that once the situation developed, it was man/machine against man/machine. It is not too hard to see a lot of functional similarities in how the F-4 is handled and the Mig 23.
That isn't the case at all, at least for the short-range pure interceptor aircraft.
MiG-21 FISHBED in Action

As a basic rule, the Soviets considered Ground Controlled Intercept (GCI), especially in supersonic flight, essential to effective use of the MiG-21. The desired intercept method is an undetected approach to the rear hemisphere. The fighter is vectored at about a 20 degree angle from the rear of the target so that visual detection may take place through the glass on the side of the canopy. Then, the fighter approaches the target at a closing rate of about 50 to 100 knots. The pilot then gets a missile lock-on, turns on the range-only radar, and launches the missile at the appropriate range. According to the Soviets, if an intercept is attempted on counter headings, an engagement through visual detection is nearly impossible. If GCI is used, the controller will compute a lead distance (5 to 15 nautical miles) for the aircraft to start a turn which will roll the MiG-21 out on the tail of the target.

When attacking a maneuvering target, the Soviets first recommend use of the infrared (IR) missile. They train their crews to overlead the target, then reduce G loading to permissible launch parameters. To effectively perform this technique, the Soviets state that at least 1.5 nautical mile separation is required in order to launch the missile. If a missile attack cannot be accomplished, the cannon may be used. A normal pursuit curve is used when attacking a maneuvering target. The desired firing range is under 2,000 feet, but firing can be expected against the F-105 as far out as 3,300 feet.

At low altitudes, a missile attack is first attempted. However, the maximum missile launch range of one nautical mile is a handicap, especially against a maneuvering target. Cannonfire is accomplished using a normal pursuit curve starting from 1 nautical mile out to the side and about 5,000 feet above the target. A small positive lead is used during the first part of the pursuit curve in order to prevent getting below the target. Because of the speed limitations of the MiG-21 at low altitude, the destruction of clean [no external ordnance or fuel tanks] F-105 aircraft is difficult, if such aircraft resort to high speed afterburner flight.
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/mig-21-combat.htm
Both US and USSR GCI systems controlled the interceptors rigidly, later calculating their maneuvers during the actual attack to gain the proper position relative to the target, and eventually sending commands directly to the aircraft's autopilot so that the pilot had almost no role in flying the aircraft.
 
Actually its combat radius was no greater than the Bomarc, and aerial refueling and going 'bang' more than once are irrelevant for an aircraft under GCI (if it makes a second pass it's not much different than sending another missile).

Each Bomarc cost $1.2M in 1959. Falcon missiles carried by the F-106 were a lot cheaper, and are already close to a target
 
Actually its combat radius was no greater than the Bomarc, and aerial refueling and going 'bang' more than once are irrelevant for an aircraft under GCI (if it makes a second pass it's not much different than sending another missile).

That isn't the case at all, at least for the short-range pure interceptor aircraft.

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/mig-21-combat.htm
Both US and USSR GCI systems controlled the interceptors rigidly, later calculating their maneuvers during the actual attack to gain the proper position relative to the target, and eventually sending commands directly to the aircraft's autopilot so that the pilot had almost no role in flying the aircraft.

I kind of disagree with the above. I have RTL evidence in my refutation. The Russians were the PRVAF's tutors. I also give the PRVAF a lot of credit for their own "national" innovations when it came to Soviet air defense doctrine. I also have very little good or kind to say about McNamara or Rusk on the American side in the RTL example of the Mig 21 as employed.
 
Each Bomarc cost $1.2M in 1959. Falcon missiles carried by the F-106 were a lot cheaper, and are already close to a target
But the Bomarc or any other SAM did not require rotating crews to be kept ready and trained constantly, and required far less support infrastructure than any manned aircraft (even for the nitric acid-fueled Bomarc A, SA-2, or SA-5). That made up for its individually greater cost, and it could launch much faster than any manned aircraft could scramble.
 
But the Bomarc or any other SAM did not require rotating crews to be kept ready and trained constantly, and required far less support infrastructure than any manned aircraft (even for the nitric acid-fueled Bomarc A, SA-2, or SA-5). That made up for its individually greater cost, and it could launch much faster than any manned aircraft could scramble.

Sure. They can probably get to the target quicker, and aren't much less likely to kill it. The thing is, what if you don't want to kill it? Maybe you just want to escort it away, or find out why it's not responding to calls, while preserving the option of blowing it out of the sky if that turns out to be the best option.

If all you want to do is splash everything that seems the slightest bit unusual, then missiles seem pretty attractive. If you want options for how to respond, including but not limited to splashing things, manned aircraft still have a place.
 
The main reason for a manned vehicle was that once it got close enough, the onboard radar would be able to burn through any countermeasures that the target aircraft could generate due to the inverse-square rule.

You can spoof the ground stations, but up close you aren't going to be able to do the same to a manned interceptor with a powerful airborne radar.
 
You can spoof the ground stations, but up close you aren't going to be able to do the same to a manned interceptor with a powerful airborne radar.

One reason for the 'Genie' AAM nuclear rocket. No pesky electronics to go bad, nothing to be jammed, just let the Hughes MA-1 mark where to point the plane and when to lauinch for that Mach 3.3 tiny bucket of instant sunshine to arrive at the Bear or Bison at just the right time to ruin their day
 
One reason for the 'Genie' AAM nuclear rocket. No pesky electronics to go bad, nothing to be jammed, just let the Hughes MA-1 mark where to point the plane and when to lauinch for that Mach 3.3 tiny bucket of instant sunshine to arrive at the Bear or Bison at just the right time to ruin their day

What about the launch platform? 9.5 km from that little drop of golden sunshine. Oh goody... gamma rays!

The Canadians were not too happy with it either.

"We are thus not only the first country in the world with the capability to produce nuclear weapons that chose not to do so, we are also the first nuclear armed country to have chosen to divest itself of nuclear weapons."

Pierre Trudeau United Nations, 26 May 1978

Except that it appears that the CF-101s still carried it as part of their loadout until 1984...

McP
 
Sure. They can probably get to the target quicker, and aren't much less likely to kill it. The thing is, what if you don't want to kill it? Maybe you just want to escort it away, or find out why it's not responding to calls, while preserving the option of blowing it out of the sky if that turns out to be the best option.

If all you want to do is splash everything that seems the slightest bit unusual, then missiles seem pretty attractive. If you want options for how to respond, including but not limited to splashing things, manned aircraft still have a place.
The usual method for Soviet SAMs to ward off NATO aircraft was to gain a lock on them (they had trouble with this for the SR-71 many times). That would usually trigger warnings on the aircraft and they would leave.

The main reason for a manned vehicle was that once it got close enough, the onboard radar would be able to burn through any countermeasures that the target aircraft could generate due to the inverse-square rule.

You can spoof the ground stations, but up close you aren't going to be able to do the same to a manned interceptor with a powerful airborne radar.
The longer-range missiles usually had radars (or at least receivers) themselves, though, and spoofing the ground stations would prevent manned interceptors from knowing where to go to get close in the first place. It wouldn't make a difference.
 

SsgtC

Banned
The longer-range missiles usually had radars (or at least receivers) themselves, though, and spoofing the ground stations would prevent manned interceptors from knowing where to go to get close in the first place. It wouldn't make a difference.
That's not how radar jamming works. It doesn't mean there's no target, it means the target is obscured and you cannot get a lock. You still know the general area the target is in. Plus, jamming requires you to actively radiate yourself. You can trace the jamming signal back to the aircraft doing the jamming. Some AAMs even have a "home-on-jam" feature. Jamming is not some magic cloak of invisibility. The radar operator would still have enough of a return to vector an interceptor to the general vicinity of the target, allowing the airborne radar to burn through the jamming and get a lock
 
Missiles from the surface have problems in air defense, even with the most advanced tracking radars helping them.

1. They are easier to spoof than a human with eyes. SARH SAMS can use ground radars to burn through, but there is still the dodge and weave among ground clutter and passive measures to help Mister Bomber.
2. While it is a crappy platform for an IR detector, the plane can carry a bigger one than your average missile and that STIR can actually scan sky like a TV camera and look for hot airplane metal against cold air and cold ground.
3. Spoofing signals will still give you a bearing of the spoofer but no range/time angle solution. You have to look for the spoofer, along the bearing, so you need 1. and 2. and a good air tactician who can make an estimate based on the threat environment.
4. Looking down against a backdrop and guess what the human eyed pilot notices? ANY movement. As a species we are literally designed for it. He, the pilot, can chase against motion, not as well as a bird (hawk or owl are better), but he ain't no slouch when compared to mechanical systems.
 
Top