MiG-23ML Analysis

[basher54321]

during this era i.e 1970-1990 can a mechanized army of a 2nd tier power [like india/pak, iran/iraq, south korea, turkey egypt libya etc ]survive against the airpower of a similar opponent[not talking about israelis, USAF?USN, frontline NATO etc] ? That is in the total absence of friendly airpower

Can the mechanized forces use optical AA, MANPADs , mobile SAM batteries to successfully defend against such an opponent and move mostly at night ? as most 2nd tier airforces in that era had poor night attack capability

Impossible to say given the scope this would entail. Would depend entirely on the type of training, support and equipment in use. A ground force can use night, terrain, weather and air defence in certain situations and poor use of airpower could aid the ground force combined with limited means to find them in this period.

When two ground forces are engaged then the side with airpower also has troops on the ground able to provide locations of the enemy force even with just radio. A concript army might even be stuck in trenches anyway.

[milosh]

Interesting stuff which could help to get more info about topic we started (east vs west) based on Soviet estimates from 1977, MiG-25P and S-200 are missing which probable show how secretive those were in that time. Now Firefox novel have lot more sense it is from 1977 and we see Soviets don't have MiG-25P in their tables

[nastle]

so combat potential of mig-23m is 4.0 and that of F-4E is 4.1 what does that mean ?
and JA-37 is only 3.8?
I always thought 3 x mig-23 = 1 x F-4E/JA-37

[ovod]

SAM Umbrella - the only one I know of that denied an air force almost completely was Egypt V Israel (1973). The IDF eventually got round that by rolling tanks over it.

during this era i.e 1970-1990 can a mechanized army of a 2nd tier power [like india/pak, iran/iraq, south korea, turkey egypt libya etc ]survive against the airpower of a similar opponent[not talking about israelis, USAF?USN, frontline NATO etc] ? That is in the total absence of friendly airpower

Can the mechanized forces use optical AA, MANPADs , mobile SAM batteries to successfully defend against such an opponent and move mostly at night ? as most 2nd tier airforces in that era had poor night attack capability

There were many examples in that time frame when air power was used against heavy ground based air defence (AAA and missiles). It all depends on how much air power you are willing to lose and can afford to lose. If you have a lot of stand-off weapons available for your aircraft such as Paveway and Maverick you may not lose a lot of aircraft at all.

[nastle]

during this era i.e 1970-1990 can a mechanized army of a 2nd tier power [like india/pak, iran/iraq, south korea, turkey egypt libya etc ]survive against the airpower of a similar opponent[not talking about israelis, USAF?USN, frontline NATO etc] ? That is in the total absence of friendly airpower

Can the mechanized forces use optical AA, MANPADs , mobile SAM batteries to successfully defend against such an opponent and move mostly at night ? as most 2nd tier airforces in that era had poor night attack capability

Impossible to say given the scope this would entail. Would depend entirely on the type of training, support and equipment in use. A ground force can use night, terrain, weather and air defence in certain situations and poor use of airpower could aid the ground force combined with limited means to find them in this period.

When two ground forces are engaged then the side with airpower also has troops on the ground able to provide locations of the enemy force even with just radio. A concript army might even be stuck in trenches anyway.

NIGHT
TERRAIN
WEATHER
AIR DEFENCE
I would add concealment too in addition to terrain as sometimes it may help, e.g if the terrain is plains and open bush /woodlands cover might not be easily available
Do you know of any concealment strategies that armies might employ in such a situation ?

[madrat]

There is an FM for every situation. You can look at old versions cleared for release.

[basher54321]

Compared Air Combat Performances analysis MiG-23ML vs F-4E Phantom II (Jean-Marie LANGERON)

http://www.checksix-fr.com/compared-air ... ar-topolo/

[hornetfinn]

Stumbled on this very interesting video about MiG-21 and MiG-23 (two-seat UB-models of both):


A LOT of really interesting info and videos about both of those aircraft and also Soviet way of doing things. It's interesting that he says that MiG-23 goes to supersonic unlike anything he has flown and he has thousand hours in F-22... Of course MiG-23 was quite underwhelming otherwise but straight line performance was definitely really something... It also sounds like it had some really nasty habits for the pilot who didn't pay attention.

[mixelflick]

Milosh, how do you figure those Iraqi Mig-29 pilots were "green"? If anything, it was the US pilots that were green, having little to no combat experience. The Iraqi's OTOH, were coming off a decade long war with Iran. I've seen at least one documentary of ODS dogfights that maintained the Iraqi's took their best pilots out of their Mirage F.1's and put them in their Mig-29's. Even if they weren't their "best" pilots, I don't see how you consider them "green"?

Admittedly, they didn't put up the kind of fight Foxbats did. From the opening night of the war where they killed an F/A-18 to tangling with Eagles and setting that trap for them later in the war, sounds like they put up a hell of a fight. The Mig-29 "dogfights" didn't appear to feature much maneuvering, with the exception of that Iraqi who tried a split S at low altitude.

The Mig-23? Awful showing in that war IMO. Didn't have the radar to get first look, didn't have the missiles to take the first shot. The rapid destruction of that 3 man formation where they decided to head butt 3 big Sparrow's was... almost predictable.

It apparently is a speed demon in acceleration, but just look at the planform especially when clean. Looks to me like a dart, with a hell of a powerful engine... No surprise IMO.

[milosh]

Milosh, how do you figure those Iraqi Mig-29 pilots were "green"? If anything, it was the US pilots that were green, having little to no combat experience. The Iraqi's OTOH, were coming off a decade long war with Iran. I've seen at least one documentary of ODS dogfights that maintained the Iraqi's took their best pilots out of their Mirage F.1's and put them in their Mig-29's. Even if they weren't their "best" pilots, I don't see how you consider them "green"?

Green on MiG-29, first MiG-29s came to Iraq's AF couple years before 1991, I think in 1987 they received them, you can't compare them with USAF F-15 which was in service for more then decade.

And Iraq got in this case monkey version, Soviets didn't thrust them (because there was defections in past) so Iraq MiG-29 didn't had HMS nor did have R-73. R-73 and HMS was well guarded secret sauce, USAF was quite shocked when they saw dogfight results with German MiG-29, and that was in mid 1990s so until then USAF underestimated R-73 and HMS which mean Soviets did right thing selling HMS and R-73 to only trusty partners like Yugoslavia.

So Iraq's MiG-29 were armed with R-60 same missile which MiG-21 carry. It was latest variant very agile and probable with decent seeker for tech it is developed on, but it range was joke, so F-15 can pick off MiG-29 without any big problems even in close combat.

In BVR MiG-29 can't be compared with F-15, especially in that period.

Btw if Iraq got Su-27 which they also ordered (but it would be deliever only after 1991 but lets say they get them before), things could be different because of Su-27 ability to spam R-27 and bigger radar. But I doubt it would be huge difference because USAF did have noticeable numerical advantage. And Iraq's pilots would be green on Su-27 too and nope they wouldn't get HMS and R-73 with Su-27 either.

Only thing which could really make big problems to coalition is getting nice number of upgraded Foxbats and upgrade of domestic ones, that would be very interesting scenario. For example what if Iraq had around 100 operational MiG-25PDS? F-15 fleet would still have numerical advantage but we saw what token force of Foxbat were able to do and that wasn't PDS but P variant, which US got chance to study to the last bolt

In case of MiG-23, without Soviet like GCI, MiG-23 is quite useless.

[nastle]

Milosh, how do you figure those Iraqi Mig-29 pilots were "green"? If anything, it was the US pilots that were green, having little to no combat experience. The Iraqi's OTOH, were coming off a decade long war with Iran. I've seen at least one documentary of ODS dogfights that maintained the Iraqi's took their best pilots out of their Mirage F.1's and put them in their Mig-29's. Even if they weren't their "best" pilots, I don't see how you consider them "green"?

Green on MiG-29, first MiG-29s came to Iraq's AF couple years before 1991, I think in 1987 they received them, you can't compare them with USAF F-15 which was in service for more then decade.

And Iraq got in this case monkey version, Soviets didn't thrust them (because there was defections in past) so Iraq MiG-29 didn't had HMS nor did have R-73. R-73 and HMS was well guarded secret sauce, USAF was quite shocked when they saw dogfight results with German MiG-29, and that was in mid 1990s so until then USAF underestimated R-73 and HMS which mean Soviets did right thing selling HMS and R-73 to only trusty partners like Yugoslavia.

So Iraq's MiG-29 were armed with R-60 same missile which MiG-21 carry. It was latest variant very agile and probable with decent seeker for tech it is developed on, but it range was joke, so F-15 can pick off MiG-29 without any big problems even in close combat.

In BVR MiG-29 can't be compared with F-15, especially in that period.

Btw if Iraq got Su-27 which they also ordered (but it would be deliever only after 1991 but lets say they get them before), things could be different because of Su-27 ability to spam R-27 and bigger radar. But I doubt it would be huge difference because USAF did have noticeable numerical advantage. And Iraq's pilots would be green on Su-27 too and nope they wouldn't get HMS and R-73 with Su-27 either.

Only thing which could really make big problems to coalition is getting nice number of upgraded Foxbats and upgrade of domestic ones, that would be very interesting scenario. For example what if Iraq had around 100 operational MiG-25PDS? F-15 fleet would still have numerical advantage but we saw what token force of Foxbat were able to do and that wasn't PDS but P variant, which US got chance to study to the last bolt

In case of MiG-23, without Soviet like GCI, MiG-23 is quite useless.

mig29 9.12 and 9.13 are similar to JA37 viggen or F4E in terms of tech , why are we even comparing it to a Eagle ? they are not in the same class
su27 would have fared no better against USAF , look what happened to mirage f1
internet forums full of russian fanboys who try so desperately to compare 1 v 1 eagles with flankers , vipers v fulcrums etc
its all an excercise in futility , an archaic way to look at that the cold war
soviet tech was a generation behind US
iraq did get the export version PD/PDS not P
in the jan 19 battle the 2 foxbats shot down per iraqis were R versions [ not sure if they carried missiles surely none were fired]
while in battle of samura one Eagle was damaged when 2 foxbats engaged 2 eagles
american claims of stingers and patriots cannot be trusted [ as we found out later] so neither can we blindly believe their pilots

[madrat]

It is quite apparent from the known incidents that MiG-25 carrying R-40T were no joke. We have no idea what R-40R was like as they all looked to be duds. Honestly, we are lucky the Soviet bureacracy never exported MiG-25 like Russia sold Flankers, custom to each customer. Otherwise we may have seen custom MiG-25IQ complete with twin-racks for R-23T/R-77, 30MM gun pods, and big EFT on the Iraqi jets. That would have been a region-wide nightmare.