Was MiG 23 ultimately a failure?

[Emp_Palpatine 501]

Guys,

What do you think about MiG-23 records? 

When they are compared to Fishbeds' ones, they aren't too shiny. The planes had even been discarded almost everywhere whereas Fishbeds are still around, albeit modernized ones. 

 

And operationnal records seem to be quite mediocre in Iran-Irak war or in South Africa, for instance.

What do you think? Is it a failed plane? Did Soviet Union missed the third generation step? 
 

[+Cliff7600 1,148]

Was the F-104 a failure?

 

; )

[+logan4 847]

It was designed as an interceptor not a dogfighter, russians knew it had a weak area in the dogfight and constantly improved it. Getting in a fight with an A or MF specially with an exported one, is different than one with the russian ML/MLD and its upgrades. GCI still had a large part of it's operational doctrine, and was to get in position and fire its BVR missiles. It was to counter the F4 not the F14/F15/F16 generation where most of its fight took it eventually.

It had some innovative solutions and some of those still without a par.

[+FLOGGER23 3,063]

Besides, it´s cheaper to mantain Fishbeds than Floggers, perhaps among the main reasons...

[MigBuster 2,884]

How would you define failure?

 

The Russians seem to have been quick to mothball them after the CW - but its combat record is defined by export countries with indifferent equipment, tactics and strategy.

 

It was probably adequate for a "3rd Gen". but in regards to how it flew - a pilot who flew the "Crocodile" and the later MiG-29 would suggest the 29 was on a different planet. US pilots that flew the MiG-23MS claim it was not forgiving to fly (although possibly didnt fly with stab augs on). 

 

The MLD was a lot better than the M/MP but still only F-4E type performance - expect they had no problem ditching them all for 29s.

 

In its intended Cold War role - there were lots of them and they were very fast - and could have been effective depending on tactics etc.

 

Does this include the ground attack MiG-23B/BN/BK as well?

[+Gepard 11,289]

The MiG-23 was a failure because the much better Ye-8 development was canceled in favor for the swing wing design. With the Ye-8 the soviets had had a fighter with a agility of the F-16 ten years before the F-16 development was started, but the strong believe was, that the time of dogfight was over and thatswhy outstanding dogfight capabilities would be not neccessary anymore.

 

Between the single MiG-23 versions are a lot of differences, while the M or MF was so agile like the F-4E, the ML was much more agile, especially, when the pilot used the "non existing" wing position of 30°. East german MiG-23 pilots wrote, that for dogfight this position was used instead the usual 45° or 16°. And at 30° the ML was astonishing fast trough a curve. The MLD with the aditionally dogtooth at the wingroot was again a bit more agile. But it was never a match for a F-16, F-18 or F-15 in close combat.

The combat manuals said, that close combat was to avoid by all means. Hit and run tactics was the only way to fight.

 

That the US pilots stated, that the MiG-23 was an unforgiving plane is partly correct. The MiG-23 was flown with constant autopilot support. This point the egyptians not told to the US when they sold some MiG-23, so the US pilots flew a long time without autopilot support and under this condition the MiG-23 is deadly for the own pilot.

On the other hand, the early autopilot was not reliable. Even with autopilot support it is tricky to fly, especially at very low altitudes. The LSK lost some MiG-23BN which had had the old autopilot sytem due failures of this system. With the autopilot of the MF or ML the failures were history and the plane was also handable by an average skilled pilot.

[Derk 265]

At least in the sim the MLD is quite effective. But as said in the posts above the whole Warpac philosophy was strict guidance under all circumstances, not much initiative by the pilots. Wonder how let's say  the MLD would have fared in the hands of  well trained western style pilots (or Israeli's for that matter) with Top Gun or Red Flag experience.......

Edited May 10, 2014 by Derk

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

Tom Cooper had an article from Air Enthuisast, 2002...

 

Early MiG-23M/MS Floggers in Action ~> http://www.acig.info/CMS/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=183&Itemid=1

 

In another article, actually I think on his acig forum, he stated the MiG-23 was five years too late.

 

The pilots who knew how to fight with it, did very well.

 

Kinda like the P-40 had a rather raw reputation in the Pacific, outside the Flying Tigers in China, who were taught by Chennault how to use the plane to beat Oscars. To paraquote Yeager, its the player, not the flight model.

[+ordway 23]

     The MIG-23's combat record is also an indication of how effective it was. Unfortunately, it will likely never be known.  The record is sharply disputed depending on whether you were from from the Soviet Bloc or the  American Bloc.  Reports exist of it gaining complete air superiority against the South African's Mirage F1s over Angola.(F1 fighter pilot Dick Lord).. Soviet Bloc people claim that although it got slaughtered against Israeli F-15s and F-16s in the Becca Valley, that it still got a few kills against the superior F-16's and F-15s.  However, no confirming wreckage was ever presented.

     When the MiG-23s were working,many had a working  IRST (infrared search and tracking system) that would let the MiG-23s engage without using radar to give themselves away. Apparently,  a standard Eastern Bloc joke went something like "the cheapest way to get a MiG-23 was to buy a plot of land and wait for one to crash on it."  At the very least, the MiG-23 was an effective fighter against the South Africans around 1986.

      An interesting comparison is with the MiG-25 which almost certainly shot down a US F-18 and disrupted some American air operations during the Iraqi Wars.. The MiG-23 could not claim this and so you could definitely make a case that the MiG-23 was not effective for the time it was operational.

[+Gepard 11,289]

 Although the early F-16 lacked the BVR missile capability of the Mig-23MF it still had a better radar and was faster and more maneuverable with better ECM capabilities and this enabled it to defeat the Mig-23MF over Lebanon in 82.

 

 

Ehm, not all points are correct.

The F-16A had had no built in ECM capability. You had to hang on an external jammer and this option was not used during Lebanon war in 1982.

The F-16A was not faster and could also not accelerate as fast as a MiG-23. This was tested by the Israelis with this syrian MiG-23ML.

 

 

It was astonishing for the Israelis, that the ML was able to outrun a F-16.

Edited May 11, 2014 by Gepard

[MigBuster 2,884]

Ehm, not all points are correct.

The F-16A had had no built in ECM capability. You had to hang on an external jammer and this option was not used during Lebanon war in 1982.

The F-16A was not faster and could also not accelerate as fast as a MiG-23. This was tested by the Israelis with this syrian MiG-23ML.

 

 

It was astonishing for the Israelis, that the ML was able to outrun a F-16.

 

 

I have seen no information from those tests to determine configuration, version or the speed range that was tested.

 

The US did publish in the 1978 HAVE PAD test program under 10,000ft msl from M0.95 to 730 KIAS the MiG-23MS acceleration was superior to all US jets flown against it - don't have a list of the US jets evaluated though. 

 

This likely wouldn't hold true for different speeds or altitudes - especially where the wing was unswept  - because of the relatively poor T/W ratio the acceleration would likely come from the aero properties with full wing sweep. In the tested regime its going supersonic where parasitic drag really kicks in and affects acceleration far more than in the subsonic regime.

 

 

Its still patchy what year (or if) Israel fitted internal ECM (such as Rapport III ) into F-16As.

At least in the sim the MLD is quite effective. But as said in the posts above the whole Warpac philosophy was strict guidance under all circumstances, not much initiative by the pilots. Wonder how let's say  the MLD would have fared in the hands of  well trained western style pilots (or Israeli's for that matter) with Top Gun or Red Flag experience.......

 

This GCI guidance dependence thing seems to apply mainly to the PVO as far as the USSR went - the VVS seem to have been a lot more flexible.

Edited May 11, 2014 by MigBuster

[Toryu 156]

 

The F-16A was not faster and could also not accelerate as fast as a MiG-23. This was tested by the Israelis with this syrian MiG-23ML.

.

.

.

 

It was astonishing for the Israelis, that the ML was able to outrun a F-16.

 

Highly unlikely, as anybody, who barely understands aircraft-performance will tell you, that a turbofan-powered airplane with a normal-shock air-intake will have a lower max Mach-number and supersonic acceleration, than a turbojet-powered / variable intake-geometry design aircraft.

 

Of course, max Mach-number is of little interest anyway.

 

 

With the Ye-8 the soviets had had a fighter with a agility of the F-16 ten years before the F-16 development was started

Got anything to back-up that claim? Highly unlikely, as neither the L/D-performance, nor the required T/W ratio (at Mach) was attainable at that time. Technology was not andvanced enough at this time.

"Equal agility" is more than just a coincidal match of two perforance-figures of two different airplanes at a specific speed/ altitude. 

 

 

Compared to other interceptor types overall yes, but it still was the first Mach 2 interceptor fighter and had a speed advantage over the F-101 and F-102 and any other interceptor of it's day. I'll always think of the F-104 as more of the cutting edge aircraft of it's day in terms of high performance and aerodynamics rather than combat capability.

 

So yes I'd say it was a failure as a combat aircraft when compared to other comparable types.

 

How was it a failure? Half of NATO bought it for air-superiority and interdiction. If carrying a nuke farther than anybody else (at similar cost) doesn't count as combat-capability, I don't know what else does. If you want to go to a conventional war with tons of conventional ordnance on your airframe, other airplanes were king, but that's not what the aircraft was designed for.

 

It was not designed as interceptor, but as air-superiority fighter and F-86 and F-100 successor. 

 

 

That the US pilots stated, that the MiG-23 was an unforgiving plane is partly correct. The MiG-23 was flown with constant autopilot support. This point the egyptians not told to the US when they sold some MiG-23, so the US pilots flew a long time without autopilot support and under this condition the MiG-23 is deadly for the own pilot.

The "autopilot" was probably a stability-augmentation system, which is in place on most fast jets to keep them from doing nasty things. No bad feelings for the MiG-23 there.

The aircraft was designed as interceptor - and if used correctly, it could be a serious opponent. Unfortunately, being used "correctly" meant it was employed in unflexible/ strict/ rigorous interception-tactics. 

Edited May 11, 2014 by Toryu

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

About that Ye-8 thing, Yefim indicates that the foreplanes added a couple gees turning ability at higher altitudes I think, need to re~read that. They fluffed the engine though.

 

Gep, Tor, any thoughts on the Chinese double delta MiG-21s ... uh...J-7E and G maybe. It helped the Su-15, and MiG did make an early MiG-21 with (more moderate) double delta to explore wingtip Atolls.

[Viggen 644]

*reads topic title*

 

Yes.

[Toryu 156]

The Floggers are too complex and have too little to offer on top of a modernized Fishbed for nations that operate on a budget. That's the main reason, why Fishbeds outlasted the Floggers. The chinese Fishbeds are basicly the same philosophy as were the early Fishbed-C models - with a multirole-capability and modern avionics.

 

The double-delta is favourable, as it decreases wing-loading and decreases lift-induced drag (both, by increasing aspect-ratio and by reducing vortex-lift and relying on leading-edge flaps* on the outboard wing-sections). 

 

Surely, the canards on the Ye-8 increased performance (as did the hotrodded engine), but the difference between a MiG-21 and an F-16 is a bit greater, than being easily overcome by attching a couple of foreplanes and a spiced-up engine.

 

___

* Leading-edge flaps are somewhat the successors of swing-wings - but LEFs are better overall.

[+Gepard 11,289]

According to Yefim Gordons book and other sources the Ye-8 had a curve radius which was nearly the half of the MiG-21PF. At high altitudes the 21 was able to turn with 2.5g the Ye-8 with 4.3g.

One of the main problems with tight turning a MiG-21 was not the design of the wings, but the air intake. Under certain circumstances (low speed turn for instance) the airflow was to small and i came to pompage and later zu engine stall. Without this problem the 21 would have been able to curve much better. The Ye-8 had a much bigger air intake, so it was able to use the full capacity of the wing.

 

Back to the 23. Operating the 23 is a complex thing. Its expensive in comparison to the 21. And there are the problems with the swing wing base. Cracks in this area are a common thing and this is dangerous.

 

 

Toryu, i will try to find the source of my statement of acceleration tests between the 23ML and F-16A. You must take in account, that the F-16 is designed as dogfighter. The air intake is not moveable, so the engine get problems at higher speed and cant give the full power. The 23 is designed as interceptor, for fast intercept missions without dogfight. Its optimized for it. So it has a very low drag, while the bubble canopy and the big air intake of the F-16 generates a bigger drag.

[thodouras95 25]

I guess it was. But I also think it was a necessary step for the Soviets to be able to gain experience with BVR-capable fighters.

[jeanba 1,920]

Some info on the Mig-23MLD performances :

http://backfiretu-22m.tripod.com/id16.html

 

I have somewhere the complete flight manual (in Russian) ...

[jeanba 1,920]

Link for the Mig-23 "practical aerodynamic" manual :

 

http://www.avsimrus.com/f/documents-16/practical-aerodynamics-of-mig-23-ml-and-the-mig-23-ub-25326.html?action=download&hl=

 

Add the Mig-25RB :

http://www.avsimrus.com/f/documents-16/practical-aerodynamics-of-aircraft-mig-25rb-20979.html?action=download&hl=

Edited June 2, 2014 by jeanba

[2skicomrade 34]

I'm sorry for dragging this thread back up, but this is a video of a mig-23 being.... manuverable?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSsiMUKaMxc

 

makes me wonder what the pilot could do in somthing more modern

[MigBuster 2,884]

It's nothing out of the ordinary - at certain slower speeds and with the wings extended it should be a lot better when it comes to turning compared to a higher wing sweep and speed - same as any variable geometry aircraft e.g. F-14 / 111 / Su-24.

[2skicomrade 34]

True... I've read stories how at high angles of attack, the airflow around the tail fin would be blocked by the Mig-23's high mounted wing.  This was made worse by the induced yaw from the tailerons, and vortexes coming off the wing leading edge "claws."  All of which made the flogger quiet prone to flat spins.  This was somewhat rectified with the SAU-23 flight control system, which automatically put the rudder opposite of the yaw caused by the tailerons when entering into turns.  Similar systems (together with twin tails and better aerodynamics) are implemented on other planes with tailerons (the Mig-29, F-15, etc).

 

The funny thing about those leading edge "claws," is that according to MiG's leading test pilot, Stepan Anastasovich Mikoyan, no one at the design bureau wanted to implement them on the design.  But the air force demanded that the plane give less(?!) warning to pilots when it was about to enter a stall.  Of all three wing designs tried on the MiG-23, apparently Stepan Mikoyan liked the first edition (as seen on the MiG-23S) best.  The evolution of the Flogger was truly a learning experience through trail and error for its designers.