MiG-23MLDFirst of all please fix your grammar. It’s hard to understand your sentences and what you are trying to say because of the bad grammar…..
We’ll just agree to disagree on the losses thing. There is no way that 900 F-4’s were lost.
With that being said, you specifically said at one point that the U.S. alone lost around 700 F-4’s in Vietnam, and now you’re taking that back to mean that U.S., Israeli, and Iranian F-4 losses COMBINED are at that number.
If you’re going to make up numbers and claims, at least be consistent with them…..
Then you go back and say the MiG-23 should be judged better because it has had less losses than the F-4 in combat.
The F-4 has seen far more combat than the MiG-23. The F-4 was fighting in Vietnam before the MiG-23 even entered service in Russia. That would be about 8 YEARS of solid combat. Then you add in the Israeli combat experience from 1969 to 1982. Again, the MiG-23 didn’t really reach Middle Eastern nations until after the Yom Kippur War of 1973.
The Iran-Iraq War involved both airplanes of course, as well as the 1982 Lebanon conflict in which the MiG-23 was so badly mauled by F-16’s and F-15’s.
The Gulf War included both airplanes again, and then the F-4 saw sporadic combat over Iraq & Bosnia until 1996 when it was retired from U.S. service.
The MiG-23 was involved in a few skirmishes in Africa, but other than the Iran-Iraq & Persian Gulf Wars the Flogger has not seen nearly as much combat as the Phantom has.
Thus, one would logically conclude that the F-4 would have a larger number of losses throughout its service life. I know logic isn’t generally in your thought waves, but surely even you can understand this….
With all of this being said the issue here that you don’t seem to understand is just WHY exactly the MiG-23 is thought of as a loser and the F-4 is not.
In air combat, the MiG-23 has faired very poorly in an overall sense. It fared okay in the Iran-Iraq War, and then of course it performed horribly against the Israelis.
The F-4, while it did struggle in Vietnam before adequate tactics were used, ended up with a fairly good kill ratio and of course in Israeli hands it was even better.
During the Iran-Iraq war, the Iranians managed to make good use of the F-4’s air-to-air combat skills although of course it did have some losses as well.
Comparing overall MiG-23 losses (to all causes) and F-4 losses (to all causes) is like comparing apples & oranges. The F-4 has seen much more combat, and in the combat it has been involved in it was very heavily tasked in mission that did not only include fighter missions. These missions included everything from interdiction to CAS to SEAD to recce to just about anything else you can think of.
I’m asking you to use your brain and think logically about this. You’re comparing too different things and when I try to correct you, you simply change the subject to suit your forthcoming arguments….
My personal opinion of the MiG-23 is that it wasn’t as bad a fighter as its reputation would suggest. In many cases it was downgraded export variants doing most of the fighting, and they didn’t have the modern weapons of their counterparts flying F-16’s and F-15’s, both of which are newer designs than the MiG-23 anyways.
Poor training of Syrian pilots also didn’t help the situation against the Israelis who everyone knows are very well trained.
Poor equipment (i.e. downgraded export models) and poor pilots don’t make for a good chance to succeed against an opponent with better equipment & aircrews.
Is the MiG-23 as good as the F-15 or F-16? No.
Is it as good as the F-4? In many ways, I think that a properly equipped MiG-23 (such as the ones the Russians possessed) is a match for the F-4 with it being better in some areas than the Phantom and worse in some areas.
Which one has the better overall combat record?
(by this I don’t just mean kills & losses in air-to-air combat)The F-4. It has proven to be a much more versatile airplane that was reliable & adaptable. It has proven itself time and again in the various wars it has fought in.
It is not a competion between me and you because you call your self Phantom II and me MiG-23MLD, you have to see things as they really are, first kills are always based upon who is telling the story.
The US lost aircraft in Vietnam, has lost aircraft in many wars, the Russians too, war means simply losses, first you can not know how was an aircraft in war with different accounts only because in reality the MiG-23 in Iraqi service represents the main bulk of MiG-23 losses many MiG-23 were not lost even in combat, according to western sources the US only shot down around 10-12 MiG-23s. Israel also shot down around 30 in combat, the US of course destroyed some MiG-23s on the ground but if you have read the accounts even Western accounts you will know many MiG-23s were abandoned in the Iraqi desert, some flew to Iran (i have read that around 8 MiG-23 were flown to Iran in 1991) so first the number of MiG-23s as really destroyed in Combat is not as big as many claim,
Excusing an aircraft in war is not really a good strategy, any weapon is destroyed in war, war is brutal and it means losses in human lives and in weaponry.
However because a few MiG-23s were lost in combat and i mean really few probably less the 100 from a production of around 6000 it does not mean Russian weaponry won`t sell.
The MiG-23 and the F-4 suffered losses because in war you always can expect losses, the US or Russia loose weapons if they get involved in war.
A nation buying a MiG-23 in the 1970s considering for the 1970s technology it represented a good purchase, you are judging the aircraft out of its time frame.
In 1978 when the MiG-23 was toured in France and Finland the MiG-23 was an excellent aircraft because the vast majority of nations had third or second generation aircraft by the 1990s it was obvious the MiG-23 was getting old in the tooth.
In 2006 i can tell you the MiG-23 was not as bad as portraited considered that the main rivals it fought were fourth generation fighters means it was one of the best third generation aircraft enough to force many nations among them Israel to buy F-15s and F-16s .
If you judge a weapon you have to judge it in its time frame, its price in that time and the main rivals to face.
the Kills the MiG-23 users claim are around 50 aircraft shot down, according to the Syrians their MiG-23s destroyed at least 12 israeli aircraft, the iraqi claim another 10-15 Iranian F-4s, AH-1s, F-14s and F-5s , you can see the other wars it participated have another few helicopters, Mirage F1s, Panavia Tornados, Mirage III etc etc.. claimed as killed by MiG-23s
The reason the Russians or any other nation among them the US, China. france , Brazil or any nation they continue selling weapons is simply they always developed newer weapons that promise being better than their contemporary rivals
MiG-23MLDFirst of all the U.S. did not lose 600 Phantoms. They lost several hundred (over 400 I think), but it wasn’t the 600 and 700 numbers you are always making up.
Your ability to conjure up numbers from out of the blue always amazes me Flogger….please I request that you stop because we are all tired of hearing (be it losses or turn rates or whatever else you’re always coming up with….)
Secondly, the F-4 was thrown into the face of some of the toughest ground-based air defenses the world has ever seen over North Vietnam. It was used by all three U.S. services that fly fast jets, and it was used heavily. It was a multi-role fighter and thus was one of the most highly utilized warplanes of the Vietnam War.
When you combine all of that you’re going to have losses. F-16’s or F-15’s would likely have shared a similar number of losses as would MiG-23’s or Mirage F-1’s or Viggens or whatever other airplane you want to put in place of the Phantom.
Simply put, it’s a matter of the situation and circumstances and not some inherent design flaw with the F-4. Of course it wasn’t a perfect airplane, but I’d argue that it was THE BEST fighter airplane in the world at the time.
Another reason the F-4 is considered a winner and did fairly well in the export market is that not only was it proven as a multi-role fighter (a large reason Israel ordered them), but it had quite a good record in air-to-air combat despite the slow start in Vietnam. The Navy in particular finished the war with the F-4 having around a 6 to 1 overall ratio when all was said and done…and it’s F-4’s never even had guns!
The USAF didn’t make the proper changes in tactics that the Navy did, and thus its F-4 fleet finished the war with a roughly 3 to 1 ratio.
The Israelis though, as with the Mirage before it, did exteremely well with the F-4 and their Phantoms had a roughly 5 to 1 ratio through their air combat exploits. To further that point the F-4 in IDF/AF service was actually rarely flown as strictly a fighter because they felt the Mirage was sufficient for that role. The fact that the F-4 was primarily used as a multi-role warplane by the IDF/AF was not because the Mirage was a better fighter in air-to-air combat but because the F-4 was much better than the Mirage at ground attack. It had a two-man crew, it would carry a much larger weight of weapons, it could fly farther, and was just much more suited to long interdiction missions than the Mirage was.
The F-4 was proven to be a winner through its years in service because it was very versatile and adaptable. It has been asked to perform many types of missions over the years, and while it was never a master at any one mission I’d say it was pretty damn good in most of them….as proven by its record.
The F-4 was actually sought after by a few more nations than the ones that actually bought it but it is a large, complex and expensive warplane and thus many nations simply could not afford it. The Mirage by contrast was much cheaper to operate and combine with its amazing success in Israeli hands, was ordered by many nations.
Man remember this in combat records everything depends who is telling the Story and what is the pourpose the writer has; the number of US F-4 losses is around 500 at least and Israelies and Iranians lost also aircraft that number will give you number that is quit high at least 600 in a very reduced number and around 900 in a very large number, do not excuse the F-4, the MiG-23 has been called a bad aircraft but it has never lost more than 100 aircraft for sure in real combat combat in fact the Iraqi MiG-23 fleet is what makes the great bulk of MiG-23s losses but many were simply abandoned in the desert, very likely around 150 MiG-23 have been lost in war operations including 90 from Iraq 30 from Syria and a few more in wars in Africa and Afgahnistan.
Sum up the F-4 losses and you will see a higher number simply the US lost several hundred in Vietnam under the same circumstances of Iraq, some were lost in air to air others to SAMs and many destroyed on the ground.
The US has lost aircraft in Iraq, Vietnam and Korea or any war that is the ugly thing about war you will have casualties in people and weaponry.
The MiG-23 fighter variant in reality was not as shot down as many claim because the air to air losses even admitting the Iranian and Israeli claims no more than 100 MiG-23 were shot down in air to air combat of by SAMs and of those a great part were MiG-23BN.
The tally for MiG-23 real fighter-fighter combats are much less than 50 MiG-23 lost in air to air even taking Israeli and Iranian claims; Israel for example only shot down 12 MiG-23s fighters the rest were attack MiG-23BNs.
Of course if you see what the users claimed and the rivals claimed you will see both aircraft experimented around 150 MiG-23 losses and around 600 F-4 shot losses.
See that only the USN and USMCs lost around 150 F-4s and Iran lost a great number of F-4s and the Iranians had more than 200 aircraft and many were destroyed or lost in the war with Iraq.
MiG-23MLDRight. If you have an air war and you win due to a number of reasons, people will always credit you victory to your superior fighters. On the other hand, if you lose your fighters are crap. See what the Soviets went through after all of their customers misused the MiG-23s. Since then this aircraft has the stigma of being a looser.
That is not exactly what happened to Soviet weapons, for example the F-4 in that case should be called a looser, the US lost more than 600 Phantoms only in the Vietnam War, Iran lost a lot too and Israel also lost several dozen, but no one here claims the F-4 was crap why?.
Any nation when it buys a military products buy them mostly due to political aligment, the USSR lost all its potential customer because first there is no more USSR and second all the nations that were forced to buy Soviet weapons were fred from Soviet rule.
Let`s put the case of Venezuela and latin America in General and Eastern Europe. while most European nations are currently not buying Russian products now latin america buys them, Today Poland wants NATO aproval so buys Western equipment and bought F-16s, Venezuela has adopted an anti-Western policy so today Venezuela buys Russian weapons. so it bought Su-30s
20 years ago it was different Poland was forced to buy Soviet MiG-29s while Venezuela was the most anti comunist and pro western nation in Latin america and was the only latin american nation allowed to buy F-16s in the 1980s.
Combat records also differ and operational service is also important, the F-16 has its share of accidents and undoutedly the US has lost F-16 in combat same F-15s, so why many nations still buy Russian weapons? well simply price and political aligment.
Mexico is theoretically the most pro US nation in the western hemisphere and nonetheless bought Su-27s why? simply price and because the US considers that few Su-27s are no thread. Mexico also has lots of russian helicopters why? price is the main reason.
Eastern Europe needs to buy western if they want to be called European.
Peru showed in the 1980s that you do not need to buy american in fact you do not need US approval when you go shopping for combat aircraft and they bought Su-22s and Su-25s even MiG-29s why? becasue they got tired of the US embargo of weapons that only allowed the sale of F-5s to Latin america, South America usually bought french or Israeli instead of american in order to do not up set the US but that trend of buying Russian has been extended to Latin American becasue the Russian weapons are cheap and most latin american nations view Russia as a capitalist and theoretically no more a political thread wanting to extend comunism in their lands in fact Russia is view as a technological ally
source of the picturehttp://rus.air.ru/russpower/peru/Su-22peru.htm
source of the picture
http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news001/afm174.htm
MiG-23MLDAgain, you’re missing the point. Russia was slow, thanks to Stalin, to grab ahold of computer technology. That hurt them in a lot of areas. They have currently closed the gap or passed the West in some technological areas. What you’re trying to accuse me of stating is that Russia is behind NOW, and that is not what I was saying at all.
Come on SOC, the US is the nation we know the most about their technological programs, i can not tell you if Russia and the USSR did not or did develope computers in the early part of the XX century, but i do not think they did not develop such systems because the Russians as the Germans did, they knew that military technology needs advances in technology in order to have the best weapons.
If we look at the aircraft technology seen througout the entire XX century we can see all the nations manufacturing aircraft had technological breakthroughs either in aerodynamics, propulsion systems or avionics.
Russia also used computers as long as the other powers did becasue if you have an aircraft in the class of the F-86 it means you have similar level, Russia and the US always were closely matched in aircraft technology, that is the reason they were competing.
When Russia developed the MiG-3, Lagg-7 or Yak-9, the US had similar aircraft such as the P-51, F6F, F4UF, P-40 and so on, in the 1950s the MiG-15 was only matched by the F-86, other US fighters were inferior to the MiG-15 in overall terms, the US never had in reality superiority, when a combat aircraft was built in the West that was superior to the things the USSR had it prompted a reaction to develop something superior in the Soviet Union and viceversa.
Example the F-104 was surpassed by the MiG-21, MiG-21 was surpassed by the F-4, F-4 was surpassed by the MiG-23, the MiG-23 was surpassed by the F-16 the F-16 was surpassed by the MiG-29 and so on.
Each side responded with a more advanced aircraft each time they were left behind.
The An-26 was surpassed by the C-130, the C-130 was surpassed by the An-22, the An-22 was surpassed by the C-141, the C-141 was surpassed by the Il-76 the Il-76 was surpassed by the C-5, the C-5 was surpassed by the An-124 and the An-124 has been surpassed in some terms by the A-380.
In bombers were the same, the Russians fielded the Tu-22M the weste fielded the B-1B, the B-1B promped the development of the Tu-160, the Tu-160 prompted the need for the B-2.
Many Russian aricraft despite being simplier than their western counterparts grab a place in History as more advacned in terms of producibility, in example the MiG-21 this aircraft left the Mirage III and even the F-4 as luxurios machines expensive and difficult to mantain
If you look at the cockpit of an F-15A and of a MiG-29A in 1980 you would not see many differences, same was a MiG-21 and a F-4, same was with the F-86 and the MiG-15, what happens is many people usually compare a Western aircraft with an inferior Soviet/Russian aircraft and viceversa.
If i compare an early F-4 with a MiG-23ML of course i will say Russia was more advanced, but inreality these two nations were matched that is the reality.
Russia developed simpler aircraft due to the need of making larger numbers of these but in general these aircraft were slightly less complex than their western counter parts but still had the basic technologies of that time.
Undoutedly the US had many inventions developed by US scientists but many patents have been given or acknowledged to Western scientist and not Russians because there were scientists that developed similar technology in other countries but they never became famous simply because many inventions were acknowledged to Western scientists first.
Developing more advanced aircraft paid a price many aircraft like that were built in small numbers or simply were cancelled and in the West we see many examples
MiG-23MLDUh…those are all desktop style PCs it looks like, and came from the 1980s, well AFTER Stalin. That’s not even remotely what I was talking about.
Russia and the USSR were never lagging behind as many claim becasue Russia was the first nation to launch a man into space.
The Soviet collapse was mainly due to the fact the Soviet economy was inefficient in bringing better standards of living to the Soviet population because it developed a bureucracy that hampered technological advance.
Militarily speaking we can see a small gap sometimes because the Soviet Union was in open technological competition with the West.
In 2006, the Russian economy has enough technology to catch up with France in few years but it will take sometime due to the restructuring of the Russian economy.
Militarily speaking Russia and the Soviet Union developed avionics and aircraft that surpased many times their western eqivalents, the MiG-31 is one example, even in 2006 a modernized MiG-31 is far more capable tha any western interceptor because even having Meteors today Russia is equiping their MiG-31s with R-37s and the Su-30MKI is as good as the Rafale. The MiG-29OVT is far more agile than the Gripen and the SU-35BM is more powerful than current Eurofighter variants, besides the US no other nation operates strategic bombers like the Tu-160 or theater bombers like the Tu-22M.
There is no other nation having as many helicopter gunship types as Russia except the US nither a nation with more satellites launched than Russia.
In few words the Myth that Russia is behind in electronics a computers is not true Russia only has not the commercial infracstructure to compete with IBM or Microsoft and it will take them some time to develop agan the ability to compete internationally with the West or Asia but undoutedly Russia and Ukraine once they stablish the economic infrastructure and the links needed with other nations manufacturing computers, again they will take their respective places in the computer market.
MiG-23MLDOne fundamental difference of the Su-15 is the double delta wings. The Chinese never used double delta wings on the J-8II and only did so for the the J-7E which came out out in the late eighties/early nineties.
The way the J-8II evolved is clear. You start out with the basic MiG-21 configuration, lengthen it, apply area rule for high speed, fit two engines instead of one, then increase wing area to match correspondingly. The original split intake and the mount to hold the two engines were inspired from the MiG-19. This created the J-8I.
Then later with MiG-23 like inspirations, you change the round inlet nose with a pointed radome, variable side intakes, and the dual ventral fins with a single folding ventral fin. The aircraft is actually 70% new, with only 30% commonality with the J-8I, and became the J-8II, later as the J-8B when China stopped using Roman letters in their designations.
No Sukhoi in it. China never saw a Sukhoi in its land until the first Su-27s landed there.
The J-8II is the only fighter where we can see direct MiG-23 influence, the J-8II is in esence a twin engined MiG-23PD or aircraft 23-01, with its air intakes and ventral fin based upon those seen on the the variable geometry wing MiG-23 series production.
We can say that the Shenyang J-8 evolved very similarly to the MiG-23 since basicly the J-8II combines features seen on the rejected delta wing direct lift MiG-23PD prototype and in the variable geometry wing series production MiG-23. The MiG-23 is a result of a Soviet need to design a fighter that corrected the MiG-21 design flaws that were mainly lack of BVR weaponry and long take off and landing runs.
The main factors limiting the MiG-21 were its delta wings, frontal air intake with a small intake cone radome and its small size.
The MiG-23 incorporated side air intakes with vertical ramps that allowed the installation of a larger and more powerful radar in a much bigger radome and variable geometry wings that allowed short take offs and landings and good handling at both low and high speeds.
The MiG-23 also was fitted with a larger ventral fin than the one seen on the MiG-21, this could be folded when the aircraft was on land.
The J-8 had almost the same limitations the MiG-21 had because its design configuration was based upon the MiG-21, and the chinese engineers did apply into their own J-8II design some of the solutions the soviets incorporated into the MiG-23, in order to solve the J-8 deficiencies that were a direct MiG-21 inheritance.
MiG-23MLDThanks a lot MiG-23MLD, but I already knew that. 🙂
I’m desesperate about finding MORE datas, such as internal fuel capacity (ifc), range with ifc or fuel tanks, but also where the hardpoints are/were located, what was the optimum flight enveloppe and so on…
I guess the Mirage G8 must be a quit powerful aircraft similar in configuration to the Panavia Tornado i guess
MiG-23MLDWell, who knows?
Maybe a draughtsman in the Mikoyan design office accidently pinned a ‘borrowed’ drawing of a certain American aircraft upside down on his board one day… and the rest, as they say, is history :diablo: :diablo:
North American YF-107A Super Sabre and Ye-8
What i do not understand is why we need to argue senseless aspects of aircraft design of course Russia and the Former USSR were influenced by the West and viceversa, the US also copied the MiG-25 in the F-15.
Influences are natural since both nation were trying to surpass each other, it is not illogical to see the F-86 and MiG-15 looked alike, and the MiG-25 and F-15 or the Su-24 and F-111 also looked alike, both nations looked for similar aircraft and took many times the same engineering approaches.
It is not that the Russian or Americans copied directly in reality spionage and the technological level of each time period gave similar results.
Russia has aircraft that undoutedly surpassed many of their western equivalents, there were no western equivalents for the Tu-22M, Su-34, Ka-50, Yak-141, Mi-24, MiG-31 or An-225.
These aircraft were quit advanced and complex however the West also had aircraft that were unique, the SR-71, the F-117, E-2 to cite some examples.
Influences are natural and a result of the level science and technology achieved in a specific time period.
MiG-23MLDThe real thing that hampered Russia’s military design bureaus was Stalin’s lack of enthusiasm for computer systems. That set them back in so many areas. Gotta credit them for closing the gap and even taking the lead in some areas though.
The Russian were not far behind as many think, russia has build computers for a long time but they lost all their natural markets and lacked commercial strategies but undoutedly Russia designed and build computer here are some of them
Агат-9 (Agat-9)
The Agat is a fully Apple II+ compatible computer. It was developed in 1983 and shown at the CeBit 84. There were (at least) two version: The Agat-7 and the Agat-9. The Agat-7 was a earlier version of the Agat-9 – it was not fully Apple II compatible. (What about Agat-T and Agat-P – roumour or reality?)
The Agat-9 has six slots (according to sergey these slots are NOT compatible with Apple II carts!). There were a lot of add-on carts for the Agat-9 like memory expansion, FDC, parallel/serial cart and even network carts. The Agat machine was designed as an educational computer but it was also used in research laboratories as a cheap process control machine. A Agat-9 network called “KUVT Agat” was used in educational environments. It has a KR580VV55A (i8255A clone, 3-channel PIO chip) and a KR580VV51A (i8251 clone) built in.
Mac Buster told me a slightly different story about the Agat: Some days ago I have been reading an article in a book about soviet personal computers and found that Agat wasn’t actually made as an Apple ][ clone. Engineers made it just similar to it. Soviet Union never produced 6502 clone and so developers had to buy these CPUs from India and Mexico (this can be resolved from writings on the CPU). 580WW55A is i8255A clone, 580WW51A is i8251 clone. These chips are not CPUs. Whole KR580 serie of ICs is set of 580WM80A CPU (older version has been marked 580IK80) and chipset for this CPU (clones of i82xx serie by Intel). There are only one exception – 580WM1 an advanced i8080 which has no analog in original Intel’s serie. I heard some people used this CPU to replace old 580WM80 because it was 100% pin compatible, utilised same structure and commands set, but had ~100 new commands and one extra 16-bit register.
Technical Overview:
Year: 1983 CPU: ??? (6502)
RAM/ROM: 128kB / 16kB Clone: Apple II+
Colors: b/w – 16 Resolution: 512×256 – 128×128
Электроника:
Elektronika БК-0010 / БК-0010-01 / БК-0011M / MC1502
BK-0010 / BK-0010-01 / BK-0011M / MC1502
BK-0010
BK-0010 (new)
BK-0010 (keyboard)
BK-0010 (keyboard)
BK-0010 (back)
BK-0011M
BK-0011M ROM-Port
BK-0011M PCB
PCB Large (~770kB)
BK-0011M CPU
Электроника БК-0010 (Elektronika BK-0010)
The BK-0010 was the first Soviet home computer built in 1985. It comes with a quite powerful 16Bit DEC PDP-11 compatible processor called 1801BM1. Common programming languages were: FOCAL, BASIC, assembler – mostly on ROMs. The BK-0010 comes with a film keyboard. The BK-0010 is also known as БК-0010Ш (BK-0010SH) (“SH” means школьный = school model)
Электроника БК-0010-01 (Elektronika BK-0010-01)
The BK-0010-01 was very much the same machine as the BK-0010 but it has a “real” keyboard. The BK-0010 / BK-0010-01 also have a ROM-Slot like the BK-0011M.
According to Paul Romanchenko the BK-0010-01 has a total of 32kB RAM that is divided into two regions: 16kB user space and 16kB screen area.
The 32kB ROM contains built-in BASIC interpreter (dialect Vilnus Basic). It has 4 colors in “low-res” mode (32 col x 24 rows), 2 colors in “hi-res” mode (62 col x 24 rows). BK-0010-01 is built after BK-0010, which has the same characteristic, but has only 8Kb ROM and hasn’t built-in Basic. The FOCAL language was distributed in separate ROM block which connected via special socket.
Электроника БК-0011M (Elektronika BK-0011M)
In 1990 the BK-0011M was released as an extended version of the BK-0010. The main difference from the earlier models was that a disk drive could be connected to the BLK-0011M. It was now possible to run ANDOS.
The BK-0011M has a very basic kind of “ROM-Slot” on the left side – after the plastic cover is removed two eproms/roms can be inserted directly into their sockets (see detail picture). If you take a closer look at the PCB you will see that there is only one empty socket whereas the detail picture shows two of them. This is due to the fact that the empty socket on the PCB is connected via a ribbon cable with the two sockets from the detail picture.
Serge Timakov provided this infos:
“- FOCAL (FOrmula CALculator) where operators were single letters ( F for “FOR”, etc.). This language was interpreted.
– Vilnius BASIC. Vilnius is a Baltic city you know. It was a quite advanced version of BASIC that featured runtime compiler (your entire program would be synthax checked and compiled as you type ‘RUN’) as well as operators to save/load programs and data to/from the tape recorder.
It really had 32KB RAM onboard but by pressing ‘Expanded memory’ button you could send it to the mode when only 4 lines of text were displayed on screen, and saved video RAM was added to available memory.
There were quite lot of programs distributed on tapes by half-legal ‘cooperatives’. I bought a word processor and even a rudimentary C compiler (!) this way.
TV set was used as display but on most Soviet-made TVs video-in jack was missing so you had to take a soldering iron and make it yourself. Upgrade schemes for most popular TVs were published in press around. ”
Technical Overview:
Year: 1985 CPU: K1801BM1-3
RAM/ROM: 16kB / 32kB Clone: –
Colors: b/w or 4 Resolution: 512×256 or 256×256
Elektronika MC-1502
Elektronika MC-1502 (keyboard)
Elektronika MC-1502 (bottom)
Elektronika MC-1502 (back)
Электроника MC1502 (Elektronika MC1502)
I have no real facts about this machine but it looks very much like an MSX machine. In fact the case very much like the Yamaha YIS 503-Series but with a numerical keypad.
According to Igor Stratienko the Elektronika MC1502 is an XT-clone. Based on KR1810VM86 CPU(i8086) and have specific, specially developed chipset(system memory shared with built-in CGA compatible adapter and many other funny things). This MSX-like case is originally developed for MC0511/UKNC(УКНЦ) education computer system. For more pictures have a look at the web pages [Sergei Frolov].
I received this infos about the MC1502: “it seems for me that this computer isn’t msx clone, but a dec one….. i worked at home with electronica-60 (and electronica-100) these were DEC PDP-11 clones with RT-11 operation system and son on….. Electronica-100 was with 2 KP1801BM? CPUs ….”
Technical Overview:
Year: 1985 CPU: К1810ВМ88 (i8088 clone)
RAM/ROM: 128kB / ?? kB Clone: XT
Colors: ??? Resolution: ???
РК-86:
RK-86 Радио-86РК / Микроша / Апогей / Партнер
Электроника КР-01,02,03,04
Radio-86RK / Mikrosha / Apogey / Partner
Elektronika KR-01,02,03,04
Микро-80 (Micro-80)
In the beginning of the 80th the radio amateur magazin “Radio” published the schematic of a computer called “Micro 80”. There are no industrial models of the Micro-80, just the hand-maid models. This was the first “home-brew” computer in the USSR but it was very difficult to built because it consits of more than 200 microcircuits. Another problem was that it only supports text-mode. Quickly after the initial publication a quite good basic interpreter was developed – it only uses 6.5 kB RAM. As “mass-storage” a everyday tape recorder was used.
Due to the hand-made nature of this PC it is hard to find a picture of a Micro-80.
Radio-86RK
Радио-86РК (Radio-86RK)
The Radio-86RK was the successor of the “Micro-80” – the electric scheme and BIOS code were published in the local radio electronics-fans magazine “Radio” in June 1986. The name seems to be derived from the name of the magazin and the year. RK may be a short form of радиоконструктор (Electronic Do It Yourself Kit). The circuit count was reduced from 200 to about 29 – so it was easier to built. That might be the reason why the Radio-86RK became so very popular that a lot of clones (some even industrial manufactured) were built. It looks like the whole computer family could be called “RK-86” compatible.
according to Kirill Kukarkin the 8-bit CPU K580VM80 used for the Radio-86 is a clone of Intel 8080A. It has 16/32 Kb RAM, 4Kb ROM, 25×80 monochrome display (TV) and used tape recorder as external ROM. Based on Radio-RK schematic the following PCs were industry produced: Microsha, Krista, Electronica KR01…04 with a insignificant modification in electric scheme and BIOS. The additional adapters designed in 1987 – 1992 allowed to produce sound, add color display, attach FDD, attach ROM modules.
According to Sergey in 1989-1991 (during the perestroyka) many of these systems were sold in assembled form as a mass-market product. In the earlier days the RK-86 was mainly available in kit form.
In contrast to the many sinclair clones of this time the Radio-86RK has a Intel 8080 compatible (some sources say reengineered, some say officially licensed ?) CPU called КР580ВМ80А (KR580WM80A) .
(Has anyone a better picture?)
Technical Overview:
Year: 1989 CPU: KR580VM80A (8080A)
RAM/ROM: 32/64kB / 32kB Clone: RK-86
Colors: b/w Resolution: text only
Mikrosha
Микроша (Mikrosha)
As far as I know the Mikrosha (which means something like “little Micro”) Computer is a buxfixed version of the “Radio-86RK”. In spite of the modifications the Mikrosha was compatible with the “Radio-86RK”.It has a with a cartridge port for RS-232, Centronics, FDD, RAM expansion, ROM-disk, EEPROM programmer, and a kind of Video-card with colour text mode and a graphics mode.
It was made by Lianozov Electromechanical Factory. The CPU is a KP580BM80A (8080 clone) running at 1.8 MHz.
Apogey BK-01Z
Апогей (Apogey)
I do not know much about this machine besides that it is a “RK-86”-clone that has some improved features but was not 100% compatible with the original design. The Apogey was a quite popular system.
Pavel Dovgaluk worte to me: “I have two versions of this computer in my collection: Apogey BK-01 and another one, that you wrote as Apogey BK-01Z. This “Z” (as you wrote it) means “color”. Both of these computers are based on the russian clone of the i8080 CPU (KP580BM80). They both have 56.25K of RAM, 4K of ROM, 2.5K of VRAM. They have only one text mode 64×25. The only difference between these computers, that the first one has only two colors (black and white), and the second (color) computer has 8 colors. ”
Аркаша (Arkasha)
Nothing is know about this machine besides that it is a “RK-86”-clone.
Elektronika KR-0?
Elektronika KR-03M
Электроника КР-01/02/03/04 (Elektronika KR-01/02/03/04)
The Elektronika KR series consists of four machines. As far as I know they are all industrial “RK-86” clones.
(does anyone know how the four versions differ?)
Elektronika KR-01 is a “Do It Yourself” kit. Computer has 16k or 32k of RAM and based on KR580IK80A
Partner
Партнер (Partner)
The Partner is another RK-86-Clone. It is a “all in one” design that integrates CPU, powersupply and keyboard in one case. The main characteristics of the Partner was the support of expansion carts (external). There were RAM and ROM Expansions as well as Video-Carts and Sound-Carts.
Орион-128:
Orion Орион-128 / ???
Orion-128 / Orion-Pro
Orion 128
Орион-128 (Orion-128)
From the technical point of view the Orion-128 was superior to machines like the Radio-RK86 and its many compatible versions but it was never as popular as these.
According to “Mac Buster” the Orion-128 was built in many different versions by many companies and actually this was the reason for its low popularity – different FDC controllers, memory expansions (up to 256k), ROM disks (ROM with software) and sound boards were incompatible.
The schematic was published in 1990 in a magazine for HAM radio enthusiasts called “Radio”. I did not find any hints that the machine was ever sold in assembled form as a mass-market product but I think that it was available at least in kit form. (can someone verify this?)
In contrast to the many sinclair clones of this time the Orion-128 has a Intel 8080 compatible (reengineered ?) CPU called КР580ВМ80А. The Orion has a TV-output and uses a tape recorder as mass-storage device. In 1992 a disk-drive extension was available and a CP/M 80 version was developed and so a wide range of software could be used.
(Has anyone a better picture?)
Technical Overview:
Year: 1990 CPU: KR580VM80A (8080A)
RAM/ROM: 28kB / 2kB Clone: –
Colors: 16 Resolution: 384×256
Орион-??? (Orion-Pro)
The Orion-Pro was the successor of the Orion-128. It was based on Z80 CPU running at 5,8 or 10Mhz (controlled by a DIP on board). It has 512k of base RAM (very flexible paging system), 64k of ROM. It had 11 screen modes (text and graphics) with resolution from 384×256 to 512×256 pixels using 2…16 colours (reprogrammable palette). It also had a 800k FDD controller, Centronics and RS-232 port. Orion-PRO uses CP/M as default disk operating system. As far as I know there also were external boards (can be installed into three slots on main board) with 1.44Mb FDD controller, additional 1.5Mb of RAM, ROM-disk, EEPROM programmer, Sound board. Only ~2000 computer were released because it came in beginning of 1994 when 8-bit machines started to loose its positions when cheap games consoles (NES) flooded shops.
Елецтронмаш:
Electronmash Поиск
Poisk
Poisk
Поиск (Poisk)
The Poisk Computer was built in 1991 by KPO Электронмаш (Electronmash) located in Kiev. It is based around the 1810WM88 CPU a clone of the i8088. It has 4 slots for expansion carts like Floppy-Cart (in this case one could use CPM), Printer, Memory-Expansion (512k), HDD (MFM) controller, ROM-disk, EEPROM programming, RS-232/Centronics.
Igor Stratienko added: “Poisk” – cheap and not fully compatible IBM PC clone. Many hardware functions are emulated via BIOS(e.g. video adapter text mode).
Was the Poisk-System compatible to any other system?
According to an email the Poisk “is an incomplete clone of a IBM XT”
Technical Overview:
Year: 1991 CPU: KM1810VM88 (8088)
RAM/ROM: 128kB / 16kB Clone: similair to XT
Colors: b/w – 4 Resolution: 640×200
Специалист:
Specialist Специалист / Лик
Specialist / Lik
Специалист (Specialist)
The Specialist was released in 1985 by the ukrainian engineer A.Volkov. – it was not a RK-86 clone. There are two versions of the Specialist – the original version and the MX. The main difference was that the MX has 16 colors, supports disk drives and was able to run “moitor” (a CPM-Clone). According to an email I got the Specialist also has another title which sounds something close to “Faxivetz” (this means specialist in ukrainian language).
According to Kirill Kukarkin the electric scheme for the Specialist was published in the “Modelist-Konstruktor” (“Models-Construction”) magazine. Some small companies started the industrial production of this PC. RAM 32/48 KB, display 25×80 text, 384x256mono graphic (TV connected). Used tape recorder as external ROM.
Lik
Lik (box)
Lik
Lik (keyboard)
Logo
Лик (Lik, Face)
The Face (translation – the Лик transcribes to “Lik”) was a clone of the Specialist. Лик probably is the short form of Любительский компьютер (computer for amateurs). The Lik was delivered in three version that differ in ROM size:
LIK-02 has 2k ROM
LIK-03 has 6k ROM
LIK-04 has 12k ROM
All of them were equipped with 48k RAM.
Early versions of the LIK come with an membran keyboard (see picture) – I am not sure if this membrane keyboard corespondes to any special version of the LIK.
Technical Overview:
Year: KR580WM80A 2MHz CPU: KR580WM80A
RAM/ROM: 32k or 48k kB / 2k, 6k, or 12k kB Clone: none
Colors: bw Resolution: 384×256
various:
(non-sinclair) Башкирия-2М / Криста / Корвет / Львов / Нейрон / Океан-240 / Вектор
Bashkirya-2M / Krista / Korvet / L’vov / Neiron / Ocean-240 / Vector
Bashkirya-2M
Башкирия-2М (Bashkirya-2M)
As far as I understand the online translation from http://bashkiria-2m.narod.ru/ the Bashkirya-2M was built in the republic Bashkortostan.
Some facts: 128kB Memory, support for floppy disk, same case as Корвет (Korvet), external power supply
Krista
Криста (Krista)
The Kirsta was developed and produced by a company called “RIP” located in the city “Murom”. Krista is a Vector-06 clone but it has one advanced screen-mode (200×256 in 2 colours). It has 64k RAM and 8k ROM and came with a light pen. There also were ROM-disk modules (and also game cartridges) for it with up to 256k of software on it. From the “Vector FAQ” one can learn that there is a machine called Kirsta-2 that is partly compatible with the Vector but has a differnt color scheme.
Korvet
Корвет (Korvet)
Korvet is an computer (KR580WM80A based) developed especialy for educational purposes at the Moscow State University. faculty Phisiv of Nulclear. The Korvet was used as the main CPU for an educational network consisting of one PK8020 and 11 PK8010. It may be used as stand alone computer and as part of УК/НЦ class connected via LAN to DVK machine (used as print and FDD server). Korvet had 64-386k of RAM and something like 96k of ROM.
Technical Overview:
Year: 1987 CPU: KM580VM80M (8080)
RAM/ROM: 64-386kB / 96kB Clone: none
Colors: ? Resolution: ?
L’vov Львов (L’vov)
The L’vov was made by an Ukrainian company called “V. I. Lenin”. It is also called “Lviv” is KR580WM80A based with 64k of RAM and 8k of ROM.
Here are some interesting notes from “Hard Wisdom”:
4 simultaneous colors from a palette of …. quite hard to describe: here the source to compute actual color from four screen colors and a 8-bit palette index.
// – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
enum {BLACK=0, BLUE=1, GREEN=2, RED=4};
// – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
int LVOV20_PAL::ComputeColor(int PalettePort, int LvColor) {
int Result=BLACK; if (PalettePort&0x40) Result^=BLUE;
if (PalettePort&0x20) Result^=GREEN;
if (PalettePort&0x10) Result^=RED;
switch (LvColor) {default: break;
case 0: if (!(PalettePort&0x08)) Result^=RED;
if (!(PalettePort&0x04)) Result^=BLUE; break;
case 1: Result^=GREEN; break;
case 3: Result^=RED; if (!(PalettePort&0x02)) Result^=GREEN; break;
case 2: Result^=BLUE; if (!(PalettePort&0x01)) Result^=RED; break;
} return Result;
}
Resolution: 256×256, but this is the full size of videoframe, excluding border we will have 220×200 points. No text mode, only graphic. (To access 16kb of graphic RAM You need to switch RAM pages).
Technical Overview:
Year: 1986 CPU: KR580WM80A or KR155
RAM/ROM: 64kB / 8 kB Clone: none
Colors: 4 Resolution: 256×256
Океан-240 (Ocean-240)
CPU: К580ВМ8080, 128kB RAM (48KB + 16 Video RAM + 64kB RAM-Disk) Operating System: Монитор240 and CPM
Нейрон (Neiron)
The Neiron was a very interesting machine designed as a workstation with a graphical user inerface and a mouse! Mac Buster: I remember one talk to a man about soviet computers and he said: “If we compare Macintosh and Neiron, then Macintosh developers will be shamed”. The base model has 4MB of memory and was based on an advanced version of 1801WM1 CPU running at 18MHz.
Sounds interesting! I would like an further infos and especialy a picture
Vector-06C
Vector-06q
Вектор-06 (Vector-06)
The Vector was developed by D. Temirazov and A. Sokolov and won an award at a Radio-Exhibition in 1987. As far as I understand the various sources of information there were several versions of the Vector:
1987: Вектор-06ц (Vector-06C)
1991: Вектор-06ц.02 (Vector-06C.02)
19??: Вектор-06ц 1200 (Vector Start 1200)
199?: Вектор-06ц-a (Vector-A) [unconfirmed]
199?: Вектор Турбо+ (Vector Turbo+) [unconfirmed]
The Vector-06C.02 is an enhanced version of the Vector-06C. The Vector-A is said to be an IBM clone whereas the Vector Turbo+ is based on a Z-80 CPU (?). The original Vector-06 is KR580WM80A based, but you may install KR580WM1 CPU because it is 100% compatible to WM80A, but needs less power and had one extra register. In 1993 someone made a Z80-Card to replace old and slow WM80A and WM1.
From Viacheslav Slavinsky I got these infos:
“It was a pretty computer. It had nice soft keyboard, somewhat similar to high end soviet computers of the time.
The ROM was very small and it was copied into RAM upon startup. It had no BASIC interpreter so you should have loaded one from tape, but you were not limited by ROM manufacturers. With full 64K of RAM there was plenty of software – several versions of BASIC, Forth and such.
The graphics (I do not remember the resolution) was amazing. It could display 16 colours at once out of 256 colour palette. For a home computer of the time it was mindblowing.
If I’m not mistaken, this computer was not a clone of anything, thus no software could be easily ripped. There were groups of enthusiasts who developed software for Vector. A vast range of development tools was available as well as games. Some of them were clones of popular games, some were original.”
According to Jüri the Vector Start-1200 series was available in 1991.
“I can tell, that it was really nice computer in these days. It uses a KR580WM80A CPU and had 64kB RAM. 32KB were available for software 0h-7FFFh, even less, because as I remember somethere from 7…-7FFFH was OS called Monitor that was loaded there from ROM on startup Video – 32KB (8000h-FFFFh) was arranged as 256x256x16 or 512x256x4
First 100h of RAM was for 8 CPU interrupt commands adresses 00h, 20h,40h…. Basic interpreter itself took from 100h-2x00h something memory. Max basic progam length was something around 18kB. Good graphical text editor was also included in monitor Output was RGB, that I connected to 22′ TV, parallel port for printer
There was also good manual for asm programmiing, i.e. descriptions of all entry points of Monitor. functions.”
Technical Overview:
Year: 1987 CPU: КР580ВМ1
RAM/ROM: ?kB / ?kB Clone: none
Colors: ? Resolution: 512*256 (?)
various:
(sinclair) various Speccy Clones
Hobbit (early)
Hobbit (later)
Хоббит (Hobbit)
Thanks to Vassilii Khachaturov there are some detailed infos about the Hobbit: The Hobbit was mainly used in education. It was a quite powerful system that was known even in western countries (see [Rage Hard! 09/90] and [[Rage Hard! 01/91]).
The Hobbit is a russian clone of the Sinclair Spectrum – even the CPU is a russian clone. It has some additional features like: a CP/M mode, a “Shadow mode” containing the BASIC extensions (the default “BASIC” configuration was Basic with traps from the Shadow ROM, allowing TR-DOS, networking and internationalization to work). Additional EEPROM configurations were possible – either LOGO or FORTH system. The hottest thing about Hobbit is, doubtless, its FORTH-system mode, which was not there in the older machine. [Hobbit-Page]
The early version of the Hobbit is a very limited “edition” of Hobbit. It was stopped being manufactured around early 1990, when InterCompex totally switched to the later version with the numeric keypad.
Byte
Byte
???? (Byte)
According to Roelof Koning the Byte was an very interesting russian Sinclair clone. Apart from the grey version there were version with red and pink keys as well as a version with “real” a keybaord.
One of the machines Roelof owns has a mainboard with only one dedicated CMOS chip that contains all necessary parts for a Spectrum Clone. The technologie used is much more advanced than the ULA technologie and looks like it came from spaceflight.
Pentagon
???? (Pentagon)
According to [Sinclair Nostalgica Page] “the Pentagon 128 is also a Russian design but unlike the Scorpion it’s not a brand name but a hardware design made in 1989. This means that a Pentagon can look and be very different. The one here is my Pentagon but I have also seen pictures of Pentagons in desktop cases. The Pentagon uses TR-DOS which makes it possible to use up to four disk drives. Standard RAM size is 512K but it’s possible to have up to 4MB.
Some has TurboMode (7MHz, Z80B or Z80H), modem, CMOS-clock, kempston mouse, 2x AY, SoundDrive or Covox (first soundcards in russia), TurboMode for B-Disk Interface, 2HD format and so on… A 8 or 16K cache is also available to speed-up the disc operations. The new Beta-128 controller also use the HD disks with 1,7M capacity.
The current standard configuration is a Pentagon 512 Turbo, with 2 FDD (5.25″ or 3,5″) and Kempston mouse is standard. The most advanced version comes with a 7 MHz CPU (Z80B or Z80H) and 512K RAM. Two disc drives and a mouse comes as standard with this model.””
Elektronika BI-201
Parus
Электроника ВИ-201 (Elektronika BI-201 )
According to Roelof Koning the Elektronika BI-201 is another russian Sinclair clone.
The HCM has a ver similair looking machine namen Парус ВИ-201 (Парус = PARUS = “Sail”) in its collection – this machine produces a startscreen that looks like it was made by “Didaktik Skalica” (TLINK) – war was a just a ROM-Transfer?
Another very interesting fact Roelof Koning mentions is that russian spectrum clone often contain white ceramic eproms – these eproms are military products and far too expensive to be “regularly” build in. Does that mean that all these machines are build in so called “side-rooms” (German: Nebenräume – what mean something like “inofficial”)?
Bajt
Bajt with box
Bajt screen
???? (Bajt)
The Bajt is a russian spectrum clone (Bajt means Byte in russian) made in 1991. It has a quite usable typewriter-syle keyboard. As far as I understand the polish text found on an auction site (Radziecki klon Spectrumny -BAIT) the Bajt has an modified ROM that was able to display cyrillic alphabet – also the basic commands and error codes have been translated. The cyrillic could be turned off. The Bajt has a TV and RGB output.
Tomasz Orczyk kindly translated the very interesting auction text by TzOk:
The Triumph of the Soviet engineers for year 1991 – at last they have managed to copy (maybe not perfectly) a great personal computer – the famous ZX Spectrum (by the way – made by the “imperialists” 9 years earlier).
Russian scientists went even further – they have equipped their PC in Russian diacritical signs – cyrillic and because of that, typing the command BORDER 8, results in displaying an error message, but not ILLEGAL COLOUR, instead we get “oshibka svieta”.
Anyway, there is a possibility to turn this computer into “normal” mode, where messages are being displayed in English. For fans of Spectrum I’ll mention that original circuit, managing (mosly) picture displaing, so called ULA (Uncommited Logic Array) was cleverly replaced by “just” two dozens of different UIC (Unidentified Integrated Circuits). Display circuit is working hardly satisfactory – displayed picture has even worse quality than on original Spectrum (maybe you need to use “Rubin” TV set), however this computer has an RGB output – ther’s certainly better picture eith it (yet, I had no chance to check it).
Developement of Russian electronics caused leaving vacum tubes behind and letting integrated circuits to do the job instedad, yet they are not very integrated, because the dimensions of the chassis are determined by the dimensions of the mainboard, on which they have placed 80 (eighty) chips!!! Keyboard makes a professional look (but in fact after typing 1 kByte of text you start feeling your fingertips overexhausted), well minimal pressing force was probably adapted to the timberman (I’d ever say – Russian timberman) – about 20 times more than in average keyboard.
Manual gives us essential information for correct operation – we may find out, that computer weigh 4,5kg (with power supply unit – about 6kg), consumes 30 Watts, has a computing power of 875e3 and what is absolutely essential – how much gold, silver and palladium does it contain (with an accuracy of 0,0001g
MiG-23MLDYou didn’t get my point, but I see that you are equally unable to do some reflection yourself. If I am a typical western moron, you are my eastern counterpart.
Great, we are down to insult. I really can’t take somebody serious who is unable to deliver his mighty knowledge without this childish flaming.
By the way, I never wrote that wedge-type inlets are the only way to fly faster than Mach 3. Actually the only real Mach 3 aircraft used conical inlets (Blackbird), which was the preferred option for the Soviets at that time (see MiG-21 and early Sukhois).
The question is not the US or the USSR were on top undoutedly there were times when the Russiasn were ahead and when the americans were ahead.
The Russian aircraft design has been hampered mostly by financing since the late 1980s and in many ways the total fragmentation the Soviet Union military complex.
Some Russian aircraft have been quit successful, the MiG-21 is an example, when we rank an aircraft we see how advanced was and how succesful was in operational service.
The US had some aircaft that were very advanced, but no aircraft is perfect there is always room for improvement, the Russians were the same.
MiG-23MLDSure, it was a design breach.. but it wasn’t a good aircraft.
It depends, perhaps was not as good as other aircraft in terms of operational success but definitively was the most modern aircraft configuration the 1950s produced at least to my knowledge because i can not remember other design as revolutionary as the A-5, in fact all my life i thought this was a late 1960s design until i read about it and found it flew for the first time in 1958
MiG-23MLDWhich would be a particularly useful advantage, given the NVA propensity to try and hit them with SA-2s. There’s one hilarious snapshot from a Vigi that actually shows clear as day an SA-2 that was fired at the jet whizzing by underneath it.
I thought the story was that someone came back from Paris and told Mikoyan to draw up an interceptor along the lines of the Vigilante? At any rate I’ve never seen any concrete evidence of the story, but Yefim Gordon does mention it in his Aerofax MiG-25/31 volume as a potential source of the FOXBAT’s configuration.
I think the A-5 was revolutionary in the late 1950s from my point of view it was the most advanced aircraft of the entire 1950s, no other aircraft has a so modern looking layout, that is probably the reason Mikoyan decided to develop an aircraft similar to it, and the F-15 is basicly a more refined A-5 proving the aircraft was quit advanced when in the late 1950s the MiG-19 and F-86 were still operational, the aircraft indeed was quit advanced for 1958, more advanced than even the F-4 or Mirage III and far ahead of the MiG-21.
The MiG-21 line was already totaly milked, that type of aircraft with a single forward inlet with a cone shaped shock inducer intake was almost in extingtion, the MiG-21 was the best but the last of that aerodynamic fashion.
The A-5 represented the future, it represented the new lines explored in the F-14, MiG-25s and MiG-31s and in one way or other even the early draft configurations tested in the MiG-29
MiG-23MLDSpeaking of the Mirage G (and variants). Is it in Hell possible to find a comprehensive fact sheet with all the technical datas, characteristics and performances of those planes ?
Because I have looked for them for a long time and never managed to find one… 😡
Manufacturer: ………. Dassault Aviation
HISTORY:
On October 13, 1965, Dassault recoit a contract to design and build a prototype Mirage G, two-seater of hunting to variable géomètrie. The first flight proceeded on November 18, 1967 with an engine SNECMA. On January 13, 1971, the plane is crushed, meanwhile 2 other prototypes were built (propelled by SNECMA Atar 9k-50). The first two-seater prototype made its flight on May 8, 1971, then on July 13, 1972 it was the first flight of the single-seater. The version of series would have had to be propelled by SNECMA M53. But the Air Force concludes that the Mirage G posed far too many problems, it thus decided to stop the project. This plane produced forever in series.
——————————————————————————–
DATES:
first flight:
November 18, 1967
——————————————————————————–
EQUIPMENT:
Equipment:
Cyrano radar
system of navigation and attack at low altitude
telemeter laser
computer of fire control system
——————————————————————————–
OPERATIONAL CAPACITIES:
air superiority
conventional attack
recognition
——————————————————————————–
CARATÉRISTIQUES:
Dimensions:
length:
scale:
height:
16,8 meters
13 meters
5,25 meters
Weight:
maximum weight on takeoff:
23,8 tons
Propulsion and performances:
engines:
pushed out of PC:
maximum speed:
1 SNECMA TF-306E
2 X 10,3 tons
Mach 2,3
MiG-23MLDIf there’s any aircraft that the J8II could be a ******* child of, it’s this one.
Su-15 (with offspring)
Undoutedly the J-8II and the Su-15 share almost the same arrangement, but the Chinese never got their hands on any Su-15, they only adquiered several MiG-23MS and the J-8II inlets are closer in design to those seen on the MiG-23 than those seen on the Su-15 besides the Su-15 has not ventral fin and the J-8II ventral fin is closer to the one seen on the MiG-23 than any other aircraft.
MiG-23MLDSorry, but following these statements made by MiG-23MLD is just once another useless tread … but wit, I forgot !
Engineers are there to find solutions ! 😀
To compare their aproaches by comparing their configurations and their performance … YES, but this way … !
Deino 😉
The Mirage G, the MiG-23 and J-8II are similar in the sense they have similar configurations, i like the fact the MiG-23PF has several convergences with both the Balzac and the J-8II, they are interesting because show that the MiG-23PD was not a faithless prototype as its NATO denomination reflected.
The MiG-23PD and MiG-23MF influence in the J-8II is quiet evident how direct it was well i do not know i only know the Chinese got some MiG-23MS from Egypt.
The twin engine VG wing aircraft the MiG bureau proposed but never beared any fruit steamed from the earlier MiG-23MLK to the later MiG-31 early design configurations and models.
The Mirage G and the MiG-23 variable geometry wing prototype even flew in the same year of 1967
Sign In
