Grizzly01Soon, I hope. Definitely by the end of the month.
Thank you for providing link to Red Eagles forum. It provides a lot of information and pilot feedback on MiG-23 subject.
Grizzly01sadly that view is already pretty well entrenched outside fo those with russian ac interest 🙁 while the very early versions may be deserving of the rep (i prefer “colourfull” 😀 ) the mid to late versions certainly weren’t dud aircraft, and the ground attack variants have more than proven themselves over many different wars!
a book like this would of benefited from being co written by someone like yeffim Gordon (i know some will groan, but i cant think of a another author!) 😉
“Red Eagles” is based on the memories of the former pilots and their opinions, so I don’t think that Steve Davies is at fault if some of the information provided by those pilots is biased or incorrect.
Grizzly01What is the type of MiG-23 and with what engine?
Those were ex-Egyptian early MiG-23MS export models with R-29 engine. Early MiG-23MS (and M in Soviet AF) aircraft were restricted to 5G maneuvering limit due to defective airframe parts and poor AoA handling. After 1976 the quality of the airframe and flight control system were improved and Soviet pilots were allowed to practice dogfights. So unfortunately US pilots had to fly the least capable and the most unforgiving Flogger model.
Grizzly01J-10 maneouvre comfirm better than Mirage 2000 with even better thrust to weight ratio.
PL-12 is superior to Mica is comfirm by PL-12 chief designer in a recent interview.
J-10 has few option for ground attack optional like LS-6T glide bomb, KD-82 Air to ground but I will admit, Mirage attack ordnance is more mature than J-10 and more option.
J-10 has no significant advantage in agility/maneuverability over Mirage 2000. I seriously doubt that it can match man-machine interface of Mirage. There is no proof that J-10 has anything similar or comparable to 2000-9 IMEWS or RDY 2. And of course the “unbiased” statement of PL-12 superiority over MICA is issued by PL-12 designer.
Grizzly01Su-27 series aircraft with TVC and canard are redundant? All the Su-27 aircraft series needed is TVC.
The initial Su-35 aircraft concept was with canard and TVC but the latest Su-35 finalise design is do without canard but TVC….
What does it show?
In my opinion, Sukhoi eliminated canards on the latest Su-35 to reduce cost and simplify construction. Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen, all feature canards and yet the RCS of these aircraft is significantly lower than Su-27/Su-35BM. Also, canard configuration offers better agility/maneuverability at supersonic speeds, without speed loss that the use of TVC results in.
Grizzly01Poor high-AOA qualities are irrelevant for a high-speed, high-altitude interceptor. Expecting it to turn with an F-16 at close range is asinine, it was never designed nor meant for that type of combat. As far as being unforgiving, that’s probably again due to the performance.
MiG-31M had enlarged LERXes, AoA indicator, and also had improved flight control system, but it never went into production. I was wondering if recent upgrades incorporated some of the improvements of MiG-31M. Improving handling at high AoA would increase safety margin during take-offs and landings, and probably would decrease accident rate.
Grizzly01Did any of the MiG-31 upgrades address handling difficulties? I have read from several sources that MiG-31 has poor high AoA qualities and is rather unforgiving aircraft to fly.
Grizzly01What would be the role of Irkutsk plant in the production of PAK-FA? Is it going to continue producing Su-30 series or will it be allowed to construct new fighters? Thanks.
Grizzly01I see the point, and though I did see that, the MiG-29K and MiG-35 variants are modifications to the design too without being rebuilds of existing aircraft (though more radical ones). Nevertheless I understand that it’s entirely possible the fighters are not ‘new’ but rather ‘newly useable’. I suppose we’ll have to wait and see – either way they seem to have developed quite the sudden taste for Fulcrum models, as that would make it about two dozen SMTs plus an order of a regiment or so of MiG-29Ks and now maybe even MiG-35s as well. While it can only be a good thing for MiG, I do question why Russia even needs a lightweight fighter when its usual territorial requirements are for long-ranged aircraft that are more multifunctional than the Fulcrum variants.
MiG-29SMT is a true multirole aircraft, unlike upgraded Su-24 and Su-25 or even Su-34. It also has a greater range than basic MiG-29 and Su-25. It will finally give RuAF opportunity to operate an aircraft in the class (in terms of multirole capability) of F-16C, F/A-18C and Mirage 2000.
Grizzly01The problem for the MiG-23 ainly is that it needs to start with an height and speed advantage against the teen fighters. But the radar is not that good when looking down, while the teen fighters not only have better radars but they also enjoy a much better tactical situation for using the radar.
Add that the MiG-23 does only have semi-active radar guided missiles it is very likely that even the best attack will end in a draw (at best) with the Flogger killing the F-16 just before the AIM-9 impacts.
However the MiG-23 was never meant o beat teen fighters, it was meant to beat the F-4, which it is capable off. MiG-23 is not superior but given a Soviet air defence system to back it up it should be able to equal an F-4E in air combat.
MiG-23 can also employ IR versions of R-23/R-24 which provide some fire and forget capability against head-on targets at ranges under 12km. Also, radar guided R-23/24 have ranges significantly greater than AIM-9L/M, so it seems dubious that F-16A pilot under attack would continue to fly head-on, not initiating any defensive maneuvering, waiting for the Sidewinder to lock-on.
Grizzly01What were the limitations imposed on MiG-23 with wing setting of 16 degrees? I’ve read that experienced pilots used 33 degree setting on MiG-23MLD for air combat, so it is interesting to find out if pilots of earlier versions used settings other than 45 degrees. Thanks.
Grizzly01If, Russia has so much money they don’t seem to be giving it to the Military. As they can’t even scrape up enough money to give the Kuznetsov a new paint job or to even upgard a handful of Su-33’s. Considering all of the flag showing of late………you would think it would be a priority! 😮
According to some reports Russian AF fighter pilots fly only 40 to 50 hours a year. Also, most recent crashes in Russian AF were due to hardware failure. Upgrading and refurbishment of the current fleet should have been priority in military spending. Instead, funds were spent on high-profile strategic aviation flights, deployments to Venezuela, etc.
Grizzly01First day of war conditions against who?!
You think the F-16 is going to be safe in a real war zone with high-end SAM systems present? That’s non-sense if I’ve ever heard any.
F-16s are also vulnerable to enemy fighters. . . so the point is irrelevant.
And how is the Su-34 expensive? It costs far less than any Eagle strike variant.
The MiG-29 upgrade is worthless, when they can field Su-27SM aircraft for the same role, with much longer range and heavier payload. The MiG-29SMT is no mud-mower, and can’t carry as much bomb tonnage as even the Su-24.
My point is that F-16C can self-escort, fly SEAD, deliver PGMs, while Su-25s can only fly CAS missions. The chances of F-16 surviving engagement with enemy fighters and SAMs like Kub, Buk, or Hawk are far higher than those for Su-25, which requires friendly fighter escort and SEAD assets.
If Su-34 costs less than Strike Eagle than why is it procured in such small numbers? Only 70 are to be in service by 2015.
MiG-29 is cheaper to operate than Su-27 or Su-24 and there is a large number of relatively low-houred airframes available. Su-24’s advantage in payload cannot be used in full due relatively short range when flown with maximum payload. MiG-29SMT can carry same number of ARMs (2 Kh-31), PGMs (2 Kh-29) as Su-24. I am not claiming that it is superior to Su-27SM, however it would have been useful complement in RuAF.
Grizzly01The Su-34 is a replacement for both the Su-24 and Su-25.
Do not forget that the Su-25TM “Su-39” program only yielded a few units for the Russian Air Force, as their design was really Cold War oriented. The Su-39 has a plethora of new offensive and defensive systems.
The Su-24M is also being upgraded to the Su-24M2 standard even though the Su-34 is now in serial production.
I mean the same question could apply to the USAF – the A-10 is really “vulnerable” to modern SAMs as well . . . once a mud mower, always a mud mower I guess.
The Su-25SM upgrade is still on from what I understand, which upgrades the Su-25 with better avionics.
Unlike RuAF, USAF has large numbers of multi-role late model F-16s. USAF does not use A-10s in what is termed “first day of war” conditions. Su-34 is a capable platform, but it is expensive and only around 80 aircraft will be fielded in the near future. Upgraded Su-24M2s are still vulnerable to enemy fighters, just as upgraded Su-25s will be. RuAF has large numbers of MiG-29s available for upgrade, yet they spend funds on upgrade of obsolete and single mission aircraft.
Grizzly01IOC for the PAK-FA is 2013, and assuming things are on schedule – especially with the new powerplant and radar, this date is fairly realistic.
There is also no need to develop a “cheaper” jet – as I’d bet the PAK-FA will be cheaper to operate than even the overpriced F-35.
What about SU-25 and SU-24 replacements? Recent conflict with Georgia underlined SU-25’s vulnerability to modern SAM systems. SU-25 was never meant to penetrate heavily defended enemy air defence. In 1980’s that mission was relegated to late model MiG-27s and SU-17s which had higher performance and better mission equipment. Even if SU-25s will be modernised they will still suffer from design limitations.
Sign In
