It was shot down, of course it was because it was put out of action thanks to battle damage, but showed some main drawbacks of the R-60 as it was shown in the 1982 Bekka valley combats when an F-15 made it back to its base.
The main drawback is the Russians sacrificed warhead size to make the R-60 small, would it had been bigger the F-15 would had been shot down and the Mirage F1 would had never made it to base after been hit by a R-60.
If you want to praise the Mirage F1 characteristics well the aircraft was a bit lucky since it was not inmediately shot down, but at the end was a lost and it counts as shot down for many Historians specially those in Russia and Cuba.
However your question can be answered like this: The MiG-23 was a good aircraft but the R-60 needed a more powerful warhead or a bigger warhead
You are free to have a different opinion, but not everyone in this world agree with such historical position you hold.
No it was not shot down(aircraft was not a “total loss”?), battle damaged yes, main damage was caused by the work being done on the runway at Rundu which entail removing the barrier nets etc. otherwise it would have been a different story. Had the SAAF Missiles worked then you would have seen different results. The Cubans had better missiles, all that the MiG-23 had in it’s favour was speed which enable them to out run the Mirage cannon fire.
Not everyone agree’s with your opinion either and that includes pilots that have flown both in combat.
Sign In
