Adriann, as usual for him (perhaps he is Avon and other previous nicknames, atleast he thinks like Avon), claims several things that are non sense, unless the ‘sensed’ things are to show how the US aircrafts cannot be inferior to the soviet ones in any side.

We saw how a Su-27 could turn in 15 sec and less, for a complete turn (360°). This is a fact. An hard one, even if not enough to provide to you ‘evidence’.

When a ‘proper air-show prepared F-15’ can do a 360° turn in 15 seconds? If so, Adriann, show it or quit.

Not the blabla about ‘you must read eng. magazines’. A lot of engeneers don’t know a lot of things, even if they are posed directly towards to them.

Soviet pilots had 60 hours mandatory but in practice it wasn’t uncommon for pilots to fly 20 annual. NATO pilots were four times the Soviet standard and there was a penalty – although similar in the Soviet rules yet not used – for them to not fly the mandatory number of hours. Different certs for different planes and duties, but we’re talking combat training AFAIK. Failure to fly washed them out, and having quals in the USAF is prestigious. Not very many officers reach the top of the line without the quals for flying. So in practice, NATO pilots often trained more in a month than their counterparts did in a calendar year.

Untrue. Even in the crowded air space of Germany, the pilots flew atleast 70-80 h/monts. And, as it was pointed out, they were used intensively with very short missions and very concentrated in few days a week (they did not flew every day). So, atleast for their task, they had a good training.

About the missions, they had usually much less to do than their counterparts in the West. Go figure, if you have just an interceptor with VWR, no IFR, no dual purpuse missions, no long range missions, you fly the MiG-21, right? Compare it to the task for a typical F-16 or F-18 pilot. I’d bet, that 180 h/monts weren’t enough, while 70-80 with the MiG-21 were enough to do almost anything was demanded by air command.

However, i think the MiG-23 could have been done better (even if, it looks cool).

But, it was not a total failure. This aircraft debuted already in early 1974. One of them, in Syria AF, shot down an F-4E and perhaps one more, before being shot down by a frienldy SA-6 site (from ‘early Floggers in action, ACIG).

The MiG-23 was essential, also in many big countries, in which, simply, the MiG-21 was not enough seen the huge distances involved. Just think about:

1- Irak-Iran war: around 1,000 km frontline.

2 – Angola: the same.

How you could couver all those ranges, just with 3-4 fighter squadrons with MiG-21s? It’s clear that, either you had much more fighter squadrons, or you have the MiG-23s. This latter had the ability to hold 4 AAMs plus an external fuel tanks and an internal gun. The range was arguably more than the MiG-21s with 3 tanks plus 2 AAM, so it was a nice combination of armament (like the max load for a MiG-21) and max range (like the max fuel load for a MiG-21).

The High-Lark radar, with all its limits and defects, was the first real look-down (or ‘depressed’) radar for a tactical soviet fighter; when it worked, it had also a good range (50-80 km). Anyway, a world apart from the simpler (but more reliable) radar set in the MiG-21.

Too bad the MiG-23 was not made with a better FCS (flight control, but also fire control system). It would have been costlier, but better too.

Maybe the MiG-23s limitations were linked to the too forward swept wing, or the flight command systems?

Sea Hawk, the lack of tankers is, as you surely know, also linked to the lack of IFR for many soviet stuff. For the MiG-29 it would have been a real problem in such great distances from the targets.

Mainly, i’d bet that Soviets would have mobilitized their Su-27s, even if they were really more issued to the PVO rather than the FA.

If what Cooper says about the Su-24 is true (around 1,000 km range with 12 Mk.82s, in IRIAF service of course), the Fencer would have not much problem even without IFR. The MiG-27s and Su-17 should have been good as well, as even the early MiG-23BNs attacked Teheran (over 500 km behind the front).

A strong force over the battlefield would have been the Mi-24 plus Mi-8 families. Lack of light recce helicopter would have been noticeable, more so for UAVs (Soviets had them as well, however).

Another strange statement:

””It was a great aircraft to fight if you wanted to fight slow – maybe not against an F-18. You’re at 120 knots and still pointing at him and all he’s looking at is your nose… you get down to 80 knots, dump the nose, go to 120 and from 30 deg nose low to 40 deg nose high and you didn’t go up, but the other guy goes ‘holy smokes, here he comes’.” Evasive action against this deceptive maneuver often put the unwary student inside the MiG-21’s weapon envelope.”

AFAIK, the MiG-21 was not that good in low speed manouvers, being more an high altitude, high speed fighter (look the trials vs F-5s). If really the ’21 could go down to 80 kts, then it was a proto-F-18!

Did i read correctly?? The MIG-23 was capable (at low level??) to go at 880 Knts (the 700 limit was, arguably, only at low level) Wow.

BTW: the MiG-23 was not a simple stuff to maintain.

BUT, But.. it is a fact, that even third world aviation used them with good success, and great numbers: Syria, Irak, India, and Cuba (in Angola) to cite some of them. Czechs, in 1992, were quite happy with the tipe, stating an interview with one squadron’s crews. So there must have been some good points in the making of the Floggers, especially the ML and so on, but th MF and MS too.

Anyway, i’d like more a sort of Mirage F.1s = making the MiG-23 in such way (with a ‘M.F.1 type’ wing, and the power of the R-29 engine..). A lot simpler and more similar to the old MiG-21 in many ways (even if with ‘high’ wing).