MiG-23 early modifications had insufficient maneuverability. MiG-23ML and later one of the best fighters in its class

The quote from the Polish book is not mine, the name of this book is unknown to me

no worries
so are you quoting the production figures of
1300 mig-23M
1100 mig-23MLA
300 mig-23P
750 mig-23ML
directly from the red banner factory statistics

i was wondering as Airforces weekly say that MLA and ML were not different production and BOTH togather were under 1000

but Military balance in 1983 mention 2,100 fighter version mig-23M/ML/P/MLA in service with PVO + VVS

which one do you think is more accurate ? military balance ?

MiG-23M (ed. “23-11M”), produced from 1973 to 1976
According to book Polish authors, was issued 750 MiG-23ML(23-12),of which-third went on exports.In turn,the plant Banner of Labor officially indicates that it produced 1100 aircraft modification MLA(23-12A) in 1977-1983 years, and separates them from ML.

hello

which Polish book are you quoting this from ? can you please give the name and author
thank you

also the MLA (23-12A) version of which 1100 were produced are in addition to the 750 ML (23-12) ? or ML was modified to MLA ?

Don’t know why you want to compare F-101 with Lightning – they have somewhat different roles. The F-101 was a bit slower but had way better range and could carry double the warload. Better to compare the Lightning with the F-106, another single seat mach 2 bomber interceptor.

both have their pros and cons

advantage of voodoo is that there is some potential for a secondary strike role

My mistake. But in early 60;s RAF was receiving Lightnings which (apart from tiny range) were mucn better interceptors than F-101, so what need F-101?

But better to standardize with a decent interceptor with the canadians and then maybe more European countries could have adopted f101 too
Was lightning less expensive or maintaince friendly ?

I don’t think MiG-27 or SU-24 were intended to be used outside the protective umbrella of the Tank Army’s SAMs. The MiG/SU combat radius allowed them to cover wide swaths of the front from distant bases, to blast gaps in NATO defenses for the Tank Army to exploit.

You mean su24 was meant to operate under SAM umbrella of static defences ? That means a very short combat radius of 100km

Were those two types really the primary strike assets? Mig-23B and other strike variants, including the MiG-27 were produced from 1971 onwards. Su-17 was produced from 1969 onwards, until 1988. Mig-27 was produced, for Russian needs, until 1985 or so. According to take off magazine lists.

There were in total some 1200 Su-24 produced (including those for export)
1644 Mig-23 (strike variants) and MiG-27 produced (including export ones but without the ones for India/built in India)
1705 su-17 produced. That’s russian variants as su-20/22 were for export. Another 1150 Su-20/22s were produced for export.

As far as I know, MiG-27 never had IFR in Russian service. Iraqis added IFR on their airframes on their own. Not sure about Indians. IFR on Su-24 was also a fairly late feature, on M variant. Certainly not entering service before 1982/83 and were in minority (of total Su-24 fleet) until late 1980s.

Primary means of survival in my opinion was, as with any air force of the time, mission planning, route planning, the fact enemy fighters can’t be in the air 24/7 everywhere and terrain masking. Basically, I don’t believe most of their missions were meant to go much beyond the frontline. Flying low meant they wouldn’t have been detected (in most situations) until 20-ish km away from the frontline. That’s by various tactical AD radars. The big radars would have likely been neutralized in numbers. AWACS wasn’t much of a factor. We had instances in 1999, by modernized variants compared to Cold War, where they detected Serbian low flying planes against the clutter just several tens of km away. They couldn’t have been much of an asset for detecting low fliers in mid 1980s either. Even if NATO did plan to use them for 24/7 defensive surveillance.

Their defense was primarily not being detected and when detected, getting the hell out before any interceptors managed to arrive to the area. I’m sure SOME missions (bombing NATO airfields in western germany?) did require longer range, but we’re still talking about depth of some 300 km (western germany width) plus whatever they had to cross from their bases in Poland and Czech Republic. Fighter MiG-23s, for all their short range, should still have been able to accompany them on such missions as they basically had the same range with their a2a loads as MiG-27s with their a2g loads. Su-24s had some more range, but not much. Perhaps 15%.

I don’t believe Soviet doctrine prescribed deep strikes at all. Even NATO didn’t really believe they could pull it off. Fighter escort or no fighter escort. The reason NATO planes had greater range and IFRs was so they could operate from bases farther away from the front. From UK, Italy, France, etc.

thanks
did the su-24/mig-27 have any onboard jamming equipment ? and or chaff/flares?

Also would the su-24 be able to beat the performance of an F-4 at low level in clean configration ? as su24 could maintain mach 1.2 i think at low level for prolonged periods

Yeah in most modern combat its all about ” small number of events “
F 104 was not involved in any bigger conflicts so we will never know
nor is the su15 going to be exhumed anytime soon
but the comparison was based on the potential of their conflict , given both served in great numbers in the same era

Pakistanis used f104 in combat and was widely accepted as inferior to mig21fl which was a poor low level performer itself