Military Review

Ruined modernization of the MiG-23

62
Ruined modernization of the MiG-23The global aviation industry provides for a program to modernize older aircraft in order to extend their service lives and save budget funds. As a result, the upgraded aircraft to a greater extent reveals its capabilities.


This article focuses on the Soviet fighter, which is far from fully unleashing its potential. Brand - MiG-23-98.

In the 1980's, the North Atlantic bloc strenuously re-equipped its wings with the new F-16, F-15 and F / A-18. Under these conditions, the Soviet Union needed to produce not only the new MiG-29 and Su-27, but also to modernize the MiG-23ML / MLD, which adequately showed themselves in December 1982 in the sky of Syria, as well as in Afghanistan.

Before the appearance of the USSR MiG-29 and Su-27, only the third generation MiG-23MLD fighter could lead an equal battle with Western planes of the fourth generation. However, the collapse of the USSR ruined the program of large-scale modernization of the MiG-23.

However, despite the enormous difficulties and the almost complete lack of funding, in the middle of the 1990-s, the OKB Design Bureau. Mikoyan proposed several programs for the deep modernization of the MiG-23, in cooperation with JSC PhazotronNIIR and GosNIIAS, mainly aimed at export customers. It was necessary to equip the fighter with new types of weapons and advanced on-board electronics. Also, this issue has become relevant due to the expiration of the service life of the P-23 missiles, as well as the completion of the storage periods for the latest P-60 and P-24 missiles.

Initially it was supposed to replace the Sapphire-23 radar with Super-Spear, but later it was decided to install a more modern Mosquito-23 or Mosquito-21K. In total, three basic modification versions were developed:

1. Installation of the radar "Mosquito-23" (target detection range in the forward hemisphere - 90 km, in the rear - 40 km), the introduction of modern air-to-air missiles Р-73, Р-27Р, Р-27Т, Р -77, anti-radar X-31A, adjustable bombs KAB-500Kr.

2. Installation of the radar "Mosquito-21K" (target detection range in the forward hemisphere - 45 km, in the rear - 20 km) in the outboard container in addition to the standard station "Sapphire-23". As a result, without a serious rearrangement, the aircraft gets the opportunity to carry the same weapons as in the first version (but with a shorter range of the missile combat).

3. Preservation of the Sapphire-23 full-time station and installation of a radio correction in the forward part of the channel ensuring the use of P-77 medium-range missiles. The composition of the weapons planned to introduce a rocket melee P-73.

Considered also the option of installing the radar "Topaz". At the same time, a modernized machine would have almost equal opportunities with the MiG-29CMT for conducting missile air combat outside visual contact with the enemy, as well as for actions against land and sea targets. The use of suspended containers with fiber optic equipment made it possible to introduce X-25ML, X-29L, C-25L and CAB-500L bombs into the missile system with laser-guided missiles. At the request of the customer it is possible to equip the fighter with a controlled one. weapons foreign production.

As the main options offered:
• reduced visibility;
• installation of a quantum optical location station (COLS) with the MiG-29;
• the use of a diverse range of containers, expanding the tactical capabilities of the aircraft;
• refueling in the air;
• increase combat survivability;

The design of the MiG-23-98, basically corresponds to the base plane. The “combat” sweep angle of the wing consoles has been reduced from 45 to 33 °. An automatically deflected wing toe is applied. To improve visibility from the cockpit, a new visor of the type MiG-21-93 was installed. The information field is built on multifunctional LCD displays MFI-68 (used on the MiG-29CMT). The navigation equipment includes the GLONASS / GPS satellite system.

Modernization of the MiG-23 aircraft for many countries could be a good alternative to the purchase of improved, but expensive, fourth-generation Western-made aircraft. At one time, it would also be possible to modernize and supply for export aircraft of the Russian Air Force, which are in conservation.

It must be admitted that the MiG-23 was already outdated by the middle of the 1980-s, and it was hard for him to fight the more modern F-15 and F-16 during the battles in Lebanon 1982 of the year and operation "Desert Storm" of 1991 of the year. However, here the USSR did not exhaust all the possibilities. And if история Russia would have gone differently, not Gorbachev-style, our designers could dramatically strengthen these aircraft, saving money for the country.

As a result, four thousand Soviet MiG-23 turned into, as it were, eight thousand power strikes. And at the same time, we would enter the world market for the modernization of our aircraft around the world, bringing the country billions of dollars through lucrative contracts. And the new plans for re-equipment and re-equipment of the Russian Air Force remain on paper ...
Author:
Originator:
http://www.segodnia.ru/
62 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Vladimir65
    Vladimir65 22 November 2013 09: 27
    19
    This word "in Gorbachev's way" hides the whole tragedy of the situation of the country and its people. And God forbid us to get hold of such Gorbachevs, Yeltsins, Gaidars and fall into a new perestroika 2.
    1. Revolver
      Revolver 23 November 2013 01: 25
      +2
      Hmm ... If Mishan Marked under that mark had more gray matter and less brown ... But this is from the area "if my grandmother had ... would be a grandmother grandfather."
  2. loft79
    loft79 22 November 2013 09: 34
    +7
    Sadness. The people can who knows? Mig-23 was cut, preserved, or where is it rotting?
    1. Apollo
      Apollo 22 November 2013 09: 46
      +9
      No comment.
    2. Bongo
      Bongo 22 November 2013 11: 55
      12
      Aircraft of this type, as well as the Su-17 and MiG-27, were in "storage" for some time. "Storage" was carried out in the open air, without proper security, with all the ensuing consequences, after a couple of years almost all the cars turned into scrap metal. Now they are "disposed of".
      1. iouris
        iouris 1 September 2017 13: 36
        0
        There are big suspicions that the units were sold to the former USSR allies in B. Vostok through "companies" organized by cunning people from the Air Force, and most likely they worked under the control of the Israeli and US special services.
    3. EvilLion
      EvilLion 22 November 2013 12: 57
      +5
      Somewhere it was preserved like it was, but, most likely, cut. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was no point in modernizing them, the modern MiG-29 and Su-27 for the rest of the army was abundant.
      1. 0255
        0255 22 November 2013 15: 08
        +9
        heart bleeds what sad photographed Aug 18 2013, source http://russianplanes.net/id122398
        1. 0255
          0255 22 November 2013 15: 10
          +5
          or here's another heartbreaking shot
          1. 0255
            0255 22 November 2013 15: 13
            +5
            this MiG-23 is simply handsome compared to previous photos (26/08/2013)
            http://russianplanes.net/id123905
            1. 0255
              0255 22 November 2013 15: 17
              +6
              but the MiG-23 in the USA, on August 31, 2013. I don’t know who it belongs to now, but its condition is clearly better than that of the "mothballed" in Russia
              1. typhoon7
                typhoon7 22 November 2013 16: 07
                +3
                Yes, whatever you say, a nice beautiful car. To the author plus.
            2. Akim
              Akim 22 November 2013 15: 24
              +3
              Quote: 0255
              http://russianplanes.net/id123905

              So he does not have a Soviet color. Here it is burned out on the MiG-23ML.
              Airfield School Odessa.
              1. Kasym
                Kasym 22 November 2013 20: 31
                +7
                And here is the MiG-23 of the Air Force of Kazakhstan.
                1. Kasym
                  Kasym 22 November 2013 20: 41
                  +5
                  There is also a MiG-27. MiG - 23, when I served at the training ground I saw a lot. We mainly flew foreign cadets on airplanes, which their countries bought for themselves. The most popular MiG-21s were (served 87-89). They were based in Kant and Tokmok. MiG-23 and MiG-29 in Lugovoi. Helicopters in Frunze.
  3. DeMBel
    DeMBel 22 November 2013 09: 54
    26
    A good car, I did not fly it for 10 years, I was in Afghanistan, some positive emotions, but as the saying goes ... "New Russia was born ..." and everything went to hell ... unfortunately ...
    1. Argon
      Argon 22 November 2013 12: 16
      12
      I didn’t fly on them myself (I didn’t even manage to take them out on a twin-track), but “rubbing my sides”, in various exercises in the early to mid-80s I often did it (mainly with MiG-23B, BN, and 27m). Probably, the creation of such a machine was a necessary step in the development of domestic aviation. The combination of a relatively light airframe and a powerful radar complex gave great opportunities, but the practical implementation of the idea, and the situation with the appearance of this aircraft in the Air Force, led to rather ambiguous assessments of the aircraft (in general, the history of this MiG painfully resembles " life path "T-64). The plane is far from simple, one might even say insidious in piloting, with a rather prodigious engine (it does not belong to the 27th) and a small fuel supply makes it very attentive to the choice of mode, especially in complex PMU, it is very dangerous a corkscrew, fully unleash the potential of the "rasp" can be a pilot with a class not lower than the second (my opinion is purely subjective and composed mainly of communication with those who served on them). For technicians, this is generally a complete "hemorrhoids" (there is no place without welding), the machine is an order of magnitude more difficult and more demanding to maintain than, for example, the Su-17. As for the MiG-23-98, as far as I know, more than one side has not been modernized (there were no customers) , I think this is not about the car, but about the inability / unwillingness to work of our "effective managers".
      1. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe 22 November 2013 19: 43
        -7
        Quote: Argon
        Perhaps the creation of such a machine was a necessary step in the development of domestic aviation. The combination of a relatively light glider and a powerful radar complex provided great opportunities, but the practical implementation of the idea, and the situation with the appearance of this aircraft in the Air Force, led to rather ambiguous estimates of the aircraft

        You don’t get the impression that this aircraft, like all Soviet "3rd generation", is outdated even in its conception. The aircraft was mass-produced for the Soviet Air Force from 1976 to 1981. - at that time, as in the west, the F-15,16 were already flying - machines of a completely different level, against which the MiG did not have a single chance (air war, Lebanon-82)
        1. 0255
          0255 22 November 2013 22: 10
          +3
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          You don’t get the impression that this aircraft, like all Soviet "3rd generation", is outdated even in its conception. The aircraft was mass-produced for the Soviet Air Force from 1976 to 1981. - at that time, as in the west, the F-15,16 were already flying - machines of a completely different level, against which the MiG did not have a single chance (air war, Lebanon-82)

          if Israeli F-15s and F-16s actually shot down 102 MiG-21s and MiG-23s without losses, showing SUCH superiority, then most likely the Americans would attack the USSR in 1982 as well. And we would have been won long ago. Remember that in the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher was thinking of leaving alive, either 15, or 20 million people of the USSR out of 200 million.
          1. abdrah
            abdrah 23 November 2013 05: 15
            +1
            Sorry, but the USSR population is about 270 million at the beginning of the 80s.
          2. Su-9
            Su-9 23 November 2013 08: 20
            +1
            You, 0255, the left does not converge with the right. And then the bloodthirsty plans of the United States in relation to the USSR to the dominance of the Israeli Air Force over the Arabs?
            And even if the score was 100: 0, then the Americans would not have attacked in the 80s, since they would have received a nuclear desert and the complete collapse of their capitalist imperialism. And they are not fools.
            1. 0255
              0255 23 November 2013 13: 49
              0
              Quote: abdrah
              Sorry, but the USSR population is about 270 million at the beginning of the 80s.

              sorry
              Quote: Su-9
              You, 0255, the left does not converge with the right. And then the bloodthirsty plans of the United States in relation to the USSR to the dominance of the Israeli Air Force over the Arabs?
              And even if the score was 100: 0, then the Americans would not have attacked in the 80s, since they would have received a nuclear desert and the complete collapse of their capitalist imperialism. And they are not fools.

              I may be wrong, but the United States would gladly attack us, being confident of air superiority. Moreover, seeing such superiority of their newest "F" over the old MiGs. After all, the Su-27 and MiG-29 were just being tested at that time.
              During the Korean War, the Americans also wanted to attack the USSR, using atomic bombs, until they saw the superiority of the MiG-15 over the F-86 "Saber". So this is still a moot point.
              1. Su-9
                Su-9 24 November 2013 19: 16
                0
                The Americans had thoughts about an attack on the USSR in the early 50s since in the USSR the number of atomic bombs could be counted using 20 fingers. And there were no means of delivering them to the continental states. As soon as delivery vehicles appeared, all plans for an attack on the USSR were the first to disappear. Why do you think the USSR first went into space? Because of the love of cosmogonic theory? No, because we needed a rocket capable of delivering a couple of tons of cargo to the other end of the Earth.
                And the superiority in the Air Force / Air Defense here is relegated to the 2nd plan.
        2. Su-9
          Su-9 23 November 2013 08: 29
          +2
          Sweet16, it’s always nice to read you, but here you are wrong.
          In almost any conditions at 23m you can fight against the early F16 and intercept the F15e (the second is more difficult).
          23rd was a mass fighter of the USSR. MLD was not a very bad interceptor, especially in the Soviet sense of the word.
          Acting from a jump, with the support of the radar field, it was possible to fight completely. I think I’ll ever write everything on this subject, otherwise there are a lot of speculations based on Tom Clancy and similar nonsense.
          If you have a 1-on-1 battle without any support, then after a pair of Mig17-F86 before the appearance of the FARs, any USSR plane lost, as it was taken on sight earlier (note, not found).
          Against the early modifications of the F16, this was not critical, since there were no decent missiles. Then it got worse.
          But! 1 on 1 fought only in the 90s in Africa, and that is not always the case.
      2. Su-9
        Su-9 23 November 2013 07: 49
        0
        As a person who flew 700 hours at 23m in the 80s and 90s completely with you, Argon, I agree.
        The car was difficult to fly and capricious in maintenance. Techniques that the 23rd knew well were counted in any part.
        I do not see (and did not see) any need to modernize the 23rd. Even at the level of the 29th, he was the "past" generation.
        1. sivuch
          sivuch 24 November 2013 10: 00
          0
          UV.Su-9
          And what exactly did you fly Mig-23? Judging by your nickname, did your regiment relate to air defense?
      3. Su-9
        Su-9 23 November 2013 08: 16
        +1
        As a person who flew 700 hours at 23m in the 80s and 90s completely with you, Argon, I agree.
        The car was difficult to fly and capricious in maintenance. Techniques that the 23rd knew well were counted in any part.
        They trusted us to fly only with the second class. Otherwise - on a spark (of which there were 3, of which one is always under repair).
        I do not see (and did not see) any need to modernize the 23rd in the 90s. Even at the level of the 29th, he was the "past" generation as a fighter.
        As an IS BM, it seemed nothing, but the Su-17 was all better. I still don’t know how the MiG-27y was sold to the Indians (but I guess).
        He flew to combat even not to MLD but to ML, worked as a bunk and a gun.
        Of course it’s nice to remember youth, but in principle, the rasp deserved his nickname and by the 90s had already served his.
  4. Alexey Prikazchikov
    Alexey Prikazchikov 22 November 2013 10: 29
    -5
    Damn, we just needed light fighters. And not a bunch of expensive Moments 29th.
    1. 0255
      0255 22 November 2013 15: 20
      +7
      MiG-29 was created as a simple and inexpensive front-line fighter. Let's say that PAK FA is not needed because of the high cost.
    2. Su-9
      Su-9 23 November 2013 08: 34
      +1
      The 29th replaced the 23rd.
      And despite 2 doors it was cheaper to operate (less hours for maintenance).
      Cheap fighters in the years 90-00-10 - on f..g are not needed.
      Waste of money and resources on training pilots on flying Zaporozhets is not needed when 27 people fly for 30 hours without combat use and are happy ...
  5. avt
    avt 22 November 2013 10: 41
    +9
    A wonderful car, brought to mind and still had the potential for modernization! Especially MLD, well, 27 e would be quite useful for themselves. But the subjective factor is that two engines are more reliable than one and a humpbacked "perjestroika" ..... request
    1. Sergej506
      Sergej506 22 November 2013 11: 27
      10
      I will not say about "bringing to mind", but compared to the MiG-29 - it sucks! He operated the MLA in the GSVG as an AV specialist. After receiving the MiG-29s, the 23rd were recalled as a nightmare, especially in matters of rearmament from a fighter to a bomber. And the reliability is an order of magnitude lower, especially when used on combat duty.
      1. Su-9
        Su-9 23 November 2013 08: 36
        +2
        Sergey, exactly.
        The 29th was cheaper than the 23rd even in normal hours! I'm not saying that the 29th was many times more reliable.
      2. sivuch
        sivuch 24 November 2013 10: 00
        0
        Sergey, and you can’t write, what exactly did you feel like that?
        To be honest, I have read the opposite so far, that is, the Mig-29 was originally a fairly crude machine in terms of engines and equipment, which, of course, is typical of any new technology.
        They generally wrote about self-propelled guns that in the Automatic and Return mode on the 23rd it works much better and more reliably than on the 29th, and the radar keeps the capture for any maneuvers of the target.
        About 23-18, in general, someone wrote that there is no need to think about a plane for generals
        Although, in the same way I read that 23 is for the captain, and 29 for the sergeant
    2. carbofo
      carbofo 22 November 2013 12: 41
      +7
      Quote: avt
      But the subjective factor is that two engines are more reliable than one

      This is an objective factor, how many planes did not lose due to engines, it was worth it.
      With our climate and lack of normal maintenance, it is better to have 2 engines than 1, machine losses due to engine failures are falling.
      As for modernization, she was not destined to be, for 3 reasons,
      1- exit to the MIG-29, SU-27 series.
      2- less combat potential against fighters of new designs.
      3- situation in the country (key)
      In principle, if you consider how many Mig-23 aircraft were released, the modernization was relevant.
      It’s better to crush the enemy with 4000 medium-sized planes, rather than the 50th latest, the mass will do its job.
      1. Su-9
        Su-9 23 November 2013 08: 48
        0
        "with our climate and lack of normal service" - our climate is normal - no worse than many, and in the middle zone and in the north it is even better - the main thing is there is no sand and dust, and the service is not so bad (in principle, all technicians from above were good specialists).
        The problem was with unreliable engines and insufficient traction. As an illustration, look at the problems with the engines on the GVF vessels (which fly a lot more than the military in the same climate and with similar service).
        Well, on the 29th they simply did not find one sufficiently powerful engine with a normal resource - there simply was no 10tkgs engine for the fighter.
        1. carbofo
          carbofo 25 November 2013 12: 53
          0
          Su-9
          I had in mind the breadth of climate in the whole country.
          23 engines were less reliable, but still the reliability of a machine with 2 engines is higher.
          Mig29 and su27, even at the design stage, became overlapping design projects, I saw early studies of both, little in common, whether Su and Mig shared the scheme or not, is a separate story, but the fact remains. I think it was not without Tsaga.
          As for the service, I did not mean the technical staff, and I had in mind the adequate service infrastructure, it is different everywhere where it is normal, where it is not very good, and any aircraft still requires a technical base.
          I don’t remember about 29 engines, it’s possible that due to lack of engine they came in 2 engines, but still 2 is better, how many planes did not lose due to engine failure, and remember the 2008 war, the attack aircraft came with a disrupted second turbine on one. And the requirements for the power of an individual engine are less stringent, and there are a lot of pluses to the performance characteristics of the aircraft, so 2x is, although it’s unprofitable, but there are pluses.
          In general, 23 good cars were written off in vain, to refine the avionics, expand the capabilities, and he could completely compete with the f-16.
          all the same, 4000 cars is a lot, such a fleet is cool brain cool.
  6. Akim
    Akim 22 November 2013 11: 17
    +1
    In Africa and the Middle East, there is still a buyer for them.
    1. Professor
      Professor 22 November 2013 15: 39
      -3
      Cool bedtime story. good
      1. Akim
        Akim 22 November 2013 15: 45
        +9
        Quote: Professor
        Cool bedtime story.

        As without a fly in the ointment from the Professor. winked
      2. 0255
        0255 22 November 2013 21: 49
        -1
        Quote: Professor
        Cool bedtime story. good

        stop poisoning stories about the invincible Israeli Air Force !!!
        1. Su-9
          Su-9 23 November 2013 09: 30
          +2
          0255, there are beliefs, but there are facts.
          No matter how you like it, the Israelis did not lose to anyone in the air. So just your description of their Air Force falls.
          There are many reasons for this. If it is easier for you to believe the sources from Soviet times, I beg you, read the article by Colonel Dubrov in "Aviation and Cosmonautics" for October 1983.
          There, a real pro described why the Syrians were so mercilessly beaten.
          The good air defense major forced us to cram that article in the school.
  7. BITL_DJUS
    BITL_DJUS 22 November 2013 12: 06
    +7
    Beautiful plane
  8. polkownik1
    polkownik1 22 November 2013 12: 49
    17
    On the MiG-23P, ML, MLD, he performed more than 40 rocket fires. Not a single "ruined" one. I flew on it for 13 years and dreamed of wing toes deflected in flight. It lacked maneuverability at low speeds. And here you are ... done and immediately ruined! This is ours. And what would be an inexpensive alternative (or addition) today to the "twenty-ninth" and Sukhoi ... After all, not all theaters of military operations will confront us with all sorts of "Raptors".
    1. sivuch
      sivuch 24 November 2013 10: 14
      0
      That is, wing33 has already been canceled?
      And you could not say how 23-18 differed in maneuverability from 23-12. That is, with the same engine and the same stealth, but due to improved aerodynamics and SOS.
      There are also questions about the R-35 engine. As you know, all sources say that the thrust on the afterburner is -12500-13000kg. In the well-known RLE on ML it is said that there is a PFII mode with a thrust of 12500kg, but with a note, with the PF toggle switch disabled. And if it is turned on?
      in addition, I recently read recollections of the use of MLD in Afghanistan. There are mentioned PF modes with a thrust of 12500 kg and a combat-13800. If the author did not mess up anything over the past years (in fact, it does not look like), then why is there no information?
      23-14 - how much easier was he than ordinary ML, respectively, how much did he differ in piloting?
      Sorry for the abundance of questions.
  9. propolsky
    propolsky 22 November 2013 13: 15
    +2
    an airplane for its class and a theater of operations, lightweight, one engine (engine failure - there is an accident right away, or even a catastrophe), cheap. It has won back if only somewhere in developing countries, but it is necessary to seriously prepare pilots for flying on this type !
  10. USNik
    USNik 22 November 2013 13: 28
    +4
    Quote: Sergej506
    I will not say about "finishing", but compared to the MiG-29 - it sucks! He operated the MLA in the GSVG as an AV specialist. After receiving the MiG-29s, the 23rd were recalled as a nightmare ...

    I agree, +1. And the author in the article contradicts himself
    Before the Soviet Union saw the MiG-29 and Su-27, only a third-generation MiG-23MLD fighter could conduct air combat on equal terms with fourth-generation Western aircraft.
    and a little lower
    I must admit that the MiG-23 was already outdated by the mid-1980s, and it was hard for him in battles with the more modern F-15 and F-16
    and it was necessary to write that the MiG-23 largely lost to Iglam and the Falcons. The military was well aware of this and carried out work on 29 and T10 at an accelerated pace. Yak-3 is also a great car, it was, but its time has passed, the same with the Mig-23.
  11. EvilLion
    EvilLion 22 November 2013 13: 33
    0
    The MiG-21-93 project found a buyer, if the MiG-23-98 didn’t do this, it means no one felt any particular need for it, one of the possible reasons was the abundance of the MiG-29 from the former USSR air force.
    1. sivuch
      sivuch 24 November 2013 10: 16
      0
      In fact, Angola bought the upgraded Mig-23. That's just they were modernized not in Russia, but in Ukraine
  12. typhoon7
    typhoon7 22 November 2013 16: 03
    +2
    Quote: EvilLion
    Somewhere it was preserved like it was, but, most likely, cut. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was no point in modernizing them, the modern MiG-29 and Su-27 for the rest of the army was abundant.

    For such a large country like Russia there is no excess, especially in armament, which we are actually observing now.
  13. Odysseus
    Odysseus 22 November 2013 18: 08
    0
    The Mig-23 ML / MLA / MLD, and especially the Mig-27 M / D / K, were very relevant for developing countries in 1991. In case of modernization, they would have served in the domestic air force.
    In any case, everything is all right for a zealous owner — with normal promotion of aircraft to foreign markets, a country could earn billions from a single sale of a huge number of aircraft from the USSR Air Force.
    But alas ... All the worse .. if
  14. sapran
    sapran 22 November 2013 18: 20
    -1
    Here some admire the Mig-29 and where is it ?! Mig-23 ruined the mentality of the USSR - for the modernization of the stars especially did not give another thing a new car - then honor and respect !!! And the country's economy, despite the fact that the collapse had already begun, was somewhere in last place in priorities. No one argues that being rich and healthy is good, it’s just that some kind of underfluor under the F-16 index continues to live and be updated, and then everyone derailed. And God with him from 23 would be in the Mig-29 trend, but to be praised or bought there in a salable condition something is not really ...
  15. typhoon7
    typhoon7 22 November 2013 19: 54
    +3
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    You don’t get the impression that this aircraft, like all Soviet "3rd generation", is outdated even in its conception. The aircraft was mass-produced for the Soviet Air Force from 1976 to 1981. - at that time, as in the west, the F-15,16 were already flying - machines of a completely different level, against which the MiG did not have a single chance (air war, Lebanon-82)

    Who sang such songs to you? Israel? The car proved to be not bad in Lebanon, like our tanks and automatic ships, otherwise Syria and Lebanon would have been completely different a long time ago.
  16. Santa Fe
    Santa Fe 22 November 2013 19: 54
    -2
    In the 1980s, the North Atlantic bloc strenuously rearmed its air wings with the new F-16, F-15 and F / A-18. Under these conditions, the Soviet Union needed to produce not only the new MiG-29 and Su-27, but also to modernize the MiG-23ML / MLD, which are in service, which are worthy showed themselves in December 1982 in the sky of Syriaas well as in Afghanistan.

    Not Syria, but Lebanon.
    secondly, the MiG-23 proved itself to be a laughing stock - huge losses and not a single reliable downed enemy aircraft (this is over their own territory controlled by the Syrian troops - and not a single wreckage or captured F-16 pilot!)
    The plane was outdated even before its birth, it appeared in the Air Force units in the mid-1970s, at the same time as the f-16 in the West - against generation 4 fighters, the MiG was no longer a tenant
    as well as in Afghanistan

    For work on the ground, the 23rd turned out to be complete junk.
    Full lol on the background of the Su-17M3 (4). Even as a light attack aircraft, pilots preferred the MiG-21PFM - for its smaller size and greater maneuverability - it was more difficult to fall into it from Earth

    The only one who is sorry is the specialized MiG-27K strike, decommissioned along with the disappearance of the IBA. Then it bitterly responded in Chechnya.

    "Kaira" looks at you as the next target)))
    1. Odysseus
      Odysseus 22 November 2013 20: 12
      +2
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      Not Syria, but Lebanon.
      secondly, the MiG-23 proved to be a complete laughing stock - not a single reliably shot down enemy aircraft (this is over its own territory controlled by the Syrian troops - and not a single wreckage or captured F-16 pilot).

      In Lebanon, there were Mig-23MS (terrible junk), Mig-23MF, Mig-23ML / MLA were not there, and the difference between them was significant. They didn’t show anything since the tactics of using the Mig-23 were imprisoned for guidance from the ground, and in Syria Israel didn’t have it, but there were AWACS aircraft. In these conditions, the Mig-21Bis and the early modifications of the Mig-23 did not.
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      The plane was outdated even before its birth, it appeared in the Air Force units in the mid-1970s, at the same time as the f-16 in the West - against generation 4 fighters, the MiG was no longer a tenant

      They appeared in 1969, EMNIP in the 968th regiment in Belarus. The chances against the F-16 of the first modifications (without SD missiles) were good. But only in the late 23th type of MLA / MLD. Against the F-15, the chances were only when pointing from the ground , or with AWACS (though in practice this was rarely practiced). Another thing is that in the late 80s the F-16s, F-15s, F-18s were modernized, so the Mig-23 had no chance without a new modernization.
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      For work on the ground, the 23rd turned out to be complete junk.

      The 23rd was not used for work on the ground, except for the BN-transitional modification to the 27th. On the ground, the Su-17M4 and Mig-27D / K were approximately equal. Both of them were very good during the day. The Su-17 was easier to maintain.
      PS Mig-27M did a good job in Sri Lanka, and they don’t seem to complain in Syria either.
      1. Argon
        Argon 22 November 2013 23: 54
        0
        In general, I agree with the respected Odyssey, I will clarify about the shock modifications of the MiG-23B; BNs in terms of the quality of the PrNK were approximately equal to their peer modifications of the Su-17, it was assumed that the MiG would be less expensive, but the weakness of the airframe forced to reduce the operational overload, to raise the altitude range And the volume of repairs on the airframe (the caisson tanks in the center section and the power section of the wing were constantly cracking) led to an increase in the cost of the life cycle of a chutli by more than 2 times compared to the Su-17. The MiG-27 had somewhat greater navigation capabilities in comparison with the "Rusks" in terms of the range of weapons it was equal to them, as well as in terms of the complexity of maintenance, although there were problems with durability (in spite of the measures taken). The MiG-27K (a separate modification from the entire series of 23/27 Sturmoviks) was an order of magnitude superior to the Su-17e (as in navigation and in accuracy of application, the machine is sharpened for the use of high-precision AAS.) But the high cost, and most importantly the low reliability of the quantum television sighting station, turned These machines were used in the mobile "scenery" of the airfield. Problems with the glider existed even in spite of the scanty raid. The MiG-27M is the most successful modification (without the Kaira23 LTPS), in terms of navigation and nomenclature, the VASP surpassed even the Su-17m4, demanded, rather, a higher level of those personnel, and the volume of regulations even decreased in comparison with the "Sukhoi". There were practically no problems with the airframe on this machine, which was the result of not only the labor of designers, but also more competent operation. MiG-27D-brought to the level "eMki" twenty-seventh.
    2. Thunderbolt
      Thunderbolt 22 November 2013 20: 20
      +1
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      "Kaira" looks at you as the next target)))

      There is a nice place near Samara: a bird island, al a golden scythe, the name does not matter, the main thing is that in this flooded area, Russian seagulls represent an intint to protect offspring. In short, a homo sovieticus sailed to a golden scythe, well, have fun with hegemons, but a little what kind of homo sapiens crosses the reserved beach is so alarming ... But I think that the designation KAIRA is its direct essence. Look for such predators in the North.
    3. typhoon7
      typhoon7 22 November 2013 21: 53
      0
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      secondly, the MiG-23 proved itself to be a laughing stock - huge losses and not a single reliable downed enemy aircraft (this is over their own territory controlled by the Syrian troops - and not a single wreckage or captured F-16 pilot!)
      The plane was outdated even before its birth, it appeared in the Air Force units in the mid-1970s, at the same time as the f-16 in the West - against generation 4 fighters, the MiG was no longer a tenant

      What a laughing stock? You know, such good weed is smoked on discovery and in the Israeli media. What are you fighting there? There was no advantage in the air on either side. And this is a reading matter that you have been presenting here on the Internet for a long time walking, and it is known where the legs grow from. To make such statements, it is necessary to engage in research for more than one year, otherwise it sounds mildly incorrect to say the least.
    4. 0255
      0255 22 November 2013 21: 55
      +1
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
      Not Syria, but Lebanon.
      secondly, the MiG-23 proved itself to be a laughing stock - huge losses and not a single reliable downed enemy aircraft (this is over their own territory controlled by the Syrian troops - and not a single wreckage or captured F-16 pilot!)
      The plane was outdated even before its birth, it appeared in the Air Force units in the mid-1970s, at the same time as the f-16 in the West - against generation 4 fighters, the MiG was no longer a tenant

      and this is written by the author of the article dated February 6, 2013 "Invincible F-15. How did the Syrians clipped the wings of the Eagles?"
      http://topwar.ru/23890-nepobedimyy-f-15-kak-siriycy-podrezali-orlam-krylya.html
      You in that article cited an interview that the MiG-23 turned out to be not so bad against the F-15 and F-16, as the lying Western-Israeli official propaganda says.
      1. 0255
        0255 22 November 2013 22: 13
        0
        in that article, you wrote that the MiG-23 shot down the F-15 and F-16.
    5. Su-9
      Su-9 23 November 2013 09: 05
      +4
      Well, even if you read the Israelis, there are no words about the "bad" MiG-23x. Basically, they explain their victories by the complete destruction of the Syrian communications system, and the absolute absence of target designation to the Syrian interceptors. Here it is not necessary to compare the planes, and not even the pilots and their training (and how here some people like to call the Arabs bad words!), But the strategy and work of the headquarters (in which the Syrians completely lost).
      By the way, since Syria lost the war, then by your logic, we can say that Galil is better than Kalashnikov. So, for example laughing
    6. carbofo
      carbofo 25 November 2013 13: 05
      0
      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

      secondly, the MiG-23 proved itself to be a laughing stock - huge losses and not a single authentically shot down enemy aircraft (this is over its own territory controlled by the Syrian troops - and not a single wreckage or captured F-16 pilot!)

      instantly 23 practically did not participate in the hostilities against fighters, and individual episodes cannot be assessed as negative.
      At one time in 1941, the Mig-3 was also not used for its intended purpose as a high-altitude fighter and on the medium it was losing to the Germans, the result was as if obvious, the plane did not show any benefit, not because it was bad, it was simply used not as it should!
  17. Pashhenko Nikolay
    Pashhenko Nikolay 22 November 2013 19: 57
    +3
    This modernization resembles VAZ fuss with its classics - slightly increase the engine volume, change the headlights, change the hood, hang the moldings. Mig-29 and SU-27 are brand new cars and only they had to be done. And MIG-23 was for its time normal car. From Armavir airdrome, they rose and went to supersonic above my village, flew to the city of Elbrus, circled it and returned back. In childhood, probably not a day passed without women above their heads.
  18. bublic82009
    bublic82009 22 November 2013 22: 16
    +1
    To solve a number of problems, superplanes are not always needed. Yes, and for weak countries do not need the F-15. To solve their local problems, they need enough modernized old models.
    1. Su-9
      Su-9 23 November 2013 09: 18
      0
      For weak countries, it will be cheaper to upgrade the balalaika. And the 21st glider will be stronger by the way, too.
      By the way, many are engaged in this.
      And even cheaper to pull out of the MiG-19 caches. You don’t even need to learn to fly on it.
  19. rostov-dad
    rostov-dad 22 November 2013 22: 26
    +1
    and what cadets with 23 did with us was just awful, especially when landing, how they did not crumble is not clear. One case of the 23rd chassis did not work, he circled for half an hour, and he did barrels and loops, it was useless. Then, neatly, on a dedicated field in the steppe, his priter, the pilot ejected (he is alive and well), we ran around as little as he (the plane) was almost whole, and apparently the plane was very strong.
  20. cherkas.oe
    cherkas.oe 22 November 2013 22: 38
    +1
    If you upgrade, then the latest modifications i.e. 23ml, 23mld, the rest of the modifications to bring in a commodity-combat form is expensive, but almost impossible. A lot of work with the glider and wing mechanization. And how many of them ML and MLD? A drop in the sea. So, vanity is all noncontact and paper translation.
  21. rostov-dad
    rostov-dad 22 November 2013 22: 48
    +1
    The 23rd is quite difficult to repair and to manufacture, and even outdated as the i-16 during the war.
  22. Kostya Anashkin
    Kostya Anashkin 18 March 2018 16: 44
    0
    vjlthybpfwbz dgthtlb gkfytns dctq
  23. Kostya Anashkin
    Kostya Anashkin 18 March 2018 16: 46
    0
    old models do not plow the field, but sow with what they have.