Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Tactical use of Mig-23

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • nastle
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Feb 2005
    • 546

    Tactical use of Mig-23

    How did the USSR intent to use the MiG-23 in the VVS , in the IA-PVO it was a pure interceptor.
    What were the missions of MiG-23 in VVS and what tactics were adopted by them to counter NATO fighters
  • thobbes
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Sep 2010
    • 2116

    #2
    The air defence versions assigned to Frontal Aviation would be used for establishing tactical air superiority over the battlefield to allow ground support aviation to operate unharassed by enemy fighters.

    IA-PVO was as far I am aware more concerned with protecting USSR from strategic bombers.

    I think most Soviet A2A operations would involve a Ground Controller to guide fighters to a point where they could intercept enemy fighters. The fighters would then launch independent action using long range radar homing missiles and then cannon/short range missiles in close range combat

    MiG-23BN/BK and MiG-27 are ground attack/strike fighters.

    I could be wrong so feel free to tear my points apart.
    "It will be so loud that if we move in next door to you, your lawn will die".
    Lemmy on Motorhead

    Comment

    • sainz
      Rank 5 Registered User
      • Jan 2006
      • 432

      #3
      Originally posted by nastle View Post
      What were the missions of MiG-23 in VVS and what tactics were adopted by them to counter NATO fighters
      At these Links you can find some public details from ex-Soviet pilots, exercises at 'Russian Top-Gun'. These are not exactly what you need, in most of the 'fights' the MiG-23 played F-15 vs MiG-21's, but these are interesting.

      'AWACS hunting' - MiG-21bis vs AN-12 'AWACS' & MiG-23ML >
      http://forums.airforce.ru/sovremenno...a-3/#post73501

      MiG-21bis vs MiG-23ML(act F-15 with AIM-7F) >
      http://forums.airforce.ru/sovremenno...a-3/#post73583

      http://forums.airforce.ru/sovremenno...a-3/#post73611

      x4 MiG-21bis vs x2 MiG-23ML >
      http://forums.airforce.ru/sovremenno...a-3/#post73511

      The online-translating does not work perfectly, but it helps:

      http://translate.google.com/
      " Late May to early June, 1985g. Mary-I. Proverka 927iap.
      Free dogfight zvena. Veduschaya pair: regimental commander-zampolit. Vedomaya pair: zam.komandira-st.shturman. "Enemy" is a pair of MiG-23 local air group.
      Battle plan was developed in three versions, depending on the construction of the battle formation of the "enemy."
      Converged on a collision kursah.Para "enemy" has opened at the front with an interval of 2-3km.Komandir determined: "Option number 2."
      At a distance of "the enemy" 30-35km team: "maneuver."
      The leading pair of GS-23 guns shoot projectiles dipolyami. After shooting - a 180 *, the leading pair of right-led vlevo.Vysota 1500-1800m. "Enemy" is higher.
      Watching sblizheniem.Na range 15-20km - "maneuver." Shooting IR-traps ASO-2I and perevorot. Na exit the horizon leading the pair: "The purpose of the left at 45, range 3" - "observed attacks." Led the pair: "The purpose of the right to 45, range 3" - "observed attack"
      Everything went like notam.Pobedili.
      At the command post airbase commander asked me, "What is the option number 2 and what maneuvers were performed?" I replied that I can explain gruppy.Esche after landing, he asked: "How many options for a fight?" I said, "Three." To which he nodded approvingly and no more questions asked.
      P.S. Mog not quite correctly specify "range" and "high." It is too proshlo.Zdes the forum there are members of the test, they have to correct. "

      Some standard 'tactics' for close-combat:



      'Arkan' , 'Uzel' , 'Krab' etc. became standard at VVS fighter units from the early '70s. These came with the unit level ACT program '500s'
      Just for example one of the check flights(in two seater trainer) for these ACM's was the exercise no.523 'O'
      Last edited by sainz; 13th December 2012, 09:29.

      Comment

      • Sens
        Rank 5 Registered User
        • Jan 2000
        • 12298

        #4
        I have to smile. The "hostile" pair had to stay in formation limited to turning in most examples, when the own pair was allowed to split formation to allow the shooter to make use or the energy fight to generate a firing solution.

        Western fighter pilots are trained to split for better mutual support as well. After the engagement begins the leader/wingman relationship becomes one of engaged fighter-free fighter. Offensively, after the initial attack, which can be made by both fighters simultaneously or in rapid succession, the fighter with the greatest offensive potential becomes the engaged fighter and commences one-versus-one maneuvering while the free assumes a cover position. That role can be reversed as shown in the Russian example as well.

        In short the Russians followed the US example from
        http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...Weapons_School
        http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...Weapons_School
        forced by a rising number of dissimilar combat situations in the 60s different from assumed slashing attacks or intercepts. Contrary to that the Russians trained more against "cooperative enemies" as the former Russian Top Gun pilot Alexander Zuyev reported.

        Comment

        • seahawk
          F-4 Phanatic
          • Jan 2000
          • 4612

          #5
          That was far from TopGun, it was even far from the daily bounces between NATO aircraft. It was something along the line of BFM tactics, with both parties following a scripted sequence of manoeuvres.

          The basic use of the MiG-23 would have been similar to the MiG-23, with a pair of fighters being directed by GCI to intercept enemy planes. The better avionics of the MiG-23 should have been an advantage, especially the use of BVR missiles. In the offensive role MiG-23 fighters would use their speed to make slashing attacks against NATO CAPs to open a gap for strikers. High Speed and the use of BVR would give them a decent chance to fire the first shot, which allows them to gain in initiative in the merge, but the high fuel use would mean that they would bingo quickly, especially if they want to get out at high speeds as well. The experience of forgein MiG-23 users can be called a mixed bag. The plane had some serious problems with the avionics in the early versions and was hard to master. Many pilots preferred the MiG-21, which was more nimble.
          Last edited by seahawk; 13th December 2012, 15:52.
          Member of ACIG

          an unnamed Luftwaffe officer:"Typhoon is a warm weather plane. If you want to be operational at -20C you have to deploy the F-4F."

          Comment

          • Freehand
            Rank 5 Registered User
            • May 2012
            • 986

            #6
            Deathtrap?

            Flying any combat jet is a dangerous affair, but that was more true in the case of the MiG-23. In the book "Red Eagles", the author quotes a USAF MiG-23 pilot in saying; "I hope the Russians make thousands of MiG-23's. We'll never have to fight them. They will die flying these things all by themselves".

            Comment

            • Sens
              Rank 5 Registered User
              • Jan 2000
              • 12298

              #7
              Originally posted by seahawk View Post
              That was far from TopGun, it was even far from the daily bounces between NATO aircraft. It was something along the line of BFM tactics, with both parties following a scripted sequence of manoeuvres.

              The basic use of the MiG-23 would have been similar to the MiG-23, with a pair of fighters being directed by GCI to intercept enemy planes. The better avionics of the MiG-23 should have been an advantage, especially the use of BVR missiles. In the offensive role MiG-23 fighters would use their speed to make slashing attacks against NATO CAPs to open a gap for strikers. High Speed and the use of BVR would give them a decent chance to fire the first shot, which allows them to gain in initiative in the merge, but the high fuel use would mean that they would bingo quickly, especially if they want to get out at high speeds as well. The experience of forgein MiG-23 users can be called a mixed bag. The plane had some serious problems with the avionics in the early versions and was hard to master. Many pilots preferred the MiG-21, which was more nimble.
              The drawings showed Russian style WVR combat and the MiG-23MF/ML from the 80s were operated like the F-4s in the a2a role.
              In Central Europe BVR combat was the exception the IFF problem in mind. Just in exercises it could be ignored for training purposes. Compared to the MiG-21 the MiG-23 offered true all weather capability with autopilots and navigation-devices the Central Europe conditions in mind. It could carry heavier AAMs compared to the unsatisfactory Atolls. It could engage targets in head-on and it had a true look-down/shot-down capability. All that with enough installed power for some energy-fight and endurance at all heights. The main drawback was its maintenance demand and related cost, which did not allow a 1 by 1 replacement for the MiG-21 in most AFs. By the way the MiG-23 was forced into service in 70s despite several "childhood diseases" still to overcome. From the 80s it reached its specifications but the more capable MiG-29 becomes available as well.

              Comment

              • Sens
                Rank 5 Registered User
                • Jan 2000
                • 12298

                #8
                Originally posted by Freehand View Post
                Flying any combat jet is a dangerous affair, but that was more true in the case of the MiG-23. In the book "Red Eagles", the author quotes a USAF MiG-23 pilot in saying; "I hope the Russians make thousands of MiG-23's. We'll never have to fight them. They will die flying these things all by themselves".
                That claim was about the limited early variants exported from 1974 seen as inferior to the F-4s with some justification. In the late 70s it was no longer true, at least when operated in the related network.

                Comment

                • Galcom
                  Rank 5 Registered User
                  • Feb 2010
                  • 158

                  #9
                  The VVSs (Frontal Aviation) MiGs were flying guided by the ground control. The pilots of the VVS regiment begun to learn air combat maneuvering at the end of the 70s.

                  Early 80's the MiG-23M's of the VVS were obsolete. One of the 3 squadrons of Frontal Aviation fighter regiment were given a task of nuclear attack. There tactic were "hit and run". Five MiG-23M regiment were completely turned into fighter bomber.

                  They were planning to use the modernized MiG-23MLD against the NATO fighters, respectively the MIG-29's from 1984.

                  Comment

                  • mack8
                    Rank 5 Registered User
                    • Nov 2009
                    • 2114

                    #10
                    Originally posted by sainz View Post
                    At these Links you can find some public details from ex-Soviet pilots, exercises at 'Russian Top-Gun'. These are not exactly what you need, in most of the 'fights' the MiG-23 played F-15 vs MiG-21's, but these are interesting.

                    'AWACS hunting' - MiG-21bis vs AN-12 'AWACS' & MiG-23ML >
                    http://forums.airforce.ru/sovremenno...a-3/#post73501

                    MiG-21bis vs MiG-23ML(act F-15 with AIM-7F) >
                    http://forums.airforce.ru/sovremenno...a-3/#post73583

                    http://forums.airforce.ru/sovremenno...a-3/#post73611

                    x4 MiG-21bis vs x2 MiG-23ML >
                    http://forums.airforce.ru/sovremenno...a-3/#post73511

                    The online-translating does not work perfectly, but it helps:

                    http://translate.google.com/
                    " Late May to early June, 1985g. Mary-I. Proverka 927iap.
                    Free dogfight zvena. Veduschaya pair: regimental commander-zampolit. Vedomaya pair: zam.komandira-st.shturman. "Enemy" is a pair of MiG-23 local air group.
                    Battle plan was developed in three versions, depending on the construction of the battle formation of the "enemy."
                    Converged on a collision kursah.Para "enemy" has opened at the front with an interval of 2-3km.Komandir determined: "Option number 2."
                    At a distance of "the enemy" 30-35km team: "maneuver."
                    The leading pair of GS-23 guns shoot projectiles dipolyami. After shooting - a 180 *, the leading pair of right-led vlevo.Vysota 1500-1800m. "Enemy" is higher.
                    Watching sblizheniem.Na range 15-20km - "maneuver." Shooting IR-traps ASO-2I and perevorot. Na exit the horizon leading the pair: "The purpose of the left at 45, range 3" - "observed attacks." Led the pair: "The purpose of the right to 45, range 3" - "observed attack"
                    Everything went like notam.Pobedili.
                    At the command post airbase commander asked me, "What is the option number 2 and what maneuvers were performed?" I replied that I can explain gruppy.Esche after landing, he asked: "How many options for a fight?" I said, "Three." To which he nodded approvingly and no more questions asked.
                    P.S. Mog not quite correctly specify "range" and "high." It is too proshlo.Zdes the forum there are members of the test, they have to correct. "

                    Some standard 'tactics' for close-combat:

                    [IMG]hp://forums.airforce.ru/attachments/sovremennost/30511d1301223280-5-150-.jpg/[/IMG]

                    'Arkan' , 'Uzel' , 'Krab' etc. became standard at VVS fighter units from the early '70s. These came with the unit level ACT program '500s'
                    Just for example one of the check flights(in two seater trainer) for these ACM's was the exercise no.523 'O'
                    Hang on a sec, something very, very interesting for me... so the "wartime" MiG-21's were supposed to fire chaff from the gun ?! Also, regarding the mysterious chaff&flare dispensers on MiG-21, so they supposed to be installed in wartime as well? Where were they fitted on the aircraft? And from when? Were these countermeasures devices planned to be used on WarPac air forces MiG-21's as well?

                    I know the late model fighter MiG-23's have chaff& flares dispensers built into the fuselage pylon, plus the later mod of two over-wing strakes (BVP-50-60). Were the MiG-23's supposed to fire chaff from the guns as well?

                    Thanks.
                    --------------
                    NO to NATO
                    NO to WAR!

                    Comment

                    • sainz
                      Rank 5 Registered User
                      • Jan 2006
                      • 432

                      #11
                      Originally posted by Sens View Post
                      I have to smile.
                      Have a nice day! Pleasure for me to entertain you, always

                      Comment

                      • sainz
                        Rank 5 Registered User
                        • Jan 2006
                        • 432

                        #12
                        Originally posted by mack8 View Post
                        regarding the mysterious chaff&flare dispensers on MiG-21, so they supposed to be installed in wartime as well? Where were they fitted on the aircraft?
                        Simple system, fits to RATO connections, works by the wires and switches of the RATO.
                        http://forums.airforce.ru/attachment...615138-2-.jpg/


                        " The CIA gave us a flare dispenser from a Frogfoot [Su-25] that had been shot down in Afghanistan. We gave it to maintenance – it was just a thing with wires coming out of it. Four hours later they had it operational on a MiG-21. That proved to be a very important test. In 1987 we had the AIM-9P, which was designed to reject flares, and when we used US flares against it would ignore them and go straight for the target.
                        We had the Soviet flares – they were dirty, and none of them looked the same – and the AIM-9P said 'I love that flare'.
                        Why’d that happen? We had designed it to reject American flares. The Soviet flares had different burn time, intensity and separation. The same way, every time we tried to build a SAM simulator, when we got the real thing it wasn’t the same.
                        I use the AIM-9P because it is out of the system and I can talk about it. The same thing happened to a lot of things that are still in the system and that I can’t talk about."
                        http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.as...3-fff9b8f2f73d



                        Originally posted by mack8 View Post
                        Hang on a sec, something very, very interesting for me... so the "wartime" MiG-21's were supposed to fire chaff from the gun ?!
                        Some non-soviet WP airforces purchased this, others do not...spec-ammo came with the MiG-21bis.
                        Last edited by sainz; 15th December 2012, 08:46.

                        Comment

                        • mack8
                          Rank 5 Registered User
                          • Nov 2009
                          • 2114

                          #13
                          Thank you for the info Sainz. Would you think this is the same dispenser as in your picture?

                          --------------
                          NO to NATO
                          NO to WAR!

                          Comment

                          • Freehand
                            Rank 5 Registered User
                            • May 2012
                            • 986

                            #14
                            Related Information

                            Originally posted by Sens View Post
                            That claim was about the limited early variants exported from 1974 seen as inferior to the F-4s with some justification. In the late 70s it was no longer true, at least when operated in the related network.
                            I am waiting on info like that and about USAF MiG-29 and Su-27 operations to come to light.

                            Comment

                            • nastle
                              Rank 5 Registered User
                              • Feb 2005
                              • 546

                              #15
                              Isnt it also true that most of the MiG-23 lost in combat in libya/USN , Iran-Iraq and Arab-Israeli conflicts were the MS and MF early varients and very few of the ML and MLD

                              Comment

                              • sainz
                                Rank 5 Registered User
                                • Jan 2006
                                • 432

                                #16
                                Originally posted by mack8 View Post
                                Would you think this is the same dispenser as in your picture?
                                Here you can see on Afghan AF MiG-21bis >

                                http://s12.postimage.org/muwid1rhp/aso.jpg
                                Last edited by sainz; 15th December 2012, 08:36.

                                Comment

                                • mack8
                                  Rank 5 Registered User
                                  • Nov 2009
                                  • 2114

                                  #17
                                  Great picture Sainz, new to me, thank you. If by any chance you stumble upon more pics of MiG-21's with the ASO-2I, or some drawings of it even, please do post them here, there's a topic on the subject of countermeasures on the MiG-21 made some time ago:

                                  http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=94316

                                  Thank you again.
                                  Last edited by mack8; 15th December 2012, 21:28.
                                  --------------
                                  NO to NATO
                                  NO to WAR!

                                  Comment

                                  • sainz
                                    Rank 5 Registered User
                                    • Jan 2006
                                    • 432

                                    #18
                                    Originally posted by sainz View Post
                                    " The CIA gave us a flare dispenser from a Frogfoot [Su-25] that had been shot down in Afghanistan. We gave it to maintenance – it was just a thing with wires coming out of it. Four hours later they had it operational on a MiG-21. That proved to be a very important test. In 1987 we had the AIM-9P, which was designed to reject flares, and when we used US flares against it would ignore them and go straight for the target.
                                    We had the Soviet flares – they were dirty, and none of them looked the same – and the AIM-9P said 'I love that flare'.
                                    Why’d that happen? We had designed it to reject American flares. The Soviet flares had different burn time, intensity and separation. The same way, every time we tried to build a SAM simulator, when we got the real thing it wasn’t the same.
                                    I use the AIM-9P because it is out of the system and I can talk about it. The same thing happened to a lot of things that are still in the system and that I can’t talk about."
                                    http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.as...3-fff9b8f2f73d
                                    Originally posted by sainz View Post
                                    In 1987 we had the AIM-9P
                                    &
                                    Originally posted by sainz View Post
                                    which was designed to reject flares
                                    Are you sure he's talking about the AIM-9P version?
                                    Last edited by sainz; 18th December 2012, 07:49.

                                    Comment

                                    • martinez
                                      Rank 5 Registered User
                                      • Mar 2005
                                      • 1209

                                      #19
                                      Originally posted by sainz View Post
                                      Here you can see on Afghan AF MiG-21bis >
                                      Hi Robert, do you have info when, where(which IAP) was the foto taken? thanks
                                      <Find a job you like doing, and you'll never have to work a day in your life>

                                      Comment

                                      • sainz
                                        Rank 5 Registered User
                                        • Jan 2006
                                        • 432

                                        #20
                                        Originally posted by martinez View Post
                                        Hi Robert, do you have info when, where(which IAP) was the foto taken? thanks
                                        That's all I know: Bagram, Afghan AF MiG-21bis with R-13M & R-3R(probably pre-flight checking by Afghan pilot)

                                        Comment

                                        Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                        Collapse

                                         

                                        Working...
                                        X