MiG-23/MiG-27

[Pibwl]

Few general notes on these aircraft, basing mostly on a Russian book on MiG-27:

- both MiG-23 fighter and attack (B, BN) variants use the same picture 11143 of a flat-nosed attack variant (the same as MiG-27 - 11156). I suggest to change picture of fighter variants to correct 29352 and keep 11143 for attack variants only (alternative is to change picture of all attack variants to 11156 and then replace picture 11143 with a correct fighter picture, which I have).

- MiG-23B/BN and MiG-27 have armoured cockpit sides - possibly it should be added in the game? (it was no extensive cover, though)

- MiG-23B/BN and MiG-27 were equipped with a laser rangefinder - possibly it should be added? Has it any effect in aircraft?

- Maybe there should be more distinction in fire control: on a Russian example, MiG-27M (#159) should have better FC, than basic MiG-27 and MiG-23BN, which in turn should be better against ground targets, than fighter MiG-23 (greater field of view, automatic anti-ground sight). Now all of them, apart from earliest MiG-23 fighters, have FC=15. MiG-27K Kayra (#158 in Soviet oob) should be still better, than MiG-27M (now FC=20).

I don't want to overthrow all the system of assigning speed to aircraft, but now it seems, that fighter MiG-23MF with speed 25 is better, than specialized attack MiG-23BN and MiG-27 (speed 18)... It's especially visible comparing units 143 and 144 in Russsian oob. In fact MiG-27's speed over the ground was 1350 km/h (1700 on an altitude), and I don't expect MiG-23MF to attack ground targets with higher speed. But that's just a couple of thoughts...

- They generally need increase of number of rockets carried, since a standard launcher for these planes was for 32 rockets 57 mm. For example, as for #143 unit in Soviet oob MiG-23BN, in addition to 2 missiles, a standard configuration was 2x32 rockets, so both weapons 4x57mm should be given 8 shots each, or we should change them to 8x57mm with 4 shots. In a rocket-only configuration, they carried 128 rockets (4x32), so it would be three 8x57mm with 6, 5 and 5 shots or twice as big number of 4x57mm (it applies to fighters MiG-23 as well). I'll check specific units while reviewing particular OOBs, if you agree with these rules.

By the way, a question: what is a weapon #203 PB-250 HD Bomb in Russian oob? A retarded bomb?

Regards
Michal Derela

[Marcello]

- MiG-23B/BN and MiG-27 were equipped with a laser rangefinder - possibly it should be added? Has it any effect in aircraft?

No. Only FC rating matters for aircrafts IIRC.

[DRG]

Originally Posted by Pibwl

By the way, a question: what is a weapon #203 PB-250 HD Bomb in Russian oob? A retarded bomb?

Regards
Michal Derela

Yes, it represents a chute bomb

Don

[Pibwl]

Originally Posted by Marcello

No. Only FC rating matters for aircrafts IIRC.

Then maybe such planes should have increased FC?

Michal

[Mobhack]

Originally Posted by Pibwl

Then maybe such planes should have increased FC?

Michal

Fixed wing aircraft fire rockets or cannons at 2 set ranges (4 and 8 hexes?) in a strafing run. Adding extra F/C will hardly affect matters, and will add extra points cost, for what is effectively a trivial difference. Especially since most modern planes have sufficient ammo for 1 or 2 strafing runs only.

Andy

[Pibwl]

I just wonder how to make MiG-23BN/27 more efficient ground attack plane, than pure fighter MiG-23MF.

Michal

[Mobhack]

Originally Posted by Pibwl

I just wonder how to make MiG-23BN/27 more efficient ground attack plane, than pure fighter MiG-23MF.

Michal

It's a game of ground combat.

Planes are a sideline, and just really a variant form of artillery, so both are just strike planes to the code/data. The important things are really what is slung under the wings, and not trivial little things like air cannons.

Since it is a 'Mig that is dropping ordnance' - then perhaps the point would be to remove the fighter versions (or replace with the FGA variants?), if those air superiority variants did not drop air-to-mud stuff all that much (if ever)?. Or - to concentrate on important to the game stuff - perhaps look at the EW ratings differences if any between the air-to-air variant and the dedicated mud-mover. EW is an extremely important survival factor for strike planes, whereas FC and RF is trivia (since cannon and rockets are fired at short ranges where a few points more/less is not going to make much noticeable difference).

Andy

[Marcello]

I don't want to overthrow all the system of assigning speed to aircraft, but now it seems, that fighter MiG-23MF with speed 25 is better, than specialized attack MiG-23BN and MiG-27 (speed 18)... It's especially visible comparing units 143 and 144 in Russsian oob. In fact MiG-27's speed over the ground was 1350 km/h (1700 on an altitude), and I don't expect MiG-23MF to attack ground targets with higher speed. But that's just a couple of thoughts...

The current system is based on the aircraft maximum speed, not the "real" one. Flawed as that is it, it is relatively easy to find a source giving you the generic maximum "clean speed". Finding one that list the combat speed for the loaded plane at low altitude less so. Consider however that in that case it would probably be high subsonic with only modest, if any (bomb release speed limitations for some types come to mind), differences between a plane and the other: I doubt that a MIG-27 could go supersonic near the ground with UB-32 rocket pods...
As there are now probably more than a thousands of plane revising that would be a mountain of work with little gain.

[Pibwl]

Originally Posted by Mobhack

The important things are really what is slung under the wings, and not trivial little things like air cannons.

That's why I'm trying to use their full potential. Although I don't know, if I should propose full load variants (in case of MiG-27, 6-7x 500 kg bombs), or keep some limits (still decent 4x 500 kg, with a drop tank). Planes are a sideline, but I feel they are a 'salt' in the game

Originally Posted by Mobhack

Since it is a 'Mig that is dropping ordnance' - then perhaps the point would be to remove the fighter versions (or replace with the FGA variants?), if those air superiority variants did not drop air-to-mud stuff all that much (if ever)?. Or - to concentrate on important to the game stuff - perhaps look at the EW ratings differences if any between the air-to-air variant and the dedicated mud-mover.

Unfortunately, info on EW differences is quite hard to find. Replacing multirole fighter variants with ground attack ones would generally make sense in most cases, but I can understand, that somebody may look for diversity in available equipment. At least in the USSR, frontline fighters would occasionally attack ground targets, but it was a primary mission of MiG-23BN/MiG-27/Su-17.

By the way: rocket armament of MiG-27/Su-17 may be changed from 32x57mm pods to more efficient 20x80mm ones.

Michal