By: ijozic
- 29th September 2015 at 12:51Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Wouldn't it be better to equip the Mig-23 with 4 x R-24 missiles as they would give them longer spear to deal with the sidewinder armed opponents esp when the IR version of this version was essentially a fire and forget weapon
You can't fit four of those on the MiG-23. The subsequent MiG-23 variants (ML and MLD) which carried R-60M missiles had improved their maneuverability as it was expected by then that they will have to get involved into close combat as well. In that light those missiles make sense as they are more maneuverable than the R-24T missiles. Besides, R-24T IR seeker acquisition is of limited range and best used for a rear hemisphere shot so R-24R makes more sense IMHO as you can truly use it to engage an approaching target at a BVR distance.
By: nastle
- 29th September 2015 at 14:18Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You can't fit four of those on the MiG-23. The subsequent MiG-23 variants (ML and MLD) which carried R-60M missiles had improved their maneuverability as it was expected by then that they will have to get involved into close combat as well. In that light those missiles make sense as they are more maneuverable than the R-24T missiles. Besides, R-24T IR seeker acquisition is of limited range and best used for a rear hemisphere shot so R-24R makes more sense IMHO as you can truly use it to engage an approaching target at a BVR distance.
Was the R-60M range a big issue ? I mean it was much shorter range than the AA-2-2 advanced atoll missile
By: ijozic
- 29th September 2015 at 15:00Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Was the R-60M range a big issue ? I mean it was much shorter range than the AA-2-2 advanced atoll missile
I would expect so as the MiG-23ML(D) is still not a great dogfighter and the missile range is rather limited from the rear hemisphere, while its small IR sensor also has supposedly rather limited if not practically useless front hemisphere lock-on capability. The development of the R-73 would indicate so since it has a much improved range and an all aspect seeker which would be much more useful to the 23's (or any plane for that matter) than the low minimum engagement range of the R-60 series.
Posts: 612
By: ijozic - 29th September 2015 at 12:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You can't fit four of those on the MiG-23. The subsequent MiG-23 variants (ML and MLD) which carried R-60M missiles had improved their maneuverability as it was expected by then that they will have to get involved into close combat as well. In that light those missiles make sense as they are more maneuverable than the R-24T missiles. Besides, R-24T IR seeker acquisition is of limited range and best used for a rear hemisphere shot so R-24R makes more sense IMHO as you can truly use it to engage an approaching target at a BVR distance.
Posts: 545
By: nastle - 29th September 2015 at 14:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Was the R-60M range a big issue ? I mean it was much shorter range than the AA-2-2 advanced atoll missile
Posts: 612
By: ijozic - 29th September 2015 at 15:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I would expect so as the MiG-23ML(D) is still not a great dogfighter and the missile range is rather limited from the rear hemisphere, while its small IR sensor also has supposedly rather limited if not practically useless front hemisphere lock-on capability. The development of the R-73 would indicate so since it has a much improved range and an all aspect seeker which would be much more useful to the 23's (or any plane for that matter) than the low minimum engagement range of the R-60 series.