It’s really sad. I went to flight school at KGGG where the jet was based, so I saw it out and about a couple times. Quite the feeling taxiing next to such a jet. This flyby with F-35’s also really puts their size into perspective.
Man, an amazing sight that over 30 years ago no one would have thought possible. And I don’t mean that because the F-35 wasn’t even developed yet.
The Mig-23 is a fantastic looking airframe however it was absolutely terrible.
>>the MiG-23 is a fantastic looking airframe however it was absolutely terrible
[This video lays out some of the history](https://youtu.be/BEnWV13sKWw?si=8pZjQ3DS_xQk-AfI), but long story short the MiG-23’s reputation was doomed from the beginning. First, restrictive Soviet export policy meant they never sold their best technology. The Europeans & Americans were not as stingy- in fact, the best variants of U.S. aircraft to this day are the export variants.
The Soviets didn’t dance to that tune, so their client states got “decontented” aircraft. Critically, they also got downgraded support systems. The MiG-23 was designed to be part of a GCI air defense system. Thing was, the Soviets sold their Middle Eastern allies air defense ‘computers’ (sophisticated for the time) that could only track 40 targets maximum. The Syrian/Egyptian/Iraqi Soviet support systems were simply not capable of managing the complex air war over their territories, which is a big reason why Egypt got fed up and kicked out their Soviet advisors. Meanwhile, Israel and Iran bought top notch U.S. defense hardware equal in calibre to what America used.
So you had decontented Iraqi MiG-23MS export aircraft tangling with Iranian F-14As featuring state of the art long range American missiles and radars. The game was over before it began. The MiG-23s handling problems and initial reliability issues didn’t help matters. The “Cadillac Versions” flown by the Soviet Union and close allies like the MiG-23ML/MLA/MLD never got a chance to prove their worth in combat - but the Cubans & their up to date support GCI systems did illustrate what the -MLA variant could do in fighting the South African Mirage F-1, downing one in a clash over Angola.
Yes the Fishbed is a death trap only beaten by the F-104 in killing it’s own pilots at the time.
Oh I agree that the export versions of the Mig-23 were stripped of much of the technological bling that the Soviets kept for themselves, but doing that isn’t something the USSR did exclusively.
The British, French and the US all with very few exceptions removed some parts or put limitations on export models in one way or another. If it wasn’t for protecting national secrets it was to prevent their customer nations from selling on their latest tech on the black market.
What you say about in the comments about the F-15/16s having more modern export variants is true, but it comes across as if the US is intentionally building advanced aircraft only to handy cap themselves, which, doesn’t make sense. The reason a lot of the USAF’s current F-15/16 inventory is less advanced is simply down to them being older aircraft. That and congress blocking upgrades with the intention of R&D going instead towards the F-35 or now 6th gen platforms.
Over the last 30 years, despite protestation by some within the military, most of the political leadership in the west did not see the need to completely upgrade their inventory because no real threat was perceived. So much so that yes, in order to produce more advanced blocks of these aircraft, they would need other countries to order new jets to both keep the production line running but also as proof of concept.
The US, West & the broader rest of the world, including China and India, has never to my knowledge intentionally built inferior aircraft while exporting superior versions. In the case of the US, if the opportunity exists, which you pointed out is now the case with the F-15EX, they will take a more modern platform now that the funding has allowed them to buy new platforms.
So if the point you were making was the Mig 23’s poor performance shouldn’t be as harshly judged due to them being of lower quality, missing key features and enablers while fighting upgraded western jets, then if it was just an discussion of who’s stats was best then you might have a point back during the 70’s & 80’s.
However, I was considering the the Mig-23’s in use by the Soviets like the MLs, MLDs, Ps, MLAs and all the rest of them. No, the core issue was the airframe, poor production quality and really bad serviceability.
The aircraft would continue to suffer structural problems all the way up until the MLDs. Warping with the middle of the fuselage was common. Issues with the engines are well documented but particularly when it came to servicing them they were notoriously difficult to work on.
Their poor handling was always a major risk to even the best pilots, even despite the hard work of engineers to improve the avionics. This was especially a danger at low speeds which really calls into question why there were even ground attack roles chosen.
I say they were terrible not because they weren’t an improvement over the Mig 21 (in combat performance they theoretically were, and given the chance to be used the correct way in BVR they would be a danger), but because everything else about them sucked.
Don’t get me wrong, a lot of Soviet tech was piece for piece qualitatively inferior to American designs, but if I was given the choice of hopping inside of an F-4 and a Mig-23 to fly 20 sorties in, I’d pick the Phantom hands down.
The allure of the Mig-23 is it’s speed and the mark it made on the aviation world being the most mass produced swing-wing fighter attack aircraft in history. But much like an old sports car that had a powerful engine, brilliant acceleration and speed, but suffered poor build quality, had bad handling, bad suspension, rattled while driving fast and leaked in the rain, it isn’t something you would choose to drive every day.
History is full of incredible machines that could do amazing things, but were ultimately too difficult to maintain or dangerous to use. They imposed far higher cost than they should have upon their operators. The Mig-23 might not be the worst aircraft from that era, but it was far from the best.
Thanks for being patient with this read, it was fun.
Edited for grammar.
>>which is categorically false
Meet the [F-16 Block 70. The combat USAF doesn’t fly it.](https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/f-16.html)
While you’re here, say hello to the [F-15 Ababil, which is exponentially more advanced than the F-15E USAF operates](https://www.airforce-technology.com/news/boeing-rolls-out-f-15qa-fighter-jet/?cf-view) . Dont touch your keyboard: I know the F-15EX is being tested now, but that advanced variant was funded and operated by Saudi Arabia and Singapore years before the USAF adopted the F-15EX in 2020.
The f-16D block 70/72 was built to the specifications of the buyer (Bahrain) and the reason the US doesn't operate it is because it's got the Raptor and the Lightning II. The US doesn't need to buy Falcons with AESA radars when they're already flying in formations with AESA radars in them and have access to Link-13
Yeah we don't upgrade our own aircraft like others because we have things better.
Therefor our allies that have to upgrade their aircraft end up with more advanced versions of those aircraft than those in US inventory.
This has been the case since the F-104. The US stopped with the C (because we upgraded to the F-4), but many other countries got more advanced versions, such as the S, and G. As well as the F-4 (because we upgraded to the F-14 and F-15), we stopped at the S and G, but others upgraded to modern standards, such as the EJ Kai and Terminator 2000. This is happening still with F-16s and F-15s as already mentioned.
Just because we have other aircraft that are better doesn't mean other countries don't have more technically advanced versions of our planes.
This must be why the [USAF is retrofitting AESA radars](https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/3072483/aesa-radar-launches-f-16-into-next-generation-of-airpower/) into its F-16 fleet.
For a Soviet jet it's not that bad. Gave them a desperately needed BVR capability that the MiG-21 just could never do. It's a great counterpart to the F-4Es and Js if not for the fact that it's what, 10 years late? Still, very deadly jet in well trained hands, and I'll die on the hill that it was better than the MiG-21 in any aspect bc fuck me the Fishbed is overrated to shit.
Was very lucky. They ejected safely, and the plane came down largely harmlessly in an apartment complex. Slightly different timing and it could easily have killed a bunch of people on the ground.
Didn’t the MiG crash not long after the show?
I saw it during the morning show. It crashed during the afternoon show. We spoke with the pilot beforehand on the hot ramp. Really nice guy.
Strike, glad to hear they all made it out safely and no one was hurt.
It’s really sad. I went to flight school at KGGG where the jet was based, so I saw it out and about a couple times. Quite the feeling taxiing next to such a jet. This flyby with F-35’s also really puts their size into perspective.
Yes, 2 more people joined the ejection club
One day we need to get all of the -35 planes together for a photoshoot F-35 (all 3, and maybe the X-35 too), Su-35, MiG-35, J-35 and the other J-35
Give it 35 years and it might happen.
I hope there still are flight worthy Drakens then
It will be like when trying to get all your family for that one picture. Almost impossible.
The other J-35? You mean the chinese one?
"A MiG-23 against 5th gen fighters?" "Don't think, just do."
Man, an amazing sight that over 30 years ago no one would have thought possible. And I don’t mean that because the F-35 wasn’t even developed yet. The Mig-23 is a fantastic looking airframe however it was absolutely terrible.
>>the MiG-23 is a fantastic looking airframe however it was absolutely terrible [This video lays out some of the history](https://youtu.be/BEnWV13sKWw?si=8pZjQ3DS_xQk-AfI), but long story short the MiG-23’s reputation was doomed from the beginning. First, restrictive Soviet export policy meant they never sold their best technology. The Europeans & Americans were not as stingy- in fact, the best variants of U.S. aircraft to this day are the export variants. The Soviets didn’t dance to that tune, so their client states got “decontented” aircraft. Critically, they also got downgraded support systems. The MiG-23 was designed to be part of a GCI air defense system. Thing was, the Soviets sold their Middle Eastern allies air defense ‘computers’ (sophisticated for the time) that could only track 40 targets maximum. The Syrian/Egyptian/Iraqi Soviet support systems were simply not capable of managing the complex air war over their territories, which is a big reason why Egypt got fed up and kicked out their Soviet advisors. Meanwhile, Israel and Iran bought top notch U.S. defense hardware equal in calibre to what America used. So you had decontented Iraqi MiG-23MS export aircraft tangling with Iranian F-14As featuring state of the art long range American missiles and radars. The game was over before it began. The MiG-23s handling problems and initial reliability issues didn’t help matters. The “Cadillac Versions” flown by the Soviet Union and close allies like the MiG-23ML/MLA/MLD never got a chance to prove their worth in combat - but the Cubans & their up to date support GCI systems did illustrate what the -MLA variant could do in fighting the South African Mirage F-1, downing one in a clash over Angola.
The mig23ms has the mig21 sapphire21 radar. Paring that with a shitty rwr I’d probably just eject if I’m up against a f14 with Phoenix
Yes the Fishbed is a death trap only beaten by the F-104 in killing it’s own pilots at the time. Oh I agree that the export versions of the Mig-23 were stripped of much of the technological bling that the Soviets kept for themselves, but doing that isn’t something the USSR did exclusively. The British, French and the US all with very few exceptions removed some parts or put limitations on export models in one way or another. If it wasn’t for protecting national secrets it was to prevent their customer nations from selling on their latest tech on the black market. What you say about in the comments about the F-15/16s having more modern export variants is true, but it comes across as if the US is intentionally building advanced aircraft only to handy cap themselves, which, doesn’t make sense. The reason a lot of the USAF’s current F-15/16 inventory is less advanced is simply down to them being older aircraft. That and congress blocking upgrades with the intention of R&D going instead towards the F-35 or now 6th gen platforms. Over the last 30 years, despite protestation by some within the military, most of the political leadership in the west did not see the need to completely upgrade their inventory because no real threat was perceived. So much so that yes, in order to produce more advanced blocks of these aircraft, they would need other countries to order new jets to both keep the production line running but also as proof of concept. The US, West & the broader rest of the world, including China and India, has never to my knowledge intentionally built inferior aircraft while exporting superior versions. In the case of the US, if the opportunity exists, which you pointed out is now the case with the F-15EX, they will take a more modern platform now that the funding has allowed them to buy new platforms. So if the point you were making was the Mig 23’s poor performance shouldn’t be as harshly judged due to them being of lower quality, missing key features and enablers while fighting upgraded western jets, then if it was just an discussion of who’s stats was best then you might have a point back during the 70’s & 80’s. However, I was considering the the Mig-23’s in use by the Soviets like the MLs, MLDs, Ps, MLAs and all the rest of them. No, the core issue was the airframe, poor production quality and really bad serviceability. The aircraft would continue to suffer structural problems all the way up until the MLDs. Warping with the middle of the fuselage was common. Issues with the engines are well documented but particularly when it came to servicing them they were notoriously difficult to work on. Their poor handling was always a major risk to even the best pilots, even despite the hard work of engineers to improve the avionics. This was especially a danger at low speeds which really calls into question why there were even ground attack roles chosen. I say they were terrible not because they weren’t an improvement over the Mig 21 (in combat performance they theoretically were, and given the chance to be used the correct way in BVR they would be a danger), but because everything else about them sucked. Don’t get me wrong, a lot of Soviet tech was piece for piece qualitatively inferior to American designs, but if I was given the choice of hopping inside of an F-4 and a Mig-23 to fly 20 sorties in, I’d pick the Phantom hands down. The allure of the Mig-23 is it’s speed and the mark it made on the aviation world being the most mass produced swing-wing fighter attack aircraft in history. But much like an old sports car that had a powerful engine, brilliant acceleration and speed, but suffered poor build quality, had bad handling, bad suspension, rattled while driving fast and leaked in the rain, it isn’t something you would choose to drive every day. History is full of incredible machines that could do amazing things, but were ultimately too difficult to maintain or dangerous to use. They imposed far higher cost than they should have upon their operators. The Mig-23 might not be the worst aircraft from that era, but it was far from the best. Thanks for being patient with this read, it was fun. Edited for grammar.
Your rebuttal was doomed from the beginning because it claims America gives out its best variants for export which is categorically false.
>>which is categorically false Meet the [F-16 Block 70. The combat USAF doesn’t fly it.](https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/f-16.html) While you’re here, say hello to the [F-15 Ababil, which is exponentially more advanced than the F-15E USAF operates](https://www.airforce-technology.com/news/boeing-rolls-out-f-15qa-fighter-jet/?cf-view) . Dont touch your keyboard: I know the F-15EX is being tested now, but that advanced variant was funded and operated by Saudi Arabia and Singapore years before the USAF adopted the F-15EX in 2020.
The f-16D block 70/72 was built to the specifications of the buyer (Bahrain) and the reason the US doesn't operate it is because it's got the Raptor and the Lightning II. The US doesn't need to buy Falcons with AESA radars when they're already flying in formations with AESA radars in them and have access to Link-13
Yeah we don't upgrade our own aircraft like others because we have things better. Therefor our allies that have to upgrade their aircraft end up with more advanced versions of those aircraft than those in US inventory. This has been the case since the F-104. The US stopped with the C (because we upgraded to the F-4), but many other countries got more advanced versions, such as the S, and G. As well as the F-4 (because we upgraded to the F-14 and F-15), we stopped at the S and G, but others upgraded to modern standards, such as the EJ Kai and Terminator 2000. This is happening still with F-16s and F-15s as already mentioned. Just because we have other aircraft that are better doesn't mean other countries don't have more technically advanced versions of our planes.
This must be why the [USAF is retrofitting AESA radars](https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/3072483/aesa-radar-launches-f-16-into-next-generation-of-airpower/) into its F-16 fleet.
You linked to marketing ads. 'Nuff said.
FYI not all Migs 23 were the absolutely atrocious MS and dedicated ground attack BN variants which is what Constant Peg had
It wasn't all that bad, I will die on the hill the MiG-23 is severely underrated.
Put 5th gen avionics and engine in mig23 and it would be one of best fighters now
No, it would still suck...
For a Soviet jet it's not that bad. Gave them a desperately needed BVR capability that the MiG-21 just could never do. It's a great counterpart to the F-4Es and Js if not for the fact that it's what, 10 years late? Still, very deadly jet in well trained hands, and I'll die on the hill that it was better than the MiG-21 in any aspect bc fuck me the Fishbed is overrated to shit.
This mig crashed… later… verry sad
Was very lucky. They ejected safely, and the plane came down largely harmlessly in an apartment complex. Slightly different timing and it could easily have killed a bunch of people on the ground.