It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The elusive MiG 23

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 07:05 AM
link   
Whilst researching info for another thread through my annual aircraft directories (complete from 1943 to 1992, when publication ceased) I was struck by the thought that, during the 1960's NATO seems to be deperate to identify a new Russian fighter as being the MiG 23!
I doubt that the name has any mystical properties and I wonder if it was part of a ruse to obtain funding for new fighters in the west (like the recent assertion from some quarters in the USAF that the F-15 is, in fact, crap, and not the 'best fighter in the world' that we all thought it was before
)

More likely than that though is the fact, evidenced several times in many volumes, that NATO was just guessing.

here is exhibit A;

1962 Edition



There is an explanation for this, Having convinced themselves in the late '50's that the Swept wing Mikoyan Ye-2 A prototype was in fact the 'MiG 21 Faceplate' and in widespread service, NATO had convinced itself that this design was, in fact, a Sukhoi and christened it the 'Sukhoi Fishbed', sister fighter to the 'Sukhoi Fishpot' - no numbers guessed at at this point.

Having discovered it was in fact a MiG after all, and still convinced that the 'MiG 21 Faceplate' was in service, NATO figured that this was a more capable development of it, and thus its replacement. Hence MiG 23 Fishbed.

Exhibit B;

1964 Edition



Having sorted out its misunderstanding over the Fishbed and Faceplate by 1964 NATO was confronted with this new fighter, which we now know to be the Ye-150 and which later turned up in China as the J-8 Finback. NATO simply assumed it had gone into service and named it the MiG 23 hoping nobody would rememeber their previous mistake, oops!

Exhibit C;

1969 Edition



By now NATO must have been feeling pretty silly, despite this edition also containing the 'Mikoyan Flogger' which is dismissed as an un-numbered test bed, the text under this entry confidently proclaims "The Foxbat is designated the MiG 23 in service and has established a number of records under the guise Ye-266" So close, and yet so far away.

Exhibit D;

1974 Edition



Yes, thats right. The 1974 edition! 12 Years later NATO gets it right, the photo wasn't much cop though.




[edit on 15-10-2005 by waynos]




posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 07:17 AM
link   
I wonder if some of that has to do with the Byzantine system the Soviets / Russians used for plane identification. For example the Tu-22M Badger and Tu-22 Blinder. Almost the same designation, but vastly different aircraft?



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 07:23 AM
link   
Ah yes, the Tu-22/Tu-22M designation is a Mystery in its own right, for a long time NATO believed the Backfire to be the Tu-26 (I don't know where 'Tu-24' went) but like 'Tu-26' the three MiG 23's at the top of this thread were all figments of western imagination, the Russians own designations for each type were quite specific, 'a' was in fact the real MiG 21, B was the Ye-150 and C was the MiG 25, NATO having managed to miss out the real MiG 23 completely, which is hilarious considering how eager they were to allocate the type number to, well, anything it seems



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 08:35 AM
link   
I really do believe that Backfire SHOULD be Tu-26! Soviet transfered the Tu-26 to Tu-22M JUST for avoiding of disarmament of strategic weapen.



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 11:24 AM
link   
no,
the real reson why the TU-22M is called so is to avoid something else.
By the time the plane was being engineered it was forbidden to work on new planes, only on new rockets and modifications of the existing planes. That was because of Hruschiov who thought that the futur belongs to the rockets. But when the need for a new plane emerged the military and especially Tupolev desided to name it Tu-22 M (M for Modernizovanoi or in english modernized) and say it is just a modification of the existing Tu-22 that way he got to construct a new plane and the military got theirs without to disagree with the current doctrine. That was a strange period in the soviet planeindustry since many planes were ordered by the military but their construction was cept in secret or they were thought to be mere modifications

I have that from a Autobiographic book of an Engeneer who worked for suchoi

[edit on 15-10-2005 by vorazechul]



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 11:27 AM
link   
fascinating insight, thanks.

It sounds like the Russian designers were a bit more resourceful than their UK counterparts who went through the same thing with politicians thinking the future lay with rockets and missiles, in our case the designers appear to have simply given up as project after project was binned.



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by vorazechul
no,
the real reson why the TU-22M is called so is to avoid something else.
By the time the plane was being engineered it was forbidden to work on new planes, only on new rockets and modifications of the existing planes. That was because of Hruschiov who thought that the futur belongs to the rockets. But when the need for a new plane emerged the military and especially Tupolev desided to name it Tu-22 M (M for Modernizovanoi or in english modernized) and say it is just a modification of the existing Tu-22 that way he got to construct a new plane and the military got theirs without to disagree with the current doctrine. That was a strange period in the soviet planeindustry since many planes were ordered by the military but their construction was cept in secret or they were thought to be mere modifications

I have that from a Autobiographic book of an Engeneer who worked for suchoi

[edit on 15-10-2005 by vorazechul]


Oh?

I just got a geneal meaning from your post. But something you said is totlly wrong.
I just wish to point that might reminds you of when the Backfire project has been raised and when Hruschiov who has droped the reins of government?



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by emile

Oh?

I just got a geneal meaning from your post. But something you said is totlly wrong.
I just wish to point that might reminds you of when the Backfire project has been raised and when Hruschiov who has droped the reins of government?


I can understand only that you're trying to criticize my english



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   
The combat record of MiG-23 "Flogger"


Air victories : 20 + 2 UAV


19.04.1974 MiG-23MS (Syria) - 2 x F-4E (Israel)
27.06.1978 MiG-23M (Russia) - 1 x CH-47C (Iran)
7.10.1980 MiG-23MS (Irak) - 1 x F-4D (Iran)
16.10.1980 MiG-23MS (Irak) - 1 x F-4E (Iran)
14.11.1980 MiG-23MS (Irak) - 1 x F-5E (Iran)
22.11.1980 MiG-23MS (Irak) - 1 x F-4D (Iran)
28.11.1980 MiG-23MS (Irak) - 1 x F-4E (Iran)
4.02.1981 MiG-23 (Irak) - 1 x F-4E (Iran)
26.04.1981 MiG-23MS (Syria) - 1 x A-4E (Israel)
6.06.1982 MiG-23MF (Syria) - 1 x UAV (Israel)
12.1982 MiG-23MF (Irak) - 1 x F-5E (Iran)
1.08.1984 MiG-23ML (Irak) - 1 x F-14A (Iran)
13.02.1986 MiG-23ML (Irak) - 1 x F-5E (Iran)
20.02.1986 MiG-23ML (Irak) - 1 x Fokker F27-600 (Iran / civilian)
17.01.1987 MiG-23ML (Irak) - 1 x F-14A (Iran)
14.06.1987 MiG-23ML (Irak) - 2 x F-4E (Iran)
25.06.1988 MiG-23ML (Irak) - 1 x AH-1J (Iran)
28.09.1988 MiG-23MLD (Russia) - 2 x AH-1J (Iran)
04.2002 MiG-23 (Syria) - 1 x UAV (Israel)




Losses in air to air combat : 86


21.07.1977 MiG-21MF (Egypt) - 1 x MiG-23MS (Libya)
11.1979 MiG-21MF (Egypt) - 1 x MiG-23MS (Libya)
27.09.1980 F-4E (Iran) - 1 x MiG-23 (Irak)
27.09.1980 F-14A (Iran) - 1 x MiG-23 (Irak)
7.10.1980 F-4D (Iran) - 1 x MiG-23MS (Irak)
13.10.1980 F-4E (Iran) - 1 x MiG-23BN (Irak)
13.10.1980 F-14A (Iran) - 1 x MiG-23BN (Irak)
10.11.1980 F-14A (Iran) - 1 x MiG-23BN (Irak)
7.12.1980 F-4E (Iran) - 1 x MiG-23BN (Irak)
7.01.1981 F-14A (Iran) - 3 x MiG-23BN (Irak)
21.01.1981 F-4E (Iran) - 2 x MiG-23BN (Irak)
26.04.1981 F-4E (Iran) - 1 x MiG-23BN (Irak)
1.09.1981 F-4D (Iran) - 1 x MiG-23BN (Irak)
20.04.1982 F-15A (Israel) - 2 x MiG-23BN (Syria)
6.06.1982 F-15A (Israel) - 1 x MiG-23MS (Syria)
7.06.1982 F-15A (Israel) - 2 x MiG-23 (Syria)
7.06.1982 F-16 (Israel) - 1 x MiG-23MF (Syria)
8.06.1982 F-15 (Israel) - 1 x MiG-23 (Syria)
- 1 x MiG-23BN (Syria)
8.06.1982 F-16 (Israel) - 4 x MiG-23BN (Syria)
9.06.1982 F-15A (Israel) - 1 x MiG-23MF (Syria)
9.06.1982 F-15 (Israel) - 3 x MiG-23 (Syria)
10.06.1982 F-15 (Israel) - 2 x MiG-23 (Syria)
10.06.1982 F-16A (Israel) - 1 x MiG-23MF (Syria)
11.06.1982 F-15 (Israel) - 2 x MiG-23 (Syria)
11.06.1982 F-16A (Israel) - 2 x MiG-23MS (Syria)
- 4 x MiG-23BN (Syria)
24.06.1982 F-16A (Israel) - 2 x MiG-23BN (Syria)
25.06.1982 F-15A (Israel) - 2 x MiG-23MF (Syria)
21.07.1982 F-14A (Iran) - 3 x MiG-23MF (Irak)
10.1982 F-4E (Iran) - 1 x MiG-23BN (Irak)
10.10.1982 F-14A (Iran) - 2 x MiG-23BN (Irak)
20.11.1982 F-4E (Iran) - 1 x MiG-23BN (Irak)
21.11.1982 F-14A (Iran) - 2 x MiG-23MF (Irak)
3.12.1982 F-4E (Iran) - 1 x MiG-23MS (Irak)
21.01.1983 F-14A (Iran) - 1 x MiG-23BN (Irak)
3.03.1984 AH-1J (Iran) - 1 x MiG-23MF (Irak)
1985 F-4E (Iran) - 1 x MiG-23ML (Irak)
14.01.1985 F-4E (Iran) - 1 x MiG-23BN (Irak)
03.1985 F-4E (Iran) - 1 x MiG-27 (Rusia)
03.1985 F-14A (Iran) - 2 x MiG-27 (Rusia)
11.03.1985 F-4E (Iran) - 1 x MiG-23BN (Irak)
15.03.1985 F-4E (Iran) - 1 x MiG-23BN (Irak)
20.11.1985 F-15D (Israel) - 2 x MiG-23ML (Syria)
11.02.1986 J-6 (Pakistan) - 1 x MiG-23M (Rusia)
12.07.1986 F-14A (Iran) - 1 x MiG-23ML (Irak)
14.10.1986 F-14A (Iran) - 1 x MiG-23ML (Irak)
15.11.1986 F-4E (Iran) - 1 x MiG-23BN (Irak)
24.02.1987 F-14A (Iran) - 1 x MiG-23BN (Irak)
22.11.1987 F-4E (Iran) - 1 x MiG-23BN (Irak)
14.06.1988 F-4E (Iran) - 1 x MiG-23MF (Irak)
4.01.1989 F-14A (USN) - 2 x MiG-23MF (Libya)
26.01.1991 F-15C (USAF) - 3 x MiG-23MF (Irak)
27.01.1991 F-15C (USAF) - 3 x MiG-23MF (Irak)
29.01.1991 F-15C (USAF) - 2 x MiG-23 (Irak)
17.01.1993 F-16C (USAF) - 1 x MiG-23 (Irak)



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 05:29 PM
link   
It's a shame tiny pic has dumped the original photos that illustrated this post, it takes away a great deal from what it once was.




top topics



 
0

log in

join