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.

 

MiG-24

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 06:07 AM
link   
img.villagephotos.com...
After pix of F-14 has been put on KGB's desk, the top Soviet realized that US had gone ahead of them far away, but new generation fighter only study on board, in a hurry Mikoyan Bureau developed a lyout as above. That's really cool which looks like a single engine F-14


Mod Edit: Image Size – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 11/7/2006 by Mirthful Me]



jra

posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 07:08 AM
link   
Do you mean the Mig-27? There is also the Su-24 which has a similar design (although a fair bit bigger in size).


Dew

posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 07:24 AM
link   
ummm - that's a MiG-23 (24 was 'export' version)



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 07:59 AM
link   
No, there never was a MiG 24. A couple of websites list it as the export model but this is wrong, the designation was never used.

This is the MiG 23, and it was flying three years *before* the F-14. The MiG 27 was a ground attack version with a reshaped, downward sloping nose, similar to the Jaguar's in profile. The three view also shows a very late model MiG 23 with reshaped fin, earlier models had a huge dorsal fillet reaching back to where you can see the aerial on this drawing.

The very first models had a much more slender wing without the dogtooth leading edge notch and also the wings were further back on the airframe almost forming a delta with the tail when fully swept, like the F-111 wing does.

EUREKA!

Which of course tells me that this drawing is a photoshop fake in which the rear fuselage has been heavily shortened. The configuration shown here never existed. I knew the drawing looked odd but couldn't decide why until I began describing the prototype


[edit on 11-7-2006 by waynos]



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 08:07 AM
link   
Well, I have no knowledge about the history, and I trust Waynos on this matter. About the plane, it looks like an F-4 with those air-intakes, of course the wings remind you of the F-14, and they are top-monted, EUREKA, manouverability if I'am correct.



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 09:02 AM
link   
Came on guys, it doesn't look anything like an F-14 let alone an F-4. It looks like a MiG-23 which it is. Late variant as waynos said, ML/MLD. But it looks wrong. Those wings shouldn't stick behind the elevators. And there should be some space between the wing and elevator in the fully swept position. Also the intakes are somewhat different viewed from the top. Waynos, I don't think it is a photoshop, why bother, maybe just a sketch for another MiG-23 variant that didn't make it.

And no way this was going to be MiG-24. Migs have never had even numbers and never will. Nor was it an answer to F-14, don't know where you got that story. It was an answer to the F-4 though, a very good one.



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 01:22 PM
link   
Correct me If I am wrong (which I probably am anyway) MiGs always are odd numbers?....



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Mig-23 is a NATO code assigned to Soviet aircraft. MiG denoting the design bureau, 23 the numbered sequence assigned. NATO assigned odd numbers to fighter aircraft and even numbers to attack/bomber aircraft. I don't remember all the details, but they also had a way of assigning numbers that differentiated between jet and propeller powered too. I don't even know why I'm typing this, the whole picture in this thread looks like something pulled out of one's anal orifice....



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by CreeWolf
Mig-23 is a NATO code assigned to Soviet aircraft. MiG denoting the design bureau, 23 the numbered sequence assigned. NATO assigned odd numbers to fighter aircraft and even numbers to attack/bomber aircraft. I don't remember all the details, but they also had a way of assigning numbers that differentiated between jet and propeller powered too. I don't even know why I'm typing this, the whole picture in this thread looks like something pulled out of one's anal orifice....


No, that is all wrong I'm afraid.

'MiG 23' is the aircrafts actual name, its NATO assigned identifier is 'Flogger'.

It is the Russians themselves that (used to ) apply odd numbers to fighter and even numbers to bombers and transports etc. Nothing to do with NATO.

The NATO method of differentiating between prop driven and jet types was to assign single syllable names to prop aircraft (Bear, Bull, Coot etc) and two syllable nemes to jets (Badger, Backfire, Camber, Fishbed etc)

[edit on 11-7-2006 by waynos]



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 03:01 PM
link   
Correct you are Waynos. I was unsure about tackling this thread since my knowledge is only residual from when I was so fascinated with Soviet aircraft and equipment when I was a teenager. But you are absolutely right. I checked the MiG site itself and.......

www.migavia.ru...


"I seen me an Mi-24 helicopter and an Su-24 bomber, but I ain't never seen me no MiG-24 fighter!"



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 07:22 PM
link   
Emile,

Under the NATO naming system, a fighter would never have an even series nomenclator attached to it. This is why the 'Su-19' became the Su-24 as soon as it's true role mimicry of the F-111 was acknowledged.

As others have said, this appears to be a butchery of the Flogger design and since they never bothered to get /that one/ right... (Wing that autosweep under assymetric loads or 'at all' over 5.5 IIRR).

The MiG-23 was a saturation fighter. The F-14 was just the opposite. There is little to take from the two but comparitive technology emphasis' and in that the Russians failed completely because nothng they did in aviation would 'unequate' the nuclear tripwire and all the egg-on-face they accumulated with events like Bekaa and the Sidra 1+2 made it clear they were not a good backer for client-state 'wars of liberation' minded dictators looking to get rich sitting at the Capitalist' beggars table.


KPl.



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by ch1466
Emile,

1. Under the NATO naming system, a fighter would never have an even series nomenclator attached to it. This is why the 'Su-19' became the Su-24 as soon as it's true role mimicry of the F-111 was acknowledged.

2. The MiG-23 was a saturation fighter.

KPl.


1. Under Nato system, Russian fighters don't have numbers at all, just names. What do you mean? Giving numbers to Russian aircraft has nothing to do with NATO. And we're talking only about MiG's here which don't have even numbers. Su-30 is a fighter, has even number.

2. Oh, that's just crap, excuse me. The first series and especially the export variants which took part in the theatres you mentioned weren't particularly good (not better than the F-4), but the same could be said about the first F-14A.
The later ML/MLD is a different fighter altogether. Especially the ones for the Russian AF and Warsaw Pact countries. It was tested by the Israelis and they found out it could break lock from Pithon-3 & Sidewinder with hard maneuvering. I don't think this is true for the F-14. That's the reason the Israelis started designing the Pithon-4. MLD versions can pretty much hold their own against an F-15, and they are much more capable than F-16A both BVR & WVR.
The MiG-23 was anything but a saturation fighter. When it appeared it was 'the' most advanced fighter in the world.



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 05:22 AM
link   
KPI, The Fencer never had its designation changed from Su-19 to Su-24 by anybody. Back in the days of the Iron Curtain we in the West simply guessed wrongly that it was the Su-19 because we knew it followed after the Su-17. Sukhoi always produced it as the Su-24.

The real Su-19 was an advanced development of the Su-15 Flagon which used the same wing design as the Sukhoi T-10 Flanker prototype, but it was never produced.

As for the odd number/even number thing. If you look back over time you will see that it is rigidly adhered to for most of post war aviation history but that in the last decade or two the Russians seem to have simply abandoned the policy altogether, which is why you now get an Su-30 fighter and an Il-103 light private plane, this would never have happened before the fall of the USSR.



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 05:33 AM
link   
So, there is layout called Su-19 being design board? Waynos, would u prove that?



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 06:35 AM
link   
Heres a couple of quick scans emile.








posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 08:24 AM
link   
Waynos, thanks a lot for posting these pictures, these are rare.
That wing looked ugly on the T-10 but it really works mirracles for the Su-15. this is what the Su-15 should have been from the very beginning.

BTW, I read somewhere this to be refered to as Su-21, wrong of course, but do you know if there has been a project or something which is Su-21, 23 or 13. Seems strange to me I haven't heard anything about those. Did they just skip them?

[edit on 12-7-2006 by Pazo]



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 09:58 AM
link   
That is definitely NOT a MiG-23!!
No Sir..


MiG 23:






[edit on 12-7-2006 by Daedalus3]


Dew

posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 10:18 AM
link   
That's a MiG-23BN with the low type nose (no attack radar) which developed into the MiG-27.
This is probably where the MiG-24 confusion came from.
The MiG-23BN was known as izdelie (article) 24A (Warpac) and 24B (rest of world).

[edit on 12/7/06 by Dew]



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 03:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pazo
2. Oh, that's just crap, excuse me. The first series and especially the export variants which took part in the theatres you mentioned weren't particularly good (not better than the F-4), but the same could be said about the first F-14A.
The later ML/MLD is a different fighter altogether. Especially the ones for the Russian AF and Warsaw Pact countries. It was tested by the Israelis and they found out it could break lock from Pithon-3 & Sidewinder with hard maneuvering. I don't think this is true for the F-14. That's the reason the Israelis started designing the Pithon-4. MLD versions can pretty much hold their own against an F-15, and they are much more capable than F-16A both BVR & WVR.
The MiG-23 was anything but a saturation fighter. When it appeared it was 'the' most advanced fighter in the world.


Not really. Playing a flightsim that was developed by Russians (thus being very accurate on their russian aircraft - sometimes overly 'accurate') and running combat missions against the Mig-23MLD - it's not all that impressive. It CAN break the lock of some missiles - but it has never claimed another one of mine (or my Wingmen's) aircraft after I learned how to maneuver to get clear of their missiles. Then they died increasingly fast after I went back and figured out how to designate multiple targets with the AN/APG-77 (I think that's the F-15C's radar...). Taking fighters of the day into account - such as the F-15, F-14A, F-16A, the F-5, and the F-4 - I can say that the only aircraft that would encounter troubles are the F-4 and possibly the F-16. Even taking their avionics systems of the time into account - the Mig-23MLD only has an advantage when in numbers - and only against aircraft that did not have the ability to target multiple aircraft (all of them except the F-14) until recent avionics and weapons upgrades.

It's a fighter that can be used in 'swarm' tactics quite effectively as it can carry some rather effective missiles with ranges exceeding 50 km. However, it was a mediocre fighter at best. It would have fallen victim to superior avionics of western aircraft - as well as the more effective blend of maneuverability and countermeasures. Those were the advantages that all western aircraft had over the Soviet aircraft.



posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 04:11 AM
link   
Hey, AIM-64, 'Lock on' is the best flight sim ever (not counting IL-2 which is not jets)

That said, although made by Russians, it is made for Americans. In Russia nobody buys legal software mate. That's the reason you can fly the F-15 in it, so that American boys will buy the game.
And I don't think it is a serious approach to judge a plane by a game.
The MiG-23 in the game is only flown by the computer, that's the main reason you've been killing them so easily. Conputers are always inferior to human players.
You should see me shooting down Messerschmits with a I-16 when playing Il-2 FB.
This does not mean the I-16 was better than the Messer. Then I take a Messerschmit and kick the crap out of the La-7s and Yak-3's. Does this make it a better plane? No.
If the MiG-23 was flyable in Lock On, you'd be the same ace with it too.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join