Soviet Air-to-Air missiles

Called a mission kill, where the enemy aircraft is not shot down but has to dump its load to survive and can't continue the mission.

Also unaware targets are vulnerable too.

I have read that the main Mig-23 tactics against other fighters was mainly "hit and run" and to avoid prolonged dogfights
But then I see the Mig-23P, ML, MLA and MLD had the R-60 which was a ultraclose range weapon designed to counter maneuverable fighters ,from a practical standpoint when was the Mig-23 expected to use this weapon ? WHat is the benefit of having 4 of these weapons with a very short range ?
since it was outranged by the sidewinder the Wests most common AAM
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

George1 wrote:

nastle77 wrote:I have read that the main Mig-23 tactics against other fighters was mainly "hit and run" and to avoid prolonged dogfights
But then I see the Mig-23P, ML, MLA  and MLD had the R-60 which was a ultraclose range weapon designed to counter maneuverable fighters ,from a practical standpoint when was the Mig-23 expected to use this weapon ? WHat is the benefit of having 4 of these weapons with a very short range ?
since it was outranged by the sidewinder the Wests most common AAM
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

RS-24 in MiG-23 were used from Syrian Air Force against Israel's F-16s during 1982 Lebanon War, but claims on its success varies.
Many R-23 kills are also reported in the war between Iran and Iraq from Iraqi MiG-23s vs F-14, F-4 and F-5Es

Syria in 1982 had no R-24, only R-23 for their MiG-23MFs. Don't think any R-23 kills in 1982 have been verified. Iraq used both the R-23 and R-24 (and scored kills with both, but mostly with the R-24). Interestingly enough, the first F-14 kill by a MiG-23ML (in 1984) was scored with an R-60.

I think the only way to shoot down an F-14 with a Mig-23 is the R-60: to play with a Tomcat on the long range distance it may not be a very good idea ....

Exactly.
But if you can get close to, the powerful radar is useless.

nastle77 wrote:I have read that the main Mig-23 tactics against other fighters was mainly "hit and run" and to avoid prolonged dogfights
But then I see the Mig-23P, ML, MLA  and MLD had the R-60 which was a ultraclose range weapon designed to counter maneuverable fighters ,from a practical standpoint when was the Mig-23 expected to use this weapon ? WHat is the benefit of having 4 of these weapons with a very short range ?
since it was outranged by the sidewinder the Wests most common AAM
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

AFAIK, in the missile range you have to put the corrections the missile makes to hit a target, so the effective hit of the missile with the target could be long before the "official" missile range. Above all if the target is an incoming target. So the missile range can also be halved, because the trajectory is a curve and not a straight line.
At the extreme limit of its maximum range, a missile has no chances to correct its trajectory, if the target try to evade.
The radar-guided missiles were more accurate than early infrared missiles, because the trajectory of the radar-guided missiles was a collision trajectory, where a computer calculates a point in front of the target.
On the contrary, a IR missile needs above all to get itself behind the target, so its trajectory will be a chase trajectory. This is not good, because the missile needs to chase the target (and in this way the missile burns its propellant and has a limited range) and, if the target evades with a narrow turn, the missile needs to turn even tighter than its target (more G force), because the missile only can to chase.
Some more sophisticated IR missiles can receive from the computer the target's data up to an instant before the launch. In this way, also the IR missile could get a collision trajectory, in this way the IR missile could be even more dangerous than a radar-missile, because an IR missile is ecm-resistant. These IR missiles do not need to get behind the target and they can be fired in many corners and not only behind the target.
I don't know if the R-60 could get a collision trajectory.

GarryB wrote:It was probably available in 1982, but such weapons were not purchased in enormous numbers... the Soviet Airforce neglected purchasing expensive guided weapons.

They had a variety of guided air to ground weapon types but their numbers in service were small and while a wide range of aircraft could carry the AS-13, it was the expensive ground attack aircraft only that carried it... ie Su-24M.

I would not expect them to have enormous numbers of the system but the air units that would have deployed it would have been Fencer units.

understandable so for example the R73 AA11 archer was not available in enormous numbers in the late 80s yet enough to equip atleast every mig29 with 2 rounds and maybe su27 with a couple

Archer is a very capable missile for two main reasons... it has a good seeker, and it has thrust vectoring control which allows it to perform hard turns off the pylon if needed.

It should be remembered that the IR guided models of R-27 have the same model IR seekers as the R-73 and because of the larger missile body have a wider off boresight capability of 55 degrees instead of the R-73s 45 degrees.

It was not available in enormous numbers in the mid 80s when it entered service, but light AAMs are like MANPADS or cruise missiles... they are relatively cheap to mass produce... by the late 1980s they would have plenty, though not for export customers...

They would easily have had enough to deal with most western aircraft in NATO by the end of the 1980s... remember at the time NATO relied on Sidewinders and WVR combat because they thought they had the edge in fighter pilot training... R-73 and Helmet mounted sights would have obliterated NATO forces and they would have had to rely on BVR capability... and ironically their main fighter... the F-16 didn't have AMRAAM then so it would be useless. F-15s would have been at a serious disadvantage against R-27 armed MiG-29s let alone Su-27s...

GarryB wrote:Archer is a very capable missile for two main reasons... it has a good seeker, and it has thrust vectoring control which allows it to perform hard turns off the pylon if needed.

It should be remembered that the IR guided models of R-27 have the same model IR seekers as the R-73 and because of the larger missile body have a wider off boresight capability of 55 degrees instead of the R-73s 45 degrees.

It was not available in enormous numbers in the mid 80s when it entered service, but light AAMs are like MANPADS or cruise missiles... they are relatively cheap to mass produce... by the late 1980s they would have plenty, though not for export customers...

They would easily have had enough to deal with most western aircraft in NATO by the end of the 1980s... remember at the time NATO relied on Sidewinders and WVR combat because they thought they had the edge in fighter pilot training... R-73 and Helmet mounted sights would have obliterated NATO forces and they would have had to rely on BVR capability... and ironically their main fighter... the F-16 didn't have AMRAAM then so it would be useless. F-15s would have been at a serious disadvantage against R-27 armed MiG-29s let alone Su-27s...

Thanks ! What was the reason that the F-16 was not given any BVR weapons other than the ADF variant that served with USAF.I mean esp since even the Mig-23MF/ML had BVR weapons
I know its off-topic I apologize

nastle77 wrote:
Thanks ! What was the reason that the F-16 was not given any BVR weapons other than the ADF variant that served with USAF.I mean esp since even the Mig-23MF/ML had BVR weapons
I know its off-topic I apologize

It was thought a waste of money to integrate AIM-7 into the F-16 when AMRAAM was being developed. Also, F-16 was originally designed as a sort of "hi-tech" MiG-21: fast, agile, focused only on air combat, mainly WVR.

GarryB wrote:Archer is a very capable missile for two main reasons... it has a good seeker, and it has thrust vectoring control which allows it to perform hard turns off the pylon if needed.

It should be remembered that the IR guided models of R-27 have the same model IR seekers as the R-73 and because of the larger missile body have a wider off boresight capability of 55 degrees instead of the R-73s 45 degrees.

It was not available in enormous numbers in the mid 80s when it entered service, but light AAMs are like MANPADS or cruise missiles... they are relatively cheap to mass produce... by the late 1980s they would have plenty, though not for export customers...

They would easily have had enough to deal with most western aircraft in NATO by the end of the 1980s... remember at the time NATO relied on Sidewinders and WVR combat because they thought they had the edge in fighter pilot training... R-73 and Helmet mounted sights would have obliterated NATO forces and they would have had to rely on BVR capability... and ironically their main fighter... the F-16 didn't have AMRAAM then so it would be useless. F-15s would have been at a serious disadvantage against R-27 armed MiG-29s let alone Su-27s...

Archer of today has a quite outdated seeker, even in its M variant. Archer of mid 80s had an average seeker for the time, sensitivity wise and decoy discrimination wise. It was really first generation of all aspect seekers for soviets then. Of course, its off boresight acquisition envelope was best there it at the time. Using AIM9 production rate during the 80s for comparison, archer might have been available in decent numbers, at least a few thousand if not almost ten thousand by end of Cold war. But then again, aim9 was carried by majority of NATO planes. Archer on the other hand was enabled for carriage by less than 2000 WP planes (15%). So in that regard maybe "a few thousand" is a more realistic figure.

So that's some 2000 WP fighters using archer vs some 6000 NATO fighters using aim9L/M at the end of Cold war.

HMS was a great addition, but to use it one really needs to be a few km away. Situational awareness, radars and BVR combat would have taken its toll on archer wielding planes before they'd get to such short distances. Even if kill ratio would favor HMS+archer combo in 1 on 1 situations, in reality it'd really be 12 vs 12 before combat, 10 vs 8 after BVR phase and then there's numerical superiority to compensate for lack of HMS and maneuverability.

Actually, given the numbers of maneuverable planes armed with modern missiles, it'd probably be even worse for WP. They had those 2000 fighters, while NATO had some 3700 maneuverable planes (f16, f15, f18, m2000. Did not count f14 here) with modern missiles. But in many v many fights - maneuverability means less than 1 v 1. Even Mig21 or F4 could have been very useful there IF they had fairly modern systems. But most of mig21 and mig23 did not. While most of F4 did.

f15s would have been at serious disadvantage against mig-29??? How so? f15 had better radar than mig29, had better bvr missiles and carried twice as many such missiles. It had almost double the flying range, so more tactical options during the battle.

F16 was initially seen by USAF as a stop gap measure, a cheap wvr fighter only. During the development, USAF planned to buy less than 1000. It was only later on that USAF changed its mind and ordered hundreds more. From mid 80s onwards US realized Soviet union was going to implode so they stopped the f15 production and ordered more of the cheaper f16. Also amraam development got protracted so most f16 didnt get bvr ability until after the cold war, even though its apg68 radar came with amraam support since 1984.

And r-27t did not initially have the same seeker as initial r-73. They had an older seeker and were upgraded to r-73m class seeker well after the cold war, once r73m tech was ready for production.

Thanks ! What was the reason that the F-16 was not given any BVR weapons other than the ADF variant that served with USAF.I mean esp since even the Mig-23MF/ML had BVR weapons
I know its off-topic I apologize

The F-16 design was a kneejerk reaction to US experience in Vietnam with big heavy F-4s entering combat against small agile gun armed MiG-21/-19/17/15 etc.

The F-16 was designed from the basis of the MiG-21 with a margin of superiority... so 30% better this and 30% better that... etc.

It was supposed to be a sophisticated but cheap multirole fighter that was being developed against aircraft like the big heavy expensive single role F-15C fighter.

At one point it was expected the F-16 would be cannon armed and have only wing tip Sidewinders as armament as a cheap light simple fighter.

Eventually they saw sense and it became a more capable multirole fighter bomber with a multi mode radar.

In USAF use it would always operate with the F-15 and BVR missiles had a fairly poor record anyway.

The F-16 was born to be a cheap light dogfighter to take control of the air back from small agile MiGs.

The MiG-23 was a bomber interceptor that used larger missiles to bring down heavier aircraft...

It was thought a waste of money to integrate AIM-7 into the F-16 when AMRAAM was being developed. Also, F-16 was originally designed as a sort of "hi-tech" MiG-21: fast, agile, focused only on air combat, mainly WVR.

AMRAAM was not seriously pursued until after Desert Storm and the access they got after the end of the cold war to MiG-29s and R-73s and they realised how much shit they would be in if war had started. Until then BVR missiles were just paid lip service in NATO but after that it was the focus because the no escape zone of the Archer meant even if the western aircraft got a shot off it was probably already dead and in terms of numbers NATO could not afford to trade plane for plane.

Archer of today has a quite outdated seeker, even in its M variant.

Archer is not the best available but is still easily able to bring down enemy aircraft in large numbers... against most targets it is more than enough.

Archer of mid 80s had an average seeker for the time, sensitivity wise and decoy discrimination wise. It was really first generation of all aspect seekers for soviets then. Of course, its off boresight acquisition envelope was best there it at the time. Using AIM9 production rate during the 80s for comparison, archer might have been available in decent numbers, at least a few thousand if not almost ten thousand by end of Cold war. But then again, aim9 was carried by majority of NATO planes. Archer on the other hand was enabled for carriage by less than 2000 WP planes (15%). So in that regard maybe "a few thousand" is a more realistic figure.

Where is this opinion coming from? The best western missile of the period was the Lima and Mike model Sidewinders and the Archer had a seeker every bit as good and those missiles, so I don't know what you mean by average.

they didn't need millions of missiles... NATO didn't have thousands of aircraft they could afford to lose.

During tests in Germany after the cold war no western plane could get near a MiG-29 so would be in an even worse position with Flankers... if the cold war had continued into the 1990s previous generation fighters would have received upgrades to get R-73, but NATO would have still believed it had the training and the best weapons for the job...

So that's some 2000 WP fighters using archer vs some 6000 NATO fighters using aim9L/M at the end of Cold war.

2000 fighters that 6000 fighters couldn't get near without being shot down is a massacre waiting to happen.

Without air cover NATO forces are much less formidable.

HMS was a great addition, but to use it one really needs to be a few km away. Situational awareness, radars and BVR combat would have taken its toll on archer wielding planes before they'd get to such short distances. Even if kill ratio would favor HMS+archer combo in 1 on 1 situations, in reality it'd really be 12 vs 12 before combat, 10 vs 8 after BVR phase and then there's numerical superiority to compensate for lack of HMS and maneuverability.

Hahahaha... you do realise that R-27 is every bit as good as Sparrow and that the E models the Flankers carried outranged the Sparrow by quite a margin.

Most importantly the Soviets had the passive radar model of the R-27 in service in the 1980s... so those F-15s marking targets for their Sparrows to fly towards and hit would be easy targets for passive radar homing R-27s... they wouldn't even know what hit them... they would just keep getting hit by R-27s without warning while guiding their shorter range slower Sparrows. So in reality any F-15 that tries to engage Soviet aircraft at BVR will likely be shot down... and once inside WVR the rest would likely be shot down... it would be a massacre...

And r-27t did not initially have the same seeker as initial r-73. They had an older seeker and were upgraded to r-73m class seeker well after the cold war, once r73m tech was ready for production.

No, they initially had the 36T seeker in the R-27T, but the extended E model has the same seeker as the R-73... the MK-80. Neither are IIR, but are good enough to end the flight of any NATO aircraft of the time.

^so GarryB you are suggesting in 80s the mig29 was actually equivalent to f15 ? In BVR
What would you say to all the bad press mig29 got after gulf war and over Yugoslavia

I say give iraqis 20 f15 and USAF 100 mig29s And all the support aircraft and AwaCs and the result will be the same ....it was superior intelligence And technology plus sheer numbers

^so GarryB you are suggesting in 80s the mig29 was actually equivalent to f15 ?

No.

It was a hybrid and not directly equivalent to any western aircraft.

It had the performance and flight range of the F-16 but had BVR capability which the F-16 did not.

It was a short range point interceptor/fighter.

A replacement for the MiG-21.

The Su-27 was more comparable to the F-15 but superior except for radar range and radar modes.

What would you say to all the bad press mig29 got after gulf war and over Yugoslavia

I would call the condition of those downgraded export MiG-29s to be abysmal. I would add that the western forces that faced those Serbian aircraft had had 10 years of training experience against MiG-29s from Germany and knew its performance capabilities and limits.

They didn't just train they explored the capabilities of the MiG-29 and created tactics to defeat it.

You will notice that most kills of MiG-29s have been with AMRAAM because NATO aircraft will not get within visual range of the aircraft simply because it is too dangerous.

they use aircraft like AWACS to locate the enemy aircraft and use fighters with long range missiles like AMRAAM to engage them before they can be engaged from a safe distance.

It is like hunting a man with bad eyesight armed with a machine pistol... using long range optics and an assault rifle... the MP armed man has little chance and that is by design... read my signature again...

I say give iraqis 20 f15 and USAF 100 mig29s And all the support aircraft and AwaCs and the result will be the same ....it was superior intelligence And technology plus sheer numbers

Even a propeller driven fighter can shoot down a jet if the jet is landing or taking off...

If the Serbs had upgraded the MiG to the level NATO aircraft had been upgraded the NATO aircraft would have been in trouble.

A well armed MiG-29 with working radar and systems would have been very dangerous... especially if they had more than a dozen.

Does any one have a source talking about development history of r27 missiles? Stuff found on usual English speaking websites is pretty lacking, short and without much details. For example, I can't be sure when r27t variant entered service and when R variant entered service...

I was still trying to find how many R-73 were manufactured by 1990
given production started in 1983-84 then even if 600 were produced a year atleast 3600 were in service by 1990 ?
And if so that would equip every mig-29/su27 in PVO/VVS with atleast 4 x r-73 , is that reasonable to assume ? or seem like an inflated figure