BHPian FlankerFury recently shared this with other enthusiasts: In the ’60s, there were two schools of thought for designing the next generation of fighters, one was to cram as much equipment and fuel on the jets as possible to make them capable of operating independent of a Ground Control station, Western designers followed this philosophy while creating the F-4, F-8 and Mirage line of fighters, this made the jets heavy and complex but a lot more versatile. The other philosophy, which the Soviets followed, was to prioritise flight performance over on-board electronics since the task of vectoring onto the target was carried out by ground based Integrated Air Defence Systems (IADS). This line of thought resulted in aircrafts that would take off only to intercept targets picked up by IADS, fly the path computed by Ground Control stations, destroy target and return to base, a tactic known as Ground Controlled Intercept (GCI). Dogfighting and flying Combat Air Patrols (CAP) was considered a waste of time and fuel. Such aircrafts needed less avionics & fuel and weren’t required to be particularly maneuverable so they were light, small, simple and cheap. airliners.net | Finnish MiG-21F-13 The MiG-21 and its variants, while available in large numbers and successful in exports, was unsuitable to defend the vast Soviet airspace even under GCI control due to its compact size, little to no room for growth in terms of sensors or radar packaging and short range. A successor to the MiG-21 was planned with, relatively speaking, larger size to accomodate a radar to guide R-23 A2A missiles and larger internal fuel carrying capacity. The Soviets demanded STOL capabilities from the new jet to counter the threat of low flying, fast F-104 Starfighters, an aircraft flown by several NATO nations and capable of delivering tactical nukes. The Soviets also got wind of the Americans developing the F-111, a fighter-bomber capable of carrying more payload at low altitudes at a much faster pace. airliners.net | Luftwaffe F-104G Starfighter The MiG-23 incorporated variable geometry intakes and swing-wings to satisfy requirements of an interceptor with STOL capabilities while sacrificing maneuverability where it fared worse than the MiG-21, however it was considered an acceptable compromise. Thus the MiG-23, designed as an interceptor to work within the frame of a well defined IADS network, was ill equipped and ill suited for anything else. The experiences in Vietnam taught war planners about the importance of maneuver combat. Due to its prolonged development cycle, it entered service at a time when rivals had already developed and deployed types with focus on maneuver combat like the American teen-series. While the F-104’s and F-4’s still dominated the rival aerial landscape but the presence of technologically superior and flexible types made the Soviets re think the MiG-23. No matter how much they modified it, it was wholly unsuited for a new age of air combat. Even the most advanced MiG-23MLD couldn’t match up to Western rivals in terms of situational awareness and operational flexibility. airliners.net | MiG-23MLD with 2x R-23 (wing root pylons) and 2x R-60 missiles(underbelly pylons) Furthermore, modern Western jets were now supported by far more advanced aerial warfare systems like AEWs, AWACS, ELINT/SIGINT crafts along with dedicated EW jets like the EA-6B & EF-111. So in theory, the MiG-23 worked well but only within the confines of a well defined IADS network. It faltered when the IADS itself was obsolete or in cases, like Libya and Syria, totally absent. In the 90’s when India faced the dilemma of aging fighters, the MiG-21 was the most numerous type in service and the shortcomings of MiG-23 were well understood by then. The MiG-21’s were light, simple and more versatile than its swing-wing successor, its lower cost, simpler maintenance and the fact that they were produced locally by HAL meant there wasn’t a shortage of trained technicians, spares and economies of scale made it the ideal candidate to be upgraded for further service. Moreover, advancements in miniaturisation of electronics meant despite the limited space in a MiG-21, it could now be packed with enough equipment to hold its own place in modern combat. The then recently acquired MiG-29’s filled the air superiority role, the Jaguars and MiG-27’s filled the strike role and the upgraded MiG-21’s would fill the role of point defence interceptors. The Mirage 2000, being a multirole fighter built from the school of thought that emphasized versatility and flexibility, could fill the air superiority as well as strike roles. There was no space left for a single mission oriented jet like the MiG-23, thus, the air defense MiG-23MF was retired in 2007, and the ground attack MiG-23BN in 2009. airliners.net | IAF MiG-21Bison “Badal 3” airliners.net | IAF MiG-23MF on display at Palam Air Force museum Ground Pounder variants of MiG-23 Since the MiG-23 was too single mission focused on air defence and ground attack jets like the Su-7/17 in Soviet service were in need of replacement, the Soviets decided to base the new jet on the MiG-23 airframe with a redesigned nose to increase visibility, replacement of Sapfir radar to incorporate Sokol navigation and sighting systems along with laser rangefinder and bomb sights. This gave birth to the MiG-23BN. It retained the variable geometry intakes and GSh-23 twin barelled 23mm autocannon like its air defence brethren. India purchased 95 of them in the ’80s and they saw action in ’99 Kargil conflict. airliners.net | Czechoslovakian MiG-23BN Since ground pounders rarely need to fly at high altitudes and typically encounter hostile armoured targets, decision was taken by the Soviets to simplify the MiG-23BN further and improve its autocannon, attack sights and computers. The improved jet was designated MiG-27 which eliminated the variable intake ramps to simplify maintenance, beefed up the landing gear to support austere airfield operations, improved the mission computers to a digital unit, incorporated IRST sights, a shorter exhaust nozzle and replaced the 23mm cannon with the notoriously powerful 30mm 6 barelled GSh-6-30 rotary cannon. airliners.net | IAF MiG-27ML Bahadur Visual differences between the twoBulgarian MiG-23BN(top); IAF MiG-27ML(bottom) Note the absence of variable intake ramps (circled in red) and larger undernose fairing to house the IRST and improved sights (circled in yellow) planform view of MiG-23MF (top); MiG-27 (bottom) Note the absence of central frame on the canopy, which simplified the ejection process. In the 2000’s, an agreement was signed between IAF, DRDO and DARE (Defence Avionics Research Establishment) to upgrade the Bahadur locally. A combination of Indian, French and Israeli avionics replaced the legacy Soviet systems such as updates to the ECM (Electronics CounterMeasures), navigation, new mission computers, integral EW systems, reworked cockpit layout with MFDs (Multi Functional Displays) and improvement in weapons accuracy and night attack capabilities with the inclusion of LITENING targetting pod. airliners.net | Analogue cockpit of MiG-27M LiveFistDefence | MiG-27UPG cockpit airliners.net | IAF MiG-27UPG With the induction of Sukhoi-30MKI’s, MiG-29UPG and Rafales, they took over the CAP duties and freed up the Mirage 2000’s for long range ground strike roles alongside Jaguars. The overpowered GSh-6-30 cannon proved to be just as threatening to the aircraft itself, as it posed to the one’s unfortunate enough to cross paths with it, coupled with high attritional losses of the MiG-27 near the end of its service life and troubles with operational readiness due to its ageing engine spelt the end of MiG-27UPG’s service life with the type being retired in 2019. _____ References Tom Cooper (2018). MiG-23 Flogger in the Middle East. ISBN 978-1-914059-76-6another book on the MiG-23 whose name I can’t remember, but read it ages ago RedSamovar | MiG-27’s & its service in India LiveFistDefence | MiG-27UPG Check out BHPian comments for more insights and information.
