Guns are here and so am I.
The next generation Mig-21bis for domestic and export use has been largely shaped by air combat developments in Algeria with a significant overhaul made of the airframe itself. The already planned R25 engine with a 100kN wartime emergency thrust has been chosen to replace the aging R13, enabling unparalleled acceleration in emergency combat conditions for up to two minutes. The radar system has been removed and replaced with an IRST derived directly from the Mig-23, incorporating missile integration and close-range combat modes for faster general acquisition. Compatibility with the R13T, R13MT, and R60 missiles has been included, allowing two long-range and four short-range missiles to be carried in standard interception configurations. The largest changes, however, have come in the airframe with an updated structure of aluminum-lithium alloy along with a new double delta wing wing form. This lifespan extension of old tooling is not expected to make a competitive front-line fighter, but a capable export craft more than able to compete with and destroy American export fighters.
Now this is interesting development, very intersting.
First engine looks to be effectively the same as in IRL MiG-21bis, decent with really powerful second stage afterburner that can only operate for short amount of time (IRL it was about 3min continously before engine was at risk of damage, after that you needed to cut output down and let engine cool down before using it again).
Armament wise we see mayor improvement, one is development of dual rail for R-60 missile increasing number of missiles that plane can carry but much bigger thing is integration or our R-13 missile (equivalent to IRL R-23 missiles) provide it with effective short to medium range missile and is significant expansion of capabilities compared to IRL MiG-21bis in soviet service.
Sensor choice is most interesting. Now it must be said that radars on MiG-21s back then were pretty bad, what it means in practice is that (assuming our IRST is equivalent to IRL system mounted on MiG-23) while IRST have lower detection range than radar under all but most ideal conditions it should have at comparable tracking range under all but worst (for IRST) conditions while being entirely passive. One big disadvantage of IRST is that it can't tell you range to target though there are ways around it, you can use laser range finder which is pretty stealthy method with good future or you can use radar for rangefinding (IRL MiG-23 did that, when operating with IRST as primary section pilot had option to use radar in search mode as ranging radar since both systems were fully integrated) which is less stealthy but all it tells the target is that radar see them not that they are locked. I'm guessing bigger radar that'd take advantage of R-13R was impossible to fit into small nose of MiG-21. Finally adding close combat modes is also improvement over IRL IRST system mounted on early MiG-23 (it was added on later models but was not present from the start).
New airframe is nice addition and so is slaving missile seeker to sensor (this is similar to IRL development at that time). Overall I'd say this is significant upgrade in capability over IRL plane.
One of the largest issues facing the new generation of Soviet fighters has been the lack of an adequate engine system for propulsion. For all of the thrust and promise of the AL-21F reliability across the force has been poor with both the 23 and 25 suffering from severe maintenance issues. Further, the AL-21 engine is severely fuel inefficient, limiting range and causing several concerns for long-distance carrier operation. This has been made all the worse by shortages of engine production from the plant with prioritization split on what is to receive them. The Aviadvigatel offering of the re-engineered and modernized D-20 engine, now designated the D-30 and in a low bypass configuration has been selected as the replacement. Since significant capacity has already been developed the less reliable AL-21 engines can be pushed into alternative applications. Second-generation aircraft of both the Mig-23 and Mig-25 families are expected to be constructed with the new engine before 1974, allowing significant range and capability extensions for both aircraft.
Ah, engine problems. Those high performance engines were always fuel inefficient. Still everything looks to be in order despite some engineering issues.
Frontline units across the German theater have started to receive the new Mig-23 in quantity while the new Mig-23K has started to replace the obsolete subsonic air wings used on the Kharkov Class. The immediate issue with the plane has come in the form of the engine and some specifics of the missile-radar complex. Close-range engagement profiles for the R13 and its variations are inherently limited with the R60 compensating somewhat but proving to be limited due to poor kinematic performance. The airframe itself also suffers from several minor avionics issues as the performance of identical systems against enemy air defense has been universally poor and the simple radar warning system used in both the Mig-23 and Mig-21 are insufficient for an accurate battlefield picture. Countermeasure pod evaluations in place of a drop tank have proven viable to improve survivability through the use of thermal flares and chaff, and one has been designed to replace the central drop tank as a temporary measure until adequate second-generation models can be produced.
So MiG-23 is hitting our units in number and despite issues this is good.
Missiles are behaving like their IRL equivalents (R-23 and R-60) which is okay, those are perfectly capable missiles for their time if not ideal.
We are also seeing somewhat early development of countermeasures pods which is good. Nothing unexpected here.
The primarily used model by the army is expected to receive the main focus of modernizations with a higher agility R13M of both radar and heat-seeking variants developed for the fighter. The primary performance improvement is expected to be a shorter intermediate phase, allowing for its use in a far closer minimum range envelope. Further, the IRST is expected to be improved with provisions made for mounting the Mysl HMD system for close-in combat. This is to be paired with a more advanced directed radar with a high off-boresight tracking and locking mode, reducing pilot load in combat situations. Automatic slats have been added to the wings along with a computerized control system, improving stability under all flight conditions. Long countermeasure rails are to be incorporated into the airframe, with current standards divided into the specific dimensions of optimal countermeasure release patterns. A fully integrated RWR system with specificity to 30 degrees outside vertical threat profiles and small blindspots outside the main axes has also been developed to be integrated into the new second-generation Mig-23M.
R-13M seem to be relatively simple guidance upgrade, making it intermediary step between IRL R-23 and R-24.
Helmet Mounted Sight (which is what I expect instead of full on display) this early even if it's in the work is very big upgrade. Now US was running test with such system at the time but they did abandon it in the end while I'm pretty sure USSR work for HMS that was finally mounted on MiG-29/Su-27 started later. Integrating it with IRST also means that system can be used to guide radar (so long as it have provision for ACM modes) as those systems were already tied together.
Proposed radar if it delivered will be extremely nice, especially if it hit before end of decade.
Is that Fly by Wire I see there, if yes, really big development for us if not, it's still good to see upgrades for control assist in the works.
Seems like we will have RWR with better capability than what soviet planes carried at the time with more precision.
Development of integrated decoy launchers way ahead of schedule is very nice.
For the Mig-23MK the same modifications are expected to be incorporated along with the ability to mount for the newly developed Kh-15 missile system with an active radar anti-shipping seeker head. Further hardening of the landing gear and provisions for the mounting of twin R13M mounts on the inner pylon have been approved for the design, allowing a total of eight missiles to be carried for interception duties against likely far larger bomber waves. Multiple target tracking on the lighter Saphir system is not expected neither is TWS functionality, but the presence of more ordinance is expected to significantly improve fleet defense capability. The more limited navelized version does have worse agility and capability due to the heavier and more reinforced airframe, but that can be compensated for with lower fuel loads as the D30 engine offers considerable range extensions over AL21F-equipped Mig-23s. In all of this, the lack of performance of a single pilot for guidance, tracking, acquisition, and engagement has left the ground attack variation effectively canceled with developments made in the Mig-23B program transferred to the Il-42 and Su-24.
Light weight Active Radar Homing missile even if for anti ship role indicate that our missile makers are more capable than IRL.
Dual rails for medium range missiles are development that I don't thing happened in USSR, hopefully it'll translate to ground forces plane because that's not insignificant increase in capability.
General adaptation to carrier duties and extended range from having engines that are less fuel hungry.
Now does the part about radar means that Saphir radar of MiG-23 does not have TWS modes and ability to engage multiple targets (which is undestandable) or does it means that only naval/carrier version lack these functionalities due to weight limitations and whatever wizards make our radars managed to cram ability to guide two SARH missile at once into MiG-23 (like really, most planes that boast capability for engaging multiple targets talk about guiding ARH missiles via TWS mode because guiding multiple SARH missiles to separate targets is hard)?
Bomber variant of MiG-23 being canceled is mixed news, it's good that development was not lost but parts commonality (not a problem if we can make and supply enough of Su-24s but a concern still).
To accompany the general modernization of the Mig-25 to the D-30 engine system an avionics upgrade has been planned out. New production integrated circuits are expected to significantly improve the processing capability of the aircraft along with some improvements in detection. Dedicated hardware for the precise location of radar threats has been incorporated along with improving the capacity of the underwing pylons to carry all variations of the Kh-15 or 1500kg on each pylon for use as a light tactical bomber. The fuselage mounts for R40s can be directly replaced by 500kg bombs of any variety, but the configuration is inherently limited. Countermeasure systems are currently in development with a temporary modification made to provide a limited capacity for thermal countermeasures on first-generation airframes. The new Saphir-25M radar system is effectively a total overhaul of past systems, introducing strong chaff rejection with the R13M system. The new system further incorporates improved missile compatibility, allowing the use of the R40A equipped with terminal onboard radar guidance.
So mostly mid life upgrades with some multirole capability added.
Radar improved with.
Soviet Phoenix, ARH soviet air to air missile in early 70s. That is massive step up from what IRL USSR produced at the time (SARH). Those investments in computing are really paying off in terms of military hardware. Even if those are not that great we are closing capability gap fiercely.
The Su-15bis has gone ahead with plans made to eventually replace all older PVO aircraft with either it or more modern Mig-25s for long-distance patrols. A reworked wing form has enabled the mounting of a single R60 missile on the wingtip to provide some limited provisions for close combat. Compatibility of the new system with the R40A has been limited due to the lack of additional capability brought on by the system along with the added expense. The new radar system is still expected to provide ground clutter rejection capability and greatly enhance combat against low-level targets. The R25 engines themselves are not the most reliable or capable but in case of full-scale PVO deployment, the additional emergency power mode is sufficient. Modernization of old airframes to the new standard will take full factory overhauls but they are expected for much of the Su-15 fleet over the next decade.
Midlife update for low end of our mix of interceptors force on us by sheer size of our borders. Needed and useful if somewhat nonexciting.
Ground attack capabilities for the entire force have been effectively consolidated into two airframes to provide weapons officer targeting capability while ensuring a stable platform. The Su-24 has been advanced with the unmodernized Al-21F engine that is set to run at a less aggressive thrust profile at a lower altitude to minimize wear. Integrated tracking systems from the canceled Mig-23B program have been added as an under-cabin pod providing full tracking capability on the front aspect along with enhanced loiter designation capacity after ordinance release. The plane itself is expected to carry its ordinance across nine hardpoints with five on the fuselage, two heavy, and two light hardpoints on the wings. The central and inner wing points are made for carrying the heaviest ordinance while the rest are designed for Kh-25 or 500kg bomb mountings with the option for twin R60 mounts on the outer light wing pylons. The tracking system itself is still unreliable but it is likely to be pushed given the inadequacy of other supersonic attack aircraft.
This is very nice, a pod with what I presume is automatic tracking capability even if it have limited field of view. Great upgrade over what we saw on IRL soviet platform at the time, fixed forward facing designators (tube under aircraft with laser pointer going forwards, Mk1 eyeball for target detection and tracking from cockpit) or limited traverse designator in the nose directed by moving pip on the HUD. (Mk1 eyeball for target detection and tracking from cockpit). Still no integration for laser guided bombs it seem (no ability to look directly down and back), ability for cooperative engagement is also big. Otherwise pretty close to IRL Su-24 (except being just better).
An Il-40 type design have been proposed by Ilyushin and heavily modified by the army before acceptance. The new Il-42 is a significantly modernized Il-40 with the rear turret and gunner removed and a subsonic-optimized wing form. Electro-optical systems from the Mig-23B program have been integrated into the craft allowing the flexible use of laser-guided Kh-25 missiles. Rocket pods along with more conventional bombs are expected to be the primary weapon system of the plane or up to eight tons of ordinance carried across all pylons in a conventional configuration. New turbofan RD-33's are to power the plane allowing it to have an acceptable agility and thrust to weight despite heavy ordinance and armored protection for the pilot. Radar detection and countermeasure systems are expected to be pioneered on the airframe, making it possible to operate in frontline roles to an adequate degree of safety.
Much better than Su-25, you get early integration of electro-optical system, countermeasures and it's not 80s. Just straight up upgrade over Su-25 and while worse than Su-25T, the T model was made in late 80s just before collapse and saw very limited production.
Even if all the things mentioned after MiG-23 going to units is about planned upgrade packages those are very good news for something that is taken seriously. R-40A being reality right now would be fucking amazing for us.
Design and testing of the new Object 200 complex for the replacement of obsolete M-3 and M-4 bombers has advanced rapidly with the near total obsolescence of subsonic bombers. Adapting a lifting body airframe along with a new generation of jet engines Suhkoi has designed a combined fuselage meeting all current specifications on paper. The use of a variable geometry wing was necessary to meet operational requirements with the development of the improved RD-36 or NK-32 engine for a quadruple mount to provide enough thrust. The principle goal of the program is effectively a nine thousand-kilometer range at a three thousand-kilometer cruising speed necessitating a large number of adaptations. Sukhoi has also claimed that the bomber will be able to carry two heavy Kh-45 missiles internally and two externally for both anti-shipping and nuclear roles. For lighter antishipping work it is expected to carry sixteen Kh-15s internally and eight externally allowing a significant increase in saturation against heavy carrier targets.
I'm not really that much into strategic bombers but this looks promising.
The Yak-38 has had its first flight with evaluations centered on assessing the aircraft as a capacity addition and modernization of the Kiev-Class. The first flights themselves have proven disappointing as while the plane is capable of VTOL operations its payload is limited in the extreme. Under good conditions, two Kh-15 missiles can be carried, but even that requires considerable weight shedding to allow. Using lift jets to achieve some aerodynamic stability along with several improved systems to reduce the load on the pilot has still resulted in a questionable temperamental frame. The test pilots have found the craft challenging to operate in a pure VTOL configuration and it is currently believed that a small STOL craft would be a better improvement. A lot of one hundred of the fighters are still going to be ordered as they offer a massive improvement over the obsolescent Yak-30 but even then the gains are far more marginal than they should be.
Yak-38 seems to be about as capable as it was IRL, it's shit, it's better than nothing and will thus see service. The ARH anti ship missiles are actually upgrade over what it carried IRL (also how I know that it's light weight missile, carrying capability of Yak-38 is very low),
Combat experience with the R60 has shown several deficiencies in the range of combat along with lacking launching discipline. The sensitive seeker head does allow front aspect shots under some limited conditions along with longer-ranged side aspect shots but the kinematics of the missile are lacking. Many pilots have been trained to release as soon as a side aspect tone is available but this has proven questionable due to both the seeker and the missile itself. Against fast-moving targets, the motor is insufficient to achieve an intercept and if the profile is significantly changed the missile can be turned into an evasive maneuver. While not an issue early on in the war the lack of any measures for countermeasure resistance has limited the system as the seeker is easily confused by thermal countermeasures. Improvements toward the fidelity of the seeker and a disengagement of the seeker for a few seconds on the detection of countermeasures, and a kinematic overhaul will come on the updated missile, significantly improving performance.
Yeah dogfighting missile is short ranged.
The only interesting thing is method used to deal with countermeasures, suspended tracking is something of departure from IRL USSR, soviet missile went mostly for restricting Field of View of missile after launch to decrease chance of flares being seen by missile. Another thing is that it's 1972, suspended tracking was something introduced on for example Aim-9M in early 80s while to my knowledge no CCM measures were ever introduced on R-60 missile (it was mostly being replaced by R-73 with new planes also entering service). Depending on when we deploy upgrade we may get critical advantage in some conflict down the line.
