Jump to content

About aerodynamic wing problem early MiG-23


Recommended Posts

Hi, all!

 

Since this topic

expressed an interest in further discussion of problems with the first versions of the MiG-23, an automatic translation from Russian is published:

 

"Another unpleasant feature was the unstable operation of the side air intakes during glide flights, when one of them was obscured by the fuselage.  The disruption of the normal air flow was manifested by a hum, which was clearly audible in the cockpit and warned of the danger of stalling the flow in the input devices.  The MiG-23 did not tolerate slipping in flight with the wing folded down, responding to lateral movement with energetic roll development.  Such properties of the aircraft required a more thorough study of the characteristics of track and lateral stability.  The change in sweep was accompanied by a significant effect on the roll and yaw behavior of the aircraft: when the wing was released with its large span, the machine responded to the leg only by sliding, however, with the wing retracted, the moment of inertia of the aircraft "squeezing the wing" decreased so much that it literally fell into a roll.  The reasons for the decrease in lateral stability were the features of the aerodynamics of the machine in combination with control with a differential stabilizer instead of the usual ailerons.  In addition to reducing the lateral moment of inertia with the wing folded by about half, countering the roll as the sweep increased was made difficult by the fact that the damping qualities of a fully retracted wing with a small span deteriorated by an order of magnitude.  In theory, these features were predictable, but their practical consideration caused many problems.  In flight, the aircraft reacted to the ground at elevated angles of attack with side swing and energetic roll.  Likewise, sliding led to a stall on the wing, which was especially evident at high flight speeds.  Due to the fact that when shifting the wing and performing energetic maneuvers, it was troublesome for the pilot to monitor the change in lateral stability, piloting with aerobatics on the MiG-23 for the first time on domestic aircraft was prescribed to be performed only with the Automatic System Control ( next on text – ASC)   turned on in the "stabilization" mode.  Moreover: with the suspension of the ventral drop-tank , the reserves of track and lateral stability were so reduced that the flight had to be performed exclusively with the ACS turned on, and in case of its failure and the presence of suspensions, it was allowed to land only by dropping the outboard tank.  Aerobatics with a large sweep In flight MiG-23 mod.  1969, with mock-ups of K-23 missiles under the wing, it was prescribed to perform "smoothly and in a coordinated manner, without slipping, avoiding sharp deviations of the rudder, when maneuvering, do not rely only on the sensations on the handle and signs in the behavior of the aircraft, but control it by instruments" (however  , the same instructions about "competent and accurate piloting" were contained in the manuals for other aircraft).  The presence of other features did not cause significant problems.  So, the alarming displacement of the center of gravity, focus and shoulder of balancing forces during wing shifting was easily parried by the handle.  With an increase in sweep up to 50oza due to the wing retreat, a small diving moment arose, compensated by taking the handle towards itself by only 30 mm.  With a further increase in sweep to 72 °, on the contrary, a weak pitching moment arose, which was eliminated by pushing the handle away from itself by about 15 mm.  The change in longitudinal balancing took place quite smoothly, since the full wing transfer took about 18 seconds (a little less when retracting the wing, which was helped by the incoming air flow during the backward stroke).  Removal of the rebalancing characteristic of the aircraft, which manifested itself with any change in the flight mode, was ensured by trimming using the trim effect mechanism, the slider button of which was located on the control handle next to the thumb and was controlled by the pilot in response to the occurrence of pressing or pulling forces on the handle.  The "game" with the trim button accompanied the entire flight of the MiG-23, accompanying practically any change in flight control and conditions, whether it be a wing shift, a change in speed or a change in altitude.  The pilot did this completely reflexively, habitually restoring the balance of the aircraft in the same way as was done when the landing gear and flaps were extended and retracted or when the engine speed increased.  This control feature of the MiG-23 accompanied his entire career, making it possible to distinguish the pilots flying on it by the always worn thumb of the uniform leather glove of his right hand.  The same skill required constant monitoring of the slide indicator, the movable "ball" of which should be kept as close to the center as possible.  The identified shortcomings of technology were corrected by making changes to the design. Among them was the weak survivability of plastic seals in bay."


"A significant disadvantage of the MiG-23 was the insufficiency of normal overloads in the angle of attack, revealed during the tests, caused by the early stall of the flow on the wing.  In turn, the use of increased angles of attack was a consequence of the interest in improving the maneuverability of the aircraft, associated with the need for a close air combat fighter.  As already mentioned, these requests arose already during the tests of the aircraft, forcing significant changes to the design of the machine.  Major General Engineer A. P. Ovsyannikov from the Air Force High Command noted the essence of the issue: “The experience of fighting in Vietnam and the Middle East demanded the use of the MiG-23 interceptor fighter in close maneuverable air combat, which made it necessary to draw  attention to the relevant characteristics of the aircraft. "  If the unsatisfactory strength and the associated limitations on overloads could be overcome by strengthening the existing structure, then this disadvantage required aerodynamic improvements with a deeper intervention.  In piloting, the "twenty-third" feature manifested itself as an early occurrence of aerodynamic shaking of the aircraft, which arises when maneuvering with access to increased angles of attack.  The shaking was due to the beginning of a violation of the normal flow around the wing, preceding the stall of the flow and the fall of the wing bearing properties with all the ensuing consequences - thereby stalling and the development of a spin.  For the pilot, the occurrence of shaking served as a reliable warning signal of the proximity of a dangerous regime, useful and perceived completely reflexively and also eliminated.  However, in the MiG-23, with the maneuverable sweep of the wing, the shaking began long before the really dangerous "stall" angles of attack.  As noted during the tests, "in the flight configuration, the aircraft in the process of braking experiences a noticeable shaking at the angles of attack, much less critical."  But the pilot could not “change himself” in his usual sensations and reacted to the occurrence of shaking by forever returning the plane to a safe mode in a learned way.  It turned out that the "alarm" that the shaking served was false, taking away from the pilot a part of the range of flight angles of attack, at which the aircraft fully retained its aerobatic capabilities, and also taking away a couple of units of the used overload and maneuverability.  A seemingly ordinary detail in the aerobatic characteristics of the aircraft attracted the attention of the test management group.  The question was reported to PS Kutakhov.  The commander-in-chief, himself a former fighter, gave it a fundamental sound, demanding that the industry immediately eliminate the deficiency.  The reason was the unsatisfactory characteristics of the wing profile, where the early stall began.  It was also found that the wing profile has a concomitant critical M number that is too small, resulting in unsatisfactory flight characteristics, including a small boosted ceiling.  The situation was aggravated by the fact that the fighter had already gone to the troops.  When mastering the MiG-23, it did not cause any special problems, it looked accessible to pilots, but then, when the permissible modes were expanded and the transition to aerobatics, it began to "show temper", showing features of a very risky nature.  Design Bureau test pilot V. Ye. Menitsky characterized the aircraft's features as follows: “All these nuances made the aircraft very difficult to fly, although it was very simple to master.  In flight schools, they mastered it even better than the MiG-21.  I flew both planes, and the MiG-23 immediately seemed easier to me.  However, from the point of view of energetic maneuvering and modern requirements for air combat, this machine, of course, did not meet the standards of an aerobatic machine. "  Not without bickering in search of the culprits of the mistakes.  The leading specialist of TsAGI GS Byushgens, who was the author of the aerodynamic solutions of the MiG-23 wing, indignantly pointed out deviations from "pure" aerodynamics manifested by its design, without skimping on the designers and technologists, whose activities "distorted and  spoiled "the original perfection of the design.  The opinion was also expressed that the reason for the unidentified features of the behavior of the MiG-23 at the purging stage was that the corkscrew models presented by TsAGI did not have one small detail - the Peony antenna below under the nose, which affected the flow, and she de  provoked a violation of the flow and stall.  Since the stall, as a rule, took place on the left wing, they began to look for the reasons for this pattern, drawing attention to one more detail - the termination of the emergency LDPE protruding from the starboard side with a sufficiently sized pylon located near the building horizontal of the aircraft.  At the angles of attack, it caused a local stall of the flow, which resulted in track and lateral imbalance, followed by a stall just to the left.  The LDPE was moved higher, to the canopy of the canopy, where it was closer to the plane of symmetry of the aircraft, eliminating the negative effect.  This change was introduced already on the MiG-23S and MiG-23 of the 1969 model.  However, this measure did not bring a radical improvement in the stall characteristics, and the tendency to shift to the left bank at critical modes remained.  At the same time, the headlights, previously located along the sides in the area of the nose pillar, were removed from the bow.  The release of headlights during takeoff and landing was accompanied by a tangible disturbance of the flow, which was directed straight into the inlet devices of the engines.  The headlights were moved back, placing them at the bottom of the air intakes behind their cut.  Complete alteration of the wing was a deliberately unrealistic undertaking, meaning not only the scrapping of the entire technology in production, but also the need for a colossal amount of new aerodynamic research, purges and experiments with an uncertain result ahead of time.  It was necessary to find a way to solve the problem "cheap and cheerful".  To eliminate the defect, it was proposed as the most affordable measure to change the wing tip, having reasoned that a breakdown begins with it and, therefore, all the troubles.  Now the speed profile of the SR-16M acquired a rounded toe instead of the previous sharp one, which prevented early stalling of the flow from the leading edge with an increase in the angle of attack and created a suction force at subsonic speeds, reducing drag."

 

I think that publishing excerpts from this good book

1391371_600.jpg

will not do any harm to the authors, but only contribute to the translation of their book into English and publication in the West.

 

But if the authors consider that their rights have been violated, I will undoubtedly delete this text.

 

In addition, I hope this publication will stimulate model manufacturers to create the earliest modifications of the MiG-23, which no one is making now.

😉

 

 

B.R.

Serge 

 

P.S. If some parts in automatic translation are incomprehensible or incorrect, write, I will correct or explain.

 

P.P.S. The "Cold War" section seemed to me more appropriate than "Real Aviation" because the first MiG-23 models have long ceased to be "real aviation"

 

 


 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Fascinating, and the automatic translation appears to have worked rather well, although it does read more easily with a few terms changed to more familiar ones. Sensitivity to yaw/roll instability was a feature of the Harrier during the transition, a yaw leading to an uncontrollable roll, hence the need for yaw/roll stabiliser.  Buffet in advance of the stall is also familiar, although this is undesirable in turning combat.  Buffet can lead to wing rock which would trigger the actual asymmetric stall.  The asymmetric flow in a glide seems odd, and a strong hint at the cause of the wing drop.  Presumably this disappeared after the move of the LDPE.

 

Terms (I think):

Corkscrew = wind tunnel

track = yaw stability

headlights = landing lights

sliding = sideslip or yaw?

side swing = yaw

aerodynamic shaking = buffet

purging - testing/trials?

rounded toe = leading edge - at tip?

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for this!  It's really interesting to read--and very open about the MiG-23's terrible handling characteristics.  In short, pilot's notes for the MiG-23 (all versions) should have contained the following in bold face: "Do NOT under any circumstances attempt to engage in maneuver combat within visual range of an enemy aircraft."  Followed by: "If forced to merge to within visual range with an enemy aircraft, execute an immediate 180 degree turn and light afterburner.  Think of Lenin, Stalin, and the Brave Soviet Workers.  Good luck."

  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wonder why some airforces used it more than others...

India until recently e.g., or Syria until now....

Also Romania used them rel. long.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Serge could you give me the original Russian text? The pilots I know and flew with the MiG-23 did not mention these problems. Some words and especially pilot slang are very difficult to translate and they haven't alternative in automatic translation.

After repairs went on a test flight. SlovakAF commander was my friend,and several times I was GIBS.But the flight was always absolutely OK.

THX Harvy.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheyJammedKenny! said:

Thanks for this!  It's really interesting to read--and very open about the MiG-23's terrible handling characteristics.  In short, pilot's notes for the MiG-23 (all versions) should have contained the following in

 

41 minutes ago, exdraken said:

Wonder why some airforces used it more than others...

India until recently e.g., or Syria until now....

Also Romania used them rel. long.

 

7 minutes ago, harvy5 said:

The pilots I know and flew with the MiG-23 did not mention these problems.

Gentlemen, you are not careful!  The conversation is about the FIRST modifications such as MiG-23, MiG-23S!  The latest modifications of the MiG-23, such as the MiG-23MLD being in service with the Soviet Aggressor units in Mary airbase, not only successfully resisted the early versions of the Su-27 and MiG-29, but also played with them like a cat and mouse!

Even the Israelis received not the latest version of the MiG-23ML, inferior in maneuverability to the MiG-23MLD, were forced to admit that the MiG-23ML surpasses their F-16 in acceleration characteristics.

Early and late MiG-23 it's two different aircraft.

 

7 minutes ago, harvy5 said:

Serge could you give me the original Russian text?

Without problem.

 

7 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

Terms (I think):

Corkscrew = wind tunnel

track = yaw stability

headlights = landing lights

sliding = sideslip or yaw?

side swing = yaw

aerodynamic shaking = buffet

purging - testing/trials?

rounded toe = leading edge - at tip?

Graham, answer will be latter.

 

 

B.R.

Serge

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

SRY Serge, I didn't notice it was about the MiG-23 first versions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Aardvark said:

 

 

Gentlemen, you are not careful!  The conversation is about the FIRST modifications such as MiG-23, MiG-23S!  The latest modifications of the MiG-23, such as the MiG-23MLD being in service with the Soviet Aggressor units in Mary airbase, not only successfully resisted the early versions of the Su-27 and MiG-29, but also played with them like a cat and mouse!

Even the Israelis received not the latest version of the MiG-23ML, inferior in maneuverability to the MiG-23MLD, were forced to admit that the MiG-23ML surpasses their F-16 in acceleration characteristics.

Early and late MiG-23 it's two different aircraft.

 

Serge, you are of course fully correct, this article is talking about the very first MiG-23s only :)

 

still the problem of rel. dangerous handling characteristics seemed to have persisted with later models at least to some degree as well. At least that is always stated as one of the reason of its early retirement, in comparison with MiG-21 models. (e.g. in Czech Republic, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Egypt, India,...  )

it is definitely not knows for its dog-fighting capabilities, (not even the MLDs). but seems to be a stable and capable bomb truck, especially the BN and -27 models.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, exdraken said:

still the problem of rel. dangerous handling characteristics seemed to have persisted with later models at least to some degree as well. 

No. 

1 hour ago, exdraken said:

At least that is always stated as one of the reason of its early retirement, in comparison with MiG-21 models. (e.g. in Czech Republic, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Egypt, India,...  )

it is definitely not knows for its dog-fighting capabilities, (not even the MLDs). but seems to be a stable and capable bomb truck, especially the BN and -27 models.

1. As I remember MLD

were only

Bulgaria and Libya in insignificant amount. 

Other countries was  less perfect models.

The main difference between MLD and other models in terms of aerodynamics is the presence of radome plates (as on JAS-39😉) and a canine at the beginning of the wing inflow, which create powerful vortices at various flight angles, which sharply increases stability and controllability in maneuverable modes.  This is the so-called vortex aerodynamics.

MLD, like ML, became lighter than its predecessors by almost 1 ton, while a more economical and powerful engine was obtained, but since the MLD was for the Soviet Air Force, in contrast to the export versions of the ML, it also had more advanced electronic equipment, including a radar.

2.The operation of aircraft with a variable sweep wing is quite an expensive pleasure, so when for some reason there was a break with the USSR (Egypt) or when the USSR died, most of the countries simply could not pay for their normal maintenance. In addition, after the collapse of the USSR, more interesting proposals began to appear on the market in the form of the MiG-29 and Su-27.

1 hour ago, exdraken said:

but seems to be a stable and capable bomb truck, especially the BN and -27 models.

BN and ordinary 27 models cannot be compared with the MiG-27K "Kaira", which in terms of the degree of automation and electronic equipment in its class had no competitors in the world until the beginning or even the middle of the 90s. But it was very expensive even for the USSR and also required very qualified maintenance.

 

All this is in Russian sources, including the book cited here, but what do you want me to post 10 more pages of text here? 😁😲😞

 

Answer on some @Graham Boak

question:

16 hours ago, Aardvark said:

Corkscrew = wind tunnel

No.

Corkscrew = Spin

16 hours ago, Aardvark said:

headlights = landing lights

Yes. But there, in the context that the landing lights located in the bow created a disturbed flow during takeoff (the same vortex aerodynamics!) That fell into the air intake and led to unstable engine operation, which could lead to its failure during takeoff or landing.  And this is basically almost always a disaster.

16 hours ago, Aardvark said:

aerodynamic shaking = buffet

Interesting question.

Buffeting also have as Russian analogue term:

https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Бафтинг

do he use aerodynamic shaking as synonym Buffeting for best understanding 

Russian-speaking readers or is this a designation of another phenomenon, I cannot tell. But Markovskij ( one from autor book) former IL-76 pilot as I know.

 

16 hours ago, Aardvark said:

sliding = sideslip or yaw?

In context "sliding = sideslip"

16 hours ago, Aardvark said:

purging - testing/trials?

purging it's testing models or real aircraft in aerodynamic tube or what do you call it wind tunnel?

16 hours ago, Aardvark said:

rounded toe = leading edge - at tip?

Yes.

 

Other terms me need look in context.

 

B.R.

Serge

Edited by Aardvark
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, exdraken said:

Serge, you are of course fully correct, this article is talking about the very first MiG-23s only :)

 

still the problem of rel. dangerous handling characteristics seemed to have persisted with later models at least to some degree as well. At least that is always stated as one of the reason of its early retirement, in comparison with MiG-21 models. (e.g. in Czech Republic, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Egypt, India,...  )

it is definitely not knows for its dog-fighting capabilities, (not even the MLDs). but seems to be a stable and capable bomb truck, especially the BN and -27 models.

 

 

Hi Werner.

The MiG-23 was an interceptor and was no longer needed after the end of Cold War.
Ground atack versions had better replacement in the Su-22 and 25 aircraft.
Apart from the money, the reason was at least in Czechoslovakia MiG-23 considered a temporary type.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, harvy5 said:

The MiG-23 was an interceptor and was no longer needed after the end of Cold War.

Last version MiG-23MLD was more an air superiority  fighter, the interceptor was the version MiG-23P special version MiG-23MLD for PVO of course for Soviet air force concept.

1 hour ago, harvy5 said:

Ground atack versions had better replacement in the Su-22 and 25 aircraft.

Only unbuild modification Su-17M5 with fixed wing was equivalent MiG-27K. Su-17M4 was similar equivalent MiG-27M and MiG-27D which in turn were an attempt to create a cheaper version of the MiG-27K, by simplifying the equipment.

Compare MiG-23BN/27/27D/27M/27K with Su-25 not correct, as not correct compare Jaguar with A-10.

1 hour ago, harvy5 said:

Czechoslovakia MiG-23 considered a temporary type.

But what You want? When the MiG-23 reached perfection, the MiG-29 and Su-27 appeared, which chopped off further areas of modernization of the MiG-23 in the direction of equipping it with a new digital radar, new IRST, new missiles and an AL-31 engine and even two RD-33 engines in a deck naval version of the MiG-23  ...

Even the version with built-in electronic warfare systems Gardenia - MiG-23MLDE remained in a single example.

 

B.R.

Serge

Edited by Aardvark
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

B.w. funny fact,  the only operator of the MiG-27 in the post-Soviet space - Kazakhstan periodically uses its MiG-27s as an air defense interceptor.  They are on alert with R-60M missiles, despite the fact that the MiG-27 was never considered an interceptor and was not considered for dog fight.

Also, many experts note the good technical service of Kazakhstani MiG-27.

 

B.R.

Serge

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Aardvark said:

Last version MiG-23MLD was more an air superiority  fighter, the interceptor was the version MiG-23P special version MiG-23MLD for PVO of course for Soviet air force concept.

Only unbuild modification Su-17M5 with fixed wing was equivalent MiG-27K. Su-17M4 was similar equivalent MiG-27M and MiG-27D which in turn were an attempt to create a cheaper version of the MiG-27K, by simplifying the equipment.

Compare MiG-23BN/27/27D/27M/27K with Su-25 not correct, as not correct compare Jaguar with A-10.

But what You want? When the MiG-23 reached perfection, the MiG-29 and Su-27 appeared, which chopped off further areas of modernization of the MiG-23 in the direction of equipping it with a new digital radar, new IRST, new missiles and an AL-31 engine and even two RD-33 engines in a deck naval version of the MiG-23  ...

Even the version with built-in electronic warfare systems Gardenia - MiG-23MLDE remained in a single example.

 

B.R.

Serge

Sergey I wrote about CSLA. Fighter versions were used mainly as Interceptors,had several successful intercepts SR-71. 😉 The necessary ground equipment was also delivered.

PVO was secured MiG-21MF,L-39ZA ang Mi-24.

MiG-23BN were purchased only as a replacement for the Su-7BM,until the Su-22M-4 free for export. The same as Su-25. BN version was purchased only from a lack of adequate aircraft.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, harvy5 said:

Sergey I wrote about CSLA.

I know that.

1 hour ago, harvy5 said:

Fighter versions were used mainly as Interceptors,had several successful intercepts SR-71. 😉

Over ČSFR?😲

From this moment more details!  The SR-71 was not always able to intercept the MiG-25.  By the way, it is believed that the maximum speed of the MiG-23 was not limited by the capabilities of its engine or aerodynamics, but by the heat resistance of its canopy, just when certain high speeds were reached, the canopy  began to melt. Close problem with MiG-25 but his canopy

limited by instructions

 2,83 Mach for service aircraft, in real MiG-25 if not for the serial canopy , it could have allowed more.

2 hours ago, harvy5 said:

PVO was secured MiG-21MF,L-39ZA ang Mi-24.

After the breakthrough of Matius Rust, the last two components were also put on alert, and the use of the L-39 as an interceptor (and this was the only squadron) is not known even on Russian modeller's forums by those who flew this plane!😎😉

2 hours ago, harvy5 said:

MiG-23BN were purchased only as a replacement for the Su-7BM

MiG-23BN the modification is weak, a small effort to get a fighter-bomber, it was no longer a fighter, but not yet a bomber, 

but certainly better than the Su-7BM.

 

B.R.

Serge 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The SR-71 would never have been used as an interceptor.  I suspect you meant the F-15.  Or you are saying that the SR-71 was not always successfully intercepted by the MiG-25?  I don't think that there is any doubt about that, except perhaps the use of the word always.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sergey,over CSSR. 😁 Flight at a small height, very fast approach and at 20km "framing" R-23.I got it from Gen.Stefan Gombik.
Former commander of the 3rd Air Defense Division CSSR and from 01/01/1993 commander of the Slovak AF.

CSSR had in PVO MiG-15bis and after their retirement in December 1983 were replaced L-39ZA with 2xUB-16 rocket pod and 2xR-3S,later R-60. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, harvy5 said:

Sergey,over CSSR. 😁

ĆSSR - of course! Sorryyamba, as local modern youth say! 😁

 

28 minutes ago, harvy5 said:

Flight at a small height, very fast approach and at 20km "framing" R-23.I got it from Gen.Stefan Gombik.
Former commander of the 3rd Air Defense Division CSSR and from 01/01/1993 commander of the Slovak AF.

Where can  read more about this?

1 hour ago, Graham Boak said:

The SR-71 would never have been used as an interceptor. 

This is what You are now telling the person who has a home YF-12A from Italeri on a 72nd scale. Of course the

reconnaissance SR-71   could in no way intercept the MiG-25.

1 hour ago, Graham Boak said:

Or you are saying that the SR-71 was not always successfully intercepted by the MiG-25? 

Yes.

1 hour ago, Graham Boak said:

 I don't think that there is any doubt about that, except perhaps the use of the word always.

No. According to the recollections of some pilots, there were interceptions, but since the flights of the SR-71 were carefully planned and took place mainly in neutral space, there were no official cases of the use of USSR air defense weapons against them.  But this does not mean that they were not taken to be accompanied by the weapons system interceptor, when it worked.With the advent of the MiG-31, there were no longer the same problems as with the MiG-25 and, as the pilots claim, working with the SR-71 as a target was a pleasure.

 

B.R.

Serge

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Aardvark said:

ĆSSR - of course! Sorryyamba, as local modern youth say! 😁

 

Where can  read more about this?

This is what You are now telling the person who has a home YF-12A from Italeri on a 72nd scale. Of course the

reconnaissance SR-71   could in no way intercept the MiG-25.

Yes.

No. According to the recollections of some pilots, there were interceptions, but since the flights of the SR-71 were carefully planned and took place mainly in neutral space, there were no official cases of the use of USSR air defense weapons against them.  But this does not mean that they were not taken to be accompanied by the weapons system interceptor, when it worked.With the advent of the MiG-31, there were no longer the same problems as with the MiG-25 and, as the pilots claim, working with the SR-71 as a target was a pleasure.

 

B.R.

Serge

All: just to be clear, the SR-71 never crossed into Czechoslovak or Soviet national airspace.  As Serge points out, its flights were precisely planned.  It had an inertial navigation system and star tracker that achieved amazingly precise locational accuracy considering its vintage and lack of recourse to satellite-facilitated navigation.  Any intercepts over continental Europe would have been on the Czechoslovak side of the border--meaning the interceptor would have remained inside its national airspace but on a parallel track with the SR-71.  How far inside national airspace is the question.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, TheyJammedKenny! said:

All: just to be clear, the SR-71 never crossed into Czechoslovak or Soviet national airspace.

But there is one problem here.  Since the US has not ratified

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea

then they count

 the old 3-mile (4.8 km) limit,  as territorial waters, in same time Soviet Union ratifying the convention

had set a 12-nautical-mile (22 km) territorial limit. 

In addition, there were different interpretations of the treaty itself, depending on the language, all this eventually led to "Black Sea bumping incident*"

 

 

(note the difference in Wikipedia descriptions):

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_Black_Sea_bumping_incident

 

https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Столкновение_кораблей_ВМС_США_и_СССР_в_Чёрном_море_(1988)

 

Therefore, from the point of view of the legislation recognized by the United States, the CP-71 could not violate anything, but it could violate from the point of view of the legislation of the recognized USSR!

In addition, the main task of the SR-71 flights was to open the air defense of the USSR, which is unrealistic without small provocations.

Therefore, as former Soviet pilot private  say, SR-71 have been short-term violations of territorial waters.

 

B.R.

Serge

 

____________

* - The funny thing is that while some members of the team of Soviet ships were thinking about how to hold on to the handrails more tightly so as not to fall overboard in a collision, others thought how to more deftly throw a cable onto the launcher of Harpoon anti-ship missiles in order to pull them off the American  ship in a collision.

😁😁😁

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TheyJammedKenny! said:

Ah--is there an international law professor in the house?

For what?  Are You planning a SR-71 flight or a cruiser voyage?

😁😁

But it seems to me that we have somewhat deviated from the theme of the MiG-23, so I am thinking about publishing another fragment about the events that accompanied the beginning of the rework of the MiG-23 wing.  And by the way, if you think that having received a converted wing, the MiG-23 immediately recovered from all diseases, then no!

2nd edition wing the increased area, with a fang, but without slats, allowed the new MiG-23 to feel better in maneuverable combat ... but the MiG-23 became worse during takeoff and landing....

 

B.R.

Serge

 

P.S. B.w. where is all this people

in this topic?

😉😁

 

Edited by Aardvark
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Aardvark said:

Where can  read more about this?

I don't know if it was written about somewhere.
I have confirmed this from several MiG-23 pilots. In the early 80's, the SR-71 flew too close to the border,but after a few "framing" (ZACHVAT) they moved away from the border. 😁

Classic flights were then SR-71 in the height of 25km and the MiG-23 escort on the other side of the border in the height of 18-22kim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...