Talk:Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-23/Archive 2

'Russian' vs 'Soviet'
This article had several errors where 'the Russians' were credited for ideas, designs, and so forth that should have been credited more broadly to 'the Soviets.'  These have been corrected. More modern references to, for example, 'Russian historians' have been left intact. However, for example, when describing the development of MiG-23 variants in the mid-1970s, the phrase "Russian designers" is incorrectly narrow. The designers did not work under a Russian flag and many non-Russians (ethnically and nationally) were involved.

Please help fix this issue wherever you find it, as it is unfortunately widespread on wikipedia. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.12.110 (talk) 15:13, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed it is, there is more than an intrinsic difference between Soviet (Communists) and Russian (Capitalists), one glaring fact is that the RSFSR was only one of 15 constituent republics that formed the USSR (albeit a dominant republic, but NOT the only one!) Many "expert" commentators and specialists commonly make this mistake and forget that other republics where involved. Ukraine for example, such as Korolyov, master of the Soviet space program or even former Soviet leader Konstantin Chernenko both from the Ukrainian SSR, for instance, therefore making them both Soviets not Russians. I like you am trying to correct those subtle, but in some ways ignorant and glaring errors in all the articles I edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironmungy (talk • contribs) 09:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

MiG-23 combat record according to the Russians
БОЕВОЕ ПРИМЕНЕНИЕ.

В ходе боев в Ливане летом 1982 года истребители МиГ-23МФ сирийских ВВС выполнили с 6 по 11 июня 52 боевых вылета и провели семь воздушных боев, сбив восемь пилотируемых самолетов израильтян (в том числе пять истребителей Локхид F-16А) и один БПЛА ВОМ-34, потеряв шесть машин. Истребители МиГ-23МС уничтожили два самолета Макдоннелл-Дуглас F-4Е (сирийские потери составили четыре самолета этого типа). Во время очередного обострения положения в Ливане, зимой 1982-1983 гг. сирийские МиГ-23МЛ сбили три израильских истребителя F-15А и один F-4Е, не понеся при этом потерь. Другим театром военных действий, на котором широко применялись МиГ-23, была Ангола, куда в 1985 году было направлено 50 самолетов МиГ-23МФ и МиГ-23БН, пилотируемых кубинцами. В 1987 году над северными районами Намибии самолетами МиГ 23 был сбит один истребитель Дассо "Мираж"F.1Z2. Во второй половине 1987 года еще один самолет "Мираж"2.1С2 в воздушном бою с МиГ-23МФ получил попадание ракетой Р-60 (однако сумел вернуться на базу). Кроме того, в Анголе самолетами МиГ-23 был уничтожен истребитель ВВС ЮАР Дассо "Мираж"III и штурмовик "Импала". Самолеты МиГ-23 различных модификаций широко использовались Ираком в войне с Ираном в 1980-1988 гг. Самолетом этого типа, вооруженным двумя управляемыми ракетами класса "воздух-поверхность", 17 мая 1987г был атакован и тяжело поврежден американский фрегат "Старк". В Афганистане истребители МиГ-23МЛД советских ВВС использовались для нанесения ударов по наземным целям, а также прикрывали действия ударных самолетов в пограничных с Ираном и Пакистаном районах. Советским истребителем МиГ-23МЛД был сбит самолет F-16А ВВС Пакистана, нарушивший воздушную границу Афганистана. В ходе войны в районе Персидского залива зимой 1991 года истребители США F-15С, по западным данным, сбили шесть самолетов МиГ-23, пытавшихся перелететь в Иран. В свою очередь, иракские истребители МиГ-23 сбили, как минимум, один самолет противника - истребитель-бомбардировщик "Торнадо" ВВС Италии, уничтоженный над Багдадом 18 февраля 1991 г парой МиГ-23МФ.

Source:http://www.aviaport.ru/directory/aviation/526.html

Боевое применение

Первое крупное столкновение с участием МиГ-23 состоялось 19 сентября 1979г., когда сирийские МиГ-23МС атаковали над Ливаном израильский разведчик Макдоннел-Дуглас RF-4 Фантом II, однако не достигли успеха. В июне 1982г. началось вторжение Израиля в Ливан. В небе долины р. Бекаа завязались ожесточенные бои между сирийской и израильской авиацией, кульминацией которых явилось воздушное сражение 10 июня. В бой было вовлечено 350 самолетов с обеих сторон. Сирийцы потеряли 22 истребителя (в том числе 4 МиГ-23МФ и 8 МиГ-23МС). Потери израильской авиации составили 10 истребителей. В целом ВВС Сирии с 6 по И июня, когда было заключено соглашение о прекращении огня, сбили в воздушных боях 23 и потеряли 47 самолетов. Двукратный перевес в сбитых самолетах объяснялся не только техническим превосходством F-15 над МиГ-23 первых модификаций, но и широкое использование Израилем самолетов ДРЛО и РЭБ, а также лучше отработанной тактикой боевого применения истребительной авиации.

В боях над Ливаном летом 1982г. были продемонстрированы как сильные, так и слабые стороны МиГ-23. К первым относились высокие скоростные и разгонные характеристики, дававшие МиГу возможность выполнять стремительную атаку и выходить из боя с высокой скоростью, переложив крыло на максимальный угол стреловидности, а также способность к относительно длительному полету на малой высоте со сложенным крылом. Слабыми сторонами МиГ-23МС и МиГ-23МФ явилась недостаточная маневренность по сравнению с F-15A, худшие характеристики бортовой РЛС и ракетного вооружения, плохой обзор из кабины. В конце 1982г. в Сирию прибыла партия из 50 усовершенствованных МиГ-23МЛ, что способствовало изменению качественного соотношения сил в воздухе в пользу Сирии. В декабре 1982г. начался "второй раунд" воздушных боев между сирийской и израильской авиацией. На этот раз успех сопутствовал сирийцам: их МиГ-23МЛ сбили три израильских F-15 и один F-4, не понеся при этом потерь.

Другим театром военных действий, на котором широко применялись МиГ-23, была Ангола. В 1985г. в эту страну было направлено 50 МиГ-23МФ, пилотируемых кубинцами. Самолеты немедленно были переброшены на юг страны, где вступили в боевые действия с авиацией Южно-Африканской Республики. Их основными противниками в воздухе стали истребители Дассо-Бреге Мираж F.1С и Мираж III. Несколько самолетов этих типов были уничтожены ангольскими и кубинскими истребителями МиГ-23, вооруженными УР Р-60. Ангольско-кубинские ВВС сумели завоевать и удержать господство в воздухе над южными районами страны.

В 1979г. советские вооруженные силы были введены в Афганистан. В составе частей ВВС, направленных в эту страну, находились и истребители МиГ-23, разместившиеся на аэродроме Кабул, а несколько позже - в Баграме. Помимо задач обороны от возможных действий ВВС Пакистана, МиГ-23МЛД широко использовались для нанесения ударов по наземным целям, причем потери от огня зенитных средств противника были минимальными: благодаря высокой тяговооруженности МиГ-23 резко набирали высоту после взлета и быстро выходили из зоны поражения ПЗРК, с которыми "душманы" подкарауливали свою добычу вблизи аэродромов. Кроме того, успешному применению МиГ-23 в условиях высокогорья способствовали хорошие взлетно-посадочные характеристики этой машины. В воздушном бою советские МиГ-23МЛД сбили один пакистанский истребитель F-16A. В то же время пакистанским истребителям удалось уничтожить два МиГ-23 ВВС Афганистана.

МиГ-23МФ и МиГ-23МС активно использовались Ираком в войне с Ираном в 1980-1988гг. Самолеты привлекались для завоевания господства в воздухе и перехвата иранских самолетов, а также для нанесения ударов по наземным целям. 4 января 1989г. произошло боевое столкновение двух ливийских МиГ-23МС, выполняющих, по утверждению ливийского командования, обычный тренировочный полет над нейтральными водами Средиземного моря, с американским воздушным патрулем - двумя F-14A Томкэт с авианосца Джон Кеннеди. По сообщению американцев, Томкэты обнаружили ливийскую пару при помощи бортовых РЛС на удалении более 130 км. МиГи летели на высоте 10 000 м со скоростью 800 км/ч. Американцы сочли действия ливийской стороны угрожающими и сбили их.

Последней войной, в которой участвовали МиГ-23, явились бои 1991г. в Персидском заливе. К началу боевых действий Ирак располагал самолетами МиГ-23МФ и МиГ-23МС, которым предстояло померяться силами с новейшими западными истребителями, в частности, Макдоннел-Дуглас F-15C последних серий. Всего в ходе войны истребители США (по западным данным) сбили шесть самолетов МиГ-23 (все - самолетами F-15C). Сообщений о победах МиГ-23 в этой войне на Западе не публиковалось, однако, по арабским источникам, МиГ-23МФ сбили, как минимум, один F-16, применив УР Р-23 на встречных курсах.

Source:http://combatavia.info/index1mig23.html#top5

Боевое применение

Первое крупное столкновение с участием МиГ-23 состоялось 19 сентября 1979 г., когда сирийские МиГ-23МС атаковали над Ливаном израильский разведчик Макдоннел-Дуглас RF-4 'Фантом' 2, однако не достигли успеха. В июне 1982 г. началось вторжение Израиля в Ливан. В небе долины р. Бекаа завязались ожесточенные бои между сирийской и израильской авиацией, кульминацией которых явилось воздушное сражение 10 июня. В бой было вовлечено 350 самолетов с обеих сторон. Сирийцы потеряли 22 истребителя (в том числе 4 МиГ-23МФ и 8 МиГ-23МС). Потери израильской авиации составили 10 истребителей. В целом ВВС Сирии с 6 по 11 июня, когда было заключено соглашение о прекращении огня, сбили в воздушных боях 23 и потеряли 47 самолетов. Двукратный перевес в сбитых самолетах объяснялся не только техническим превосходством F-15 над МиГ-23 первых модификаций, но и широкое использование Израилем самолетов ДРЛО и РЭБ, а также лучше отработанной тактикой боевого применения истребительной авиации.

В боях над Ливаном летом 1982 г. были продемонстрированы как сильные, так и слабые стороны МиГ-23. К первым относились высокие скоростные и разгонные характеристики, дававшие МиГу возможность выполнять стремительную атаку и выходить из боя с высокой скоростью, переложив крыло на максимальный угол стреловидности, а также способность к относительно длительному полету на малой высоте со сложенным крылом. Слабыми сторонами МиГ-23МС и МиГ-23МФ явилась недостаточная маневренность по сравнению с F-15A, худшие характеристики бортовой РЛС и ракетного вооружения, плохой обзор из кабины.

В конце 1982 г. в Сирию прибыла партия из 50 усовершенствованных МиГ-23МЛ, что способствовало изменению качественного соотношения сил в воздухе в пользу Сирии.

В декабре 1982 г. начался 'второй раунд' воздушных боев между сирийской и израильской авиацией. На этот раз успех сопутствовал сирийцам: их МиГ-23МЛ сбили три израильских F-15 и один F-4, не понеся при этом потерь.

Другим театром военных действий, на котором широко применялись МиГ-23, была Ангола. В 1985 г. в эту страну было направлено 50 МиГ-23МФ, пилотируемых кубинцами. Самолеты немедленно были переброшены на юг страны, где вступили в боевые действия с авиацией Южно-Африканской Республики. Их основными противниками в воздухе стали истребители Дассо-Бреге 'Мираж'Т1С и 'Мираж' III. Несколько самолетов этих типов были уничтожены ангольскими и кубинскими истребителями МиГ-23, вооруженными УР Р-60. Ангольско-кубинские ВВС сумели завоевать и удержать господство в воздухе над южными районами страны.

В 1979 г. советские вооруженные силы были введены в Афганистан. В составе частей ВВС, направленных в эту страну, находились и истребители МиГ-23, разместившиеся на аэродроме Кабул, а несколько позже - в Баграме. Помимо задач обороны от возможных действий ВВС Пакистана, МиГ-23МЛД широко использовались для нанесения ударов по наземным целям, причем потери от огня зенитных средств противника были минимальными: благодаря высокой тяговооруженности МиГ-23 резко набирали высоту после взлета и быстро выходили из зоны поражения ПЗРК, с которыми 'душманы' подкарауливали свою добычу вблизи аэродромов. Кроме того, успешному применению МиГ-23 в условиях высокогорья способствовали хорошие взлетно-посадочные характеристики этой машины.

В воздушном бою советские МиГ-23МЛД сбили один пакистанский истребитель F-16A. В то же время пакистанским истребителям удалось уничтожить два МиГ-23 ВВС Афганистана.

МиГ-23МФ и МиГ-23МС активно использовались Ираком в войне с Ираном в 1980-1988 гг. Самолеты привлекались для завоевания господства в воздухе и перехвата иранских самолетов, а также для нанесения ударов по наземным целям.

4 января 1989 г. произошло боевое столкновение двух ливийских МиГ-23МС, выполняющих, по утверждению ливийского командования, обычный тренировочный полет над нейтральными водами Средиземного моря, с американским воздушным патрулем - двумя F-14A 'Томкэт' с авианосца 'Джон Кеннеди'. По сообщению американцев, 'Томкэты' обнаружили ливийскую пару при помощи бортовых РЛС на удалении более 130 км. МиГи летели на высоте 10000 м со скоростью 800 км/ч. Американцы сочли действия ливийской стороны угрожающими и сбили их.

Последней войной, в которой участвовали МиГ-23, явились бои 1991 г. в Персидском заливе. К началу боевых действий Ирак располагал самолетами МиГ-23МФ и МиГ-23МС, которым предстояло померяться силами с новейшими западными истребителями, в частности, Макдоннел-Дуглас F-15C последних серий.

Всего в ходе войны истребители США (по западным данным) сбили шесть самолетов МиГ-23 (все - самолетами F-15C). Сообщений о победах МиГ-23 в этой войне на Западе не публиковалось, однако, по арабским источникам, МиГ-23МФ сбили, как минимум, один F-16, применив УР Р-23 на встречных курсах.

Источник: "Военная Авиация", Media 2000 сайт "Иллюстрированный Каталог Авиации Мира" интернет-энциклопедия "Русский

Source:http://www.army.lv/?s=319&id=96&v=9#info

These are the most common versions. 221.36.19.28 22:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Not a single one of these websites cites its sources. - Emt147 Burninate!  18:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Источники "Бомбардировщики Том 1,2", М.: Виктория АСТ, 1996 В.Е.Ильин, М.А Левин

"Истребители", М.: Виктория АСТ, 1996 В.Е.Ильин, М.А Левин

"Российская современная авиация" М.: АСТ, "Астрель", 2001. В.В.Беляев, В.Е.Ильин

Электронный Справочник Военной Авиации, version 1.0 студия KorAx

Статья "Прорыв в сверхманевренность" - www.army.lv

Статьи "Результативность воздушных боев" и "Как сбили Фрэнсиса Пауэрса", "Подготовка летного состава ввс многонациональных сил к операции "Буря в пустыне"", "От полета к полету" - www.brazd.ru

Статья "МИГ пятого поколения" - www.foxbat.ru

Статьи "Гиперзвуковая авиация на пороге ХХI века", "Превосходство в воздухе", "Эволюция воздушного боя истребителей" взяты с сайта www.airwar.ru.

In Russian Источники means sources and contrary to what you say they mention sources what happens is you are stating something without any proof and without really having looked all over the websites but they do mention their sources

зимой 1982-1983 гг. сирийские МиГ-23МЛ сбили три израильских истребителя F-15А и один F-4Е, не понеся при этом потерь

By the way this in Russian means in the winter of 1982-83 Syrian MiG-23ML shot down three Israeli F-15s and one F-4 without suffering a single loss

Боевое крещение МиГ-23 произошло в небе Ливана. В целом, истребители ВВС Сирии в ходе активных боевых действий с 6 по 12 июня 1982 г уничтожили в воздушных боях 42 израильских самолета (в том числе, как минимум, пять F-15A и шесть F-16A), а также один ДПЛА, потеряв при этом четыре МиГ-23МС, шесть МиГ-23МФ, 26 МиГ-21бис и 11 МиГ-21МФ.

This means the MiG-23 had its baptism of fire over Lebanon in the Summer of 1982 during the air combats from 6 june to 12 of june 1982, The Israelies lost 42 aircraft among them five F-15s and six F-16s, the Syrians lost four MiG-23MF, four MiG-23MS, twenty six MiG-21Bis and eleven Mig-21MF

Source:http://www.airwar.ru/history/locwar/bv/mig23liv/mig23liv.html http://www.waronline.org/IDF/Articles/lebanon-losses.htm#syrian http://www.btvt.narod.ru/2/syria1.html

221.36.19.28 22:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The source for 14 MiG-23BNs says they were shot down by Israeli AAA and SAMs also, not only in air combat by F-16s. We are talking about air combat only. And the 3 F-15 kills were in 1983, not in June of 1982. YMB29 13:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

No you are wrong, the Russians sources claimed in the summer

Боевое крещение МиГ-23 произошло в небе Ливана. В целом, истребители ВВС Сирии в ходе активных боевых действий с 6 по 12 июня 1982 г уничтожили в воздушных боях 42 израильских самолета (в том числе, как минимум, пять F-15A и шесть F-16A), а также один ДПЛА, потеряв при этом четыре МиГ-23МС, шесть МиГ-23МФ, 26 МиГ-21бис и 11 МиГ-21МФ

See they clearly state in the combats of June 1982 five F-15s were shot down, however the Russians see 6 по 12 июня 1982 that means June 6th to June 12th 1982

The claimed there was a second round of air battles in the winter of 1982-1983, in specific in december 1982 when the MiG-23ML shot down more F-15s.

В конце 1982г. в Сирию прибыла партия из 50 усовершенствованных МиГ-23МЛ, что способствовало изменению качественного соотношения сил в воздухе в пользу Сирии. В декабре 1982г. начался "второй раунд" воздушных боев между сирийской и израильской авиацией. На этот раз успех сопутствовал сирийцам: их МиГ-23МЛ сбили три израильских F-15 и один F-4, не понеся при этом потерь

here they say that at the end of 1982 the Syrians recieved the MiG-23ML and on December 1982 the second round of fighting started and the MiG-23ML shot dwon a further three F-15s.

If you have read the links i gave in special the one by www.waronline.org you will see that the main argument of against the Russians claims is the lack of pictorial evidence. however you will see also very scarse Israeli evicence of their kills too In that webpage they say the Israelis lost in 1982 a further Kfir and RF-4 to ground fire, this is what Israel admits in fact the webpage article has pictures of several damaged Israeli aircraft and the Kfir wreckage, also a Cobra that seems to have been shot down

This article says fourteen MiG-23BN were shot down by F-16s that were patroling at low altitude: начала воевать более эффективно и совместно с истребителями F-16A, действовавшими на малых высотах, сбила 14 МиГ-23БН. Израильским зенитчикам бросилось в глаза отсутствие грамотного планирования сирийцами боевых вылетов: по их словам, "МиГи шли волнами, одна за другой, последовательно поражаясь средствами ПВО".

here is a video of the Israeli air force in Lebanon in 1982

http://www.patricksaviation.com/videos/i_iaf/352/ source http://combatavia.info/index4mig27.html#top5

221.36.19.28 04:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

How well do you know Russian?

В целом, истребители ВВС Сирии в ходе активных боевых действий с 6 по 12 июня 1982 г уничтожили в воздушных боях 42 израильских самолета (в том числе, как минимум, пять F-15A и шесть F-16A)

This lists the Israeli losses in air combat, but not only those that were due to MiG-23s. There is no mention that MiG-23s shot down F-15s in June.

Таким образом, в ходе воздушных боев на Ближнем Востоке с 1982 по 1985 гг. истребители МиГ-23 уничтожили 12 самолетов противника (в том числе, как минимум, пять F-16 и три F-15, а также один ДПЛА)

Here it says that 3 F-15s were shot down by MiG-23s from 1982 to 1985, so this means no F-15s were shot down by Floggers in June of 1982, only the 3 later.

''В декабре 1982г. начался "второй раунд" воздушных боев между сирийской и израильской авиацией. На этот раз успех сопутствовал сирийцам: их МиГ-23МЛ сбили три израильских F-15 и один F-4, не понеся при этом потерь.''

It says that air combats started again in December of 1982, not necessarily that F-15s were shot down that month.

''4 октября в бой впервые вступили и новейшие МиГ-23МЛ, сбившие с "сухим счетом" два израильских F-15A. Hесколько позже они, также без потерь, сбили еще один "Игл" и один "Фантом".''

Here it says that they were shot down in October, but of what year? Before this part, the last year mentioned in the article is 1983, so that is why I assume it is 1983.

Also the Israeli air defenses together with F-16 interceptors shot down 14 MiG-23BNs (not F-16s by themselves):

ПВО (в частности, ЗСУ "Вулкан" и ЗРК "Маулер"), "пришла в себя", начала воевать более эффективно и совместно с истребителями F-16A, действовавшими на малых высотах, сбила 14 МиГ-23БН.

YMB29 07:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You have corrected me thanks, i was wrong, i did read only some fragments, but you are correct after you have shown me those paragraphs however the 14 MiG-23BN i read F-16s shot them down so still you can say 14 MiG-23BN were shot down by F-16 in conjuction with AAA.  However consider that according to many russian articles they say a Minimun and that is quit important you can not say they did not shot down more than three F-15s, any way up to this moment the article has to say at least 5-6 F-16s and at least 3 F-15s and the 14 MiG-23BN shot down were shot down by AAA and F-16 working in conjuction and that gives a tally of 26 MiG-23 shot down according to russian sources


 * Regards 221.36.19.28 10:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * After i have read this article i found they claimed this: К началу боевых действий, в 1982-м, в составе истребительной эскадрильи 17-й авиабригады ВВС Сирии (авиабаза Сигаль) находился 21 самолет МиГ-23МФ. Боевая нагрузка большинства истребителей эскадрильи включала две УР Р-23Р, две УР Р-60 и 200 снарядов к пушке ГШ-23А. За шесть дней ливанской войны летчики эскадрильи совершили на МиГ-23МФ 52 самолетовылета, уничтожив по одним данным 6 израильских самолетов, по другим - 9 (шесть F-16, два F-15 один беспилотный разведчик). At the beginning war operations over Lebanon in 1982, the composition of the fighter squadron of the 17th air brigade of Syrian Ar Force (air base Of sigal) it was compoused by 21 aircraft MiG-23MF. The combat war load of the majority of the MiG-23MF of squadron included two R-23R, two R-60 and 200 projectiles to the gun [GSH]-23[A]. In six days of Lebanese war the pilots of squadron completed on MiG-23MF 52 sorties, after destroying according to one data 6 Israeli aircraft, on others - 9 (six F-16, two F-15 one pilotless UAV). Bold text as you can see i was not wrong however it is more common to claim the MiG-23MF shot down only six F-16 but other data included two F-15s, so as you can see both MiG-23 variants the MiG-23MF and MiG-23ML probably shot down four F-15s:

Bulgarian Air Force
I took out the reference to Bulgaria still flying Mig-23s. It has been three years they have not flown Mig-23s! I don't know how many times I have given sources for it! Here is the latest one. In the October 2006 issue of Air Forces Monthly there is a story devoted to the Bulgarian Aif Force. On page 60 it gives there Order of Battle. As far as fixed wing combat aircraft, there is one squadron of Mig-29, one of Mig-21s, and two of Su-25s. One page 61 it mentions the last flight of a Bulgarian Mig-23 was in 2003.

I also took out the refernces to Yugoslavia operating Mig-23s. The only Mig-23s ever in Yugoslavia were Libyian jets being upgraded there. The work was never done. If you want to put Yugoslavia as an operator cite your source.--216.52.73.254 18:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is sloppy
The service record part of this article is a mess. Do we need to keep saying Russian/Western views/sources?

I think the main point of reference should be Western. It is the most widley accepted and verifable.

You can find the claims of the Western view in hundreds of websties and books vs the Russian view in a few websites and books. Most of the Russian claims are old Soviet propaganda. It is old and outdated.

If you want to have a Russian view make it in a seperate section. It looks to sloppy to have have it both views in the same sentence over and over!216.52.73.254 20:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * But if you reject it, then the article automatically disposes an entire POV, which automatically creates an NPOV problem. Furthermore, since as you said you can get the Western version in about X-hundred sources, the Russkie version is more valuable. Kazuaki Shimazaki 01:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * What kind of logic is that? There is hundreds and hundreds of sources that dispute the Russian claims, but a couple fanboy Russian sites makes those points invalid, are you joking?  Make a seperate section for the Russian view.  The Western view is the one that is supported with many sources.  Look at every article about the other Migs.  Nowhere do I see it say according to the Russians this, arrocriding to Western sources this.  We need more proof than a couple Russian fanboy site that most people in here can't read.  Just becuae some pro-Russian sites say the Mig-23 shoot down a bunch of Israelis we are suppose to believe it vs articles written by AmMerican, European, Asain, and Israeli sources.


 * Here are some of my sources that support the Western claims I did in 3 minutes. I can't find any non-Russian articles that support the Russian view.


 * http://www.iaf.org.il/Templates/Wars/Wars.IN.aspx?lang=EN&lobbyID=40&folderID=42&subfolderID=42&docfolderID=42&docID=3751
 * http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/syria/airforce.htm
 * http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/syria/airforce.htm


 * even wikpedia has the right info!
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Air_Force#1982_Lebanon_War
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Peace_for_the_Galilee


 * These are just a couple. I have plenty more from other werbsites and books.  I have only had a few mintues to do this today.  Over the next few weeks I am going to fix this article.  If it is reverted back over and over with no credible source cited I will report that person as a vandal.--67.142.130.38 19:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * As you can read below, the Russian view isn't quite as rare as you may think. I have the Aerofax book myself. While you may be a little short of time, so was I when I scribbled the answer above, and I still find it amazing that with the hundreds of choices that you know and I know are available, you chose the Israeli Air Force webpage as one of the two you present. Conflict of interest, anyone? Kazuaki Shimazaki 05:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Nevertheless, I think it clear that the Israeli Reflectors are the majority, so back to what I said before. Views the West support have a natural advantage, the more blatantly so in an English Wikipedia. This is known as systemic bias and should be neutralized as far as possible. This means bringing in other sources even if they are not in English. This is part of NPOV, one of the three pillars of this Wikipedia. Kazuaki Shimazaki 05:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * One should be a bit careful in History about the value of sheer quantity of supporters - most of the sources are secondary and tertiary ones that are mere reflectors, referencing off older works which hug a single "trusted" source w/o reanalysis. This adds pseudoverifiability without actually strengthening the case and makes it harder for a false claim to be discovered and ripped out. Kazuaki Shimazaki 05:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * In fact, by the examples you gave, what we perhaps should do is use a purely Russian view. After all, the Western POV had a free ride in the Israeli article and also the F-4 article (and probably the F-15 and F-16 too). That would maintain a wierd kind of NPOV (if an adversarial one) throughout Wiki. Kazuaki Shimazaki 05:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Finally, about "valuable". This needs some explanation but it is really quite simple. If we go your way, and parrot the Western sources, then this article is nothing - just another adder of pseudoverifiability to one side. If the Israeli view is wrong, then we've just damaged the research cause by creating another pseudobarrier to an already all-too-dominant side. Kazuaki Shimazaki 05:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, providing (or even showcasing) the Russian view offers something new to more readers to inspire more research. If the Russian view is correct, then it may help open the path to a true reanalysis. Well, and if it is wrong ... well, we did present the Western side as well, and in any case it is a stone in an ocean, so there won't be much damage. Kazuaki Shimazaki 05:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The main article suggests that this airplane is a MiG23 of the Libyan government. It also puts the picture next to "ground attack variants". Can anyone verify any of these facts? Supposedly the picture was taken March 19th over Benghazi. But on March 17th a Su-24 was also shot down over Benghazi. As both types look rather similar, given the bad quality of the picture, the question remains, what type of plane this is. In addition, there are no good sources as to which side the plane belonged. News channels state both sides varingly.--Ephesos (talk) 14:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Western and Japanese books that support the fact that F-16s, F-15s and F-4s were shot down by MiG-23s
You will be the vandal not the persons who gave The Russian sources, you probably do not even read Russian, Arab, Spanish or japanese.

Bunrindo a Respected Japanese publisher in its series of Books "FAMOUS AIRPLANES OF THE WORLD" Volume 92 reports that the MiG-23 shot down several F-4, F-16s and F-5 during the diferent conflicts in the Middle East. read the book http://www.hlj.com/cgi-perl/tanoue/freedompage.cgi?Code=BUNFA92&Page=0&Style=0

The Russian Book ОКБ им. А.И.МИКОЯНА by the Russian publisher Polygon, reports the MiG-23 shot down F-15s, F-4s and F-16s, this Book was written with soviet and russian first hand information, supported by Belyakov who was once the Chief general director of MAPO MiG. This book got direct information from MAPO MiG and includes dozens of pictures of MAPO MiG factories, MiG staff, all the Mikoyan prototypes, laboratories, engineers, test pilots and of the MAPO MiG General director http://www.polygonpress.com/eng_kat2.html http://www.polygonpress.com/rus_kat.html The Cuban news paper Gramna has an internet article with interviews to Cuban pilots who fought in Angola and they claimed their MiG-23 shot down several Mirage and south african aircraft

Now if you say these books are non Western there are books published in the west that also claim the MiG-23 killed F-16, F-15s, Mirage F1 and other aircraft, one of these and the most important is the famous series of books by the British aviation publisher Ian Allen from the series of books AEROFAX and the book in question is titled "MiG-23 Flogger Soviet swing wing fighter and strike aircraft"

It only shows you are a vandal because first of all you do not know much about the topic and you have not even read few books, internet articles and magazines that have been published recently by Western or Japanese Publishers and that have a different view of the MiG-23 than yours thanks to the fact there is now more information available and  you pretend because you read few reports or outdated books that the Westen sourcers are truth only because you say so, first read this book http://www.amazon.com/MiG-23-27-Flogger-Swing-Wing-Aircraft/dp/185780211X 221.36.19.28 04:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * are you jew, 221.36.19.28??? You are trying to deny ALL facts about MIG's success.


 * As a Mirage 2000 pilot with the Indian Air Force, I have had the good luck to fly the MiG-21FL, MiG-21M, MiG-21Bis, the MiG-23- both the GA and AD versions & the Indianised and later licence-produced in India by Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd MiG-27. I find the claim that this swing wing aircraft has repeated kills of the F-15 & F-16 ridiculous. The F-4 Phantom perhaps yes, but certainly not the other two advanced aircraft. It is, however, possible that they may have managed a one-off kill of the F-15 & F-16. Moreover, it did not have a better BVR missile than the F-16. In mock combat, the Bis ran circles round the swingwing! I you think MiG-21 cockpit vis is bad, try fly the swingers!
 * Bunrindo, the Japanese publisher, is a 404 link.
 * Moitranaak (talk) 16:51, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Unit for thrust
I notice the article gives trust figures in kg. kg is for mass, so we need to change to either kp kiloponds (i.e. kilogram-force, which I suspect is what the Soviet original specs may have stated) or newtons. is there a Wikipeda policy on this? -- Egil 09:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is: WikiProject Aircraft/Units. Askari Mark | Talk
 * MIGs are the greatest thing ever, your, A Hubers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.91.127 (talk) 16:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolving combat record issues
Okay, gentlemen, enough with the insult and slander. I've yet to see an article benefit from it. I have spent many years studying air forces around the world — including the Israeli Air Force — with a focus on discovering "ground truth." I don't have any axes to grind, so let me share a few things I've learned. First of all, the IAF understates aircraft losses. This shouldn't come as a surprise, given the need for Israel to appear as strong as possible against its more numerous Arab foes. In fact, until very recently it has been official policy to provide as little accurate public information as possible about Israeli losses of all sorts for all of its services. Again, this is understandable given Israel's geostrategic reality.

It is also true that not all kills reported by Arab and Soviet Union sources can be verified. In part this is the result of propaganda ministries trying to soften the blow of lopsided loss-exchange ratios; however, some of it is due to a common experience by all air forces involved in high-intensity air combat campaigns: the tendency for combat-inexperienced to over-estimate their kill effectiveness in the dynamic, fluid and highly emotionally charged arena of aerial combat. Moreover, "real-time" battle damage assessment (BDA) remains a poorly developed art today even though there are fewer fighters and a whole lot more reconnaissance assets available than in previous wars. The "fog of war" has not been eliminated.

The degree to which "Western" sources are deemed more trustworthy than others is really a reflection of the differences between "open" and "closed" societies. In the former, information gets out more quickly (and without summary execution), critiqued, and verified or corrected than it does where governments with a vested interest in how the "story" is "spun" — and control of the flow of information — are involved.

This bears two main implications for us here. The first is that pre-Glasnost Soviet sources (and those of their contemporary Arab allies) allies are innately suspect. Note that this doesn't mean that they are completely or even necessarily mostly untrue — nor that Western sources are always or almost always completely true — but rather that they are more untrustworthy than Western sources in general. Secondly, this article is in the English Wikipedia, so the use of foreign-language sources should be kept to a minimum.

Accordingly, it is to be expected that reports from opposing participants (and their allies) will sometimes differ, and no one should object to the presentation in these articles of the claims of opposing sides — as long as they are properly cited. It is my recommendation that those who wish to present Russian-/Arab-sourced claims make the extra effort to find (reliable) sources presenting them. Why? First, the information becomes "accessible" to most of this Wikipedia's readers. (Those who can read Russian or Arabic should look at it as their language skills allow them to more easily find information in these primary sources, so that they know what to look for among secondary English-language sources.) Secondly, English-only readers who want to learn more will have a place to go to for further information to make up their own minds. Third, if the Russian and Arabic claims presented in these articles are only cited through links to sources unreadable to most readers, while the Western sources about Western claims are readily available in English, that in of itself creates — and reinforces — a systemic sort of POV all of its own. Askari Mark | Talk 16:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with your general direction, but I'd comment on some of it. One problem is that you assume that Western sources are in general more reliable. That's defensible. The problem in this case is that it is not really "the West vs the East". It is really Israel (less than trustworthy) vs the Arabs+USSR (same here). Alternatively, it is Third World Country vs Third World Country (ex: Iran-Iraq... etc) Kazuaki Shimazaki 05:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not assume that Western sources are generally more reliable; I have found it to be the case that open societies are generally more reliable than closed societies, particularly in cases where the government not only controls the release of information, but also has a vested interest in shaping domestic and foreign perceptions of significant military outcomes. In general, "socialist" countries — and here I mean socialism in its broadest sense — by nature vest greater powers to their government, including the "organs of propaganda," as the Soviets used to phrase it. (The more power given a government, the more power its politicians have to cover up any failures or ineptitude.) The period under debate above is one where most of the Arab states which fought Israel, Russia and Israel embraced socialism — i.e., were closed societies to some degree or another. Israel was a sort of schizophrenic case. It was quite open where culture and business were concerned, but the most closed of all of these (including the USSR) where the military was involved. It has only been in the last year or two that official information most Western militaries consider non-sensitive has begun to become available.


 * My point remains, though, that declaiming each other's POV does nothing to advance the quality of this article. Neither side can demonstrate they have God's perfect view, although the case can be made that one side is more likely to be closer to it. There is nothing wrong with presenting both sides' claims as these pretty much always differ between combatants. (There are researchers of WWII air battles who have tried to identify who shot down whom on each side; sometimes they are able to do so, but sometimes the data simply cannot be reconciled.) However, if you want to effectively present the "non-Israeli" version of events to people who cannot read the primary languages (Arabic, Hebrew and Russian), then you need to do your best to identify English-language sources that present the information accurately. As I see it, the main "unfair" advantage the Israelis have is that much more of their story gets published in English than is true of the Arabs' and Russians' ... which you are in the position of being able to (at least partially) remedy. Cheers, Askari Mark | Talk 06:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The losses or victories presented by the Russians have non Russian outlets of information such as books and magazines published in the West or Japan, the question it is embedded in the Western public self image that the Russians lie and the West always is more reliable due to a chauvinistic nationalism, presenting both versions is good because it gives a wider view, but do not forget that there are books and magazines supporting the Russian version even in England.


 * The reason for this is simple, the MiG-23 first has different variants, the MiG-23BN for example has no air to air capability to be consider a fighter in the real sense of the word, in fact, it is a strike aircraft however many have been shot down, this fact has given the idea the MiG-23ML or MiG-23MLD were uncapable of shooting down aircraft; other more capable versions like the MiG-23MLD or MiG-23ML are capable fighters, the Russians call them third generation + fighters because are aircraft close to the fourth generation aircraft like the F-18 or F-16 in some combat capabilities.


 * Those who believe the MiG-23M or MiG-23ML are easy pray even for the F-16 are quit unaware of several advantages the MiG-23s enjoyed in the 1980s over the F-16A such as BVR missiles, good acceleration, and an IRST system, other fighters like the Mirage III, Mirage F1, Kfir or F-4 were not really aircraft superior to the MiG-23, these aircraft in many ways were inferior to the best MiG-23 variants.


 * When we rate the MiG-23, we would see basicly it is a fighter between the F-4 and the F-16 in terms of capabilities but definetively is not a fourth generation aircraft because in many ways it is not as capable as the F-15, F-14, F-16, F-18 or Mirage 2000 although using the right tactics it still was a modest threat to fourth generation aircraft if it engage them at BVR combat and avoided close combat dogfights.


 * In few words as a fighter it is not unlikely F-4s or F-5s were shot down by MiG-23s niether it is unlikely that in the 1980s a few F-16s and F-15 fell pray to the MiG-23 weapons. The MiG-23 proved that if well flown it could achieve kill rates of 2:1 to its favour against even the ultra maneouvrable MiG-29 during training exercises at Marii mock combat training center in the former soviet republic of Turkmenistan 221.36.19.28 23:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "Not unlikely" doesn't rise to Wikipedia standards for sourcing. Either come up with a good source for that statement or don't use it in the article. loupgarous (talk) 12:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Cleaned-up article
I cleaned this up by adding service career/Soviet Claims/Performance Test/Soviet & Warsaw Pact sections. All this info was under service career and it was hard to read. The Western/Soviet POVers should be happy with this.

Before you change this again, please tell me what is wrong with the way I put it. It looks horrible the way it use to be. If you want to change it, why don't you work from what I have instead of reverting it back to the way it was. The run-on sentences and repetition makes the article hard to read. Please justify if you revert back to the unreadable version that was there before. Also I think splitting up current and former users looks better than having all of them put toghter and repeating "No longer in service" over and over. I see no reason why that should be changed.

If you want to fix up the service career, we need to do something about the way it is written. Putting Soviet view and Western View over and over again sounds horrible. Why not split that up and put a Western Pov section and Soviet Pov section. This article looked horrible the way it was before. It needs a massive clean up. Also since this is English Wikpedia we need better sources than Russian websites that 99.9% of the people can’t read.--216.52.73.254 14:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think what you have done are steps in the right direction, but the article as a whole needs an overhaul, as you've noted. I'll take a look at it when I get some of my other backlogged projects done ... which may take a while. *Sigh* Askari Mark (Talk) 14:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. I think we can make this article great and have all POVs without making it sound one- sided one way or another.  Thank you for editing my spelling in the article--216.52.73.254 14:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have made a structural change to the operators material that I think ought to be carried through on all of these articles: add "Operators" (or "Users") as the senior section heading and demote the current and former sections to subsections. In fact, BillCJ has already begun the same thing (see Dassault Mirage F1). Thanks for your efforts ... and you really ought to register as a regular editor! Askari Mark (Talk) 17:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Disagreement in Article
On the list of former users, it states that the United States was a former user of the MiG-23, but this is not indicated on the map. This may be for a reason that I do not know about, but if the US is considered a former user, then the map should be updated showing the US as a former user. Shanem201 00:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Please fix the map of current users, Bulgaria retired its fleet a long time ago.

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008
Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 12:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

A big disappointment from MiG bureau
List of most severe MiG-23 problems as described by the respected hungarian aviation magazine "Aranysas". They had a lenghty analysis of the type in mid-late 2009, spanning several issues.

- Limit of 4.5G load when the wings are in the process of swinging (big, big problem in dogfight, when the opponent pulls 7-9G)

- Wing-swing manually controlled by a lever, with 4 fixed angles (F-14 had it done full-auto, any degree of sweep-back, controlled by a digital computer). Essentially it was just as a big human burden, as the Harrier's simultaneous handling of throttle + nozzle vectoring handle with one hand and caused just as many mishaps.

- MiG-23 was very heavy, because the fuselage centrebox, that held the main fuel tank and the fulcrums for the swing wing bearings and the main undercarriage attachment points, had to be constructed entirely of special steel to tolerate high G loads with the long wings. The centrebox needed plasma cutter when the MiG-23MF was eventually retired and scrapped, it was built like a tank. (Usually aircraft were as much aluminimum as possible until the 1980's and since then as much composite as possible, to keep weight down. It is a huge agility and range backdraw to have a steel heavy fighter.)

- The landing behaviour of MiG-23 was total opposite of the MiG-21. After touchdown, you let the control stick go forward in the MiG-21 and it stopped itself smoothly and nicely with the drag chute. If you did the same in the MiG-23, it bounced off, fell back, broke the main legs, bounced off again, fell back, broke the nose gear and caught fire. A lot of them were totalled this way, when re-training pilots who grew up with the MiG-21. Pilots had a mantra to recite on landing final, so they never give the stick forward out of bad habit.

Russian pilots landing had a habit of deploying the MiG-23 brake chute at 2-3 meter altitude while still in flight, so the plane was stuck to the ground when touching down. This wore away drag chutes quickly, but at least those were cheap to replace, compared to a whole MiG written off after accident.

- The radar was advanced by WARPAC standards, but it was built with non-integrated semiconductors and an analogue computer processor, so the quality of manual workmanship was most important for its performance and reliability. Soviet build quality was very much uneven and so there was 5x, rarely 10x difference in detection range and reliability of the radar sets between two MiG-23 of the same batch!

- The MiG-23's engine had a tendency to quit if the inner pylons fired the large smoke R-23/24 or air-to-ground missiles. A lot of MiG-27 also crashed due to this and gatling autocannon smoke inhalation in the turbine.

- MiG-23 has a tendency to fall into a progressive stall death spiral when the wings are highly swept back at low altitude and the psychological condition of the pilot is not ideal. The window for correction is just 0,5 seconds, so the plane ends up underground if the pilot is not perfectly alert.

- MiG-23 has a tendency to keep descending at low altitude with highly swept back wings. No matter how much throttle the pilot applies and how much he pulls on the stick, it takes long seconds for the plane to raise its nose and when unlucky, the pilot ends up underground.

- The ejection seat KM-1 was sub-par to the fast MiG-23 and pilots were killed. The Su-22 and Su-24, also swing-wing soviet planes, got early generation K-36 seats, which worked well.

- MiG-23 was a gas-guzzler and a costly maintenance hog. Cannon ammo reload required lowering the whole belly and re-zeroize the barrels after winching it up!

- Tail sits low when on wheels, so the MiG-23 jet torch eats away runway pavement quickly. Not suitable for MiG-21 style use on steam-rollered dirt strips. Main landing gear has very complicated mechanism. 82.131.210.163 (talk) 16:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Are these the articles entitled "A PÁPAI SÁMÁNOK HÁTASLOVA" and written by Kővári László in the September through December 2009 issues of Aranysas? Askari Mark (Talk) 01:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Essentially yes, but they also several previous articles in Aranysas (ex Top Gun) about the MiG-23. The low build number, only about 1500ps od the MiG-23/27 family proves it was not a good aircraft. Anything prior to MiG-23MLD had little combat value. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.99.99 (talk) 14:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Essentially yes, but they also had several previous articles in the hungarian "Aranysas" (ex Top Gun) about the MiG-23. The low production number, only about 1500pcs of the MiG-23/27 family proves it was not a good combat aircraft design. Anything prior to MiG-23 MLD variant had little combat value. The MF sub-variant even had a tendency to lose the stabilizer due to a design strenght fault, which required extensive and heavy retrofit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.99.99 (talk) 14:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is interesting that they mention early MiG-23, Russian airticles mention similar things but these were solve in newer MiG-23 variants like the MiG-23ML and MiG-23MLD, so far hungary never operated those improved variants so that article can not be generalized to accept MiG-23 losses or claim the MiG-23 was a bad aircraft, in fact for russian analysts, the F-15 is closer to the MiG-23 than to the MiG-29 in performance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.163.8.160 (talk) 03:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Iran-Iraq War
Dear YMB29: According to the mentioned source there are 58 MiG-23 confirmed shot-downs by F-14s. With Regard. Diako Zandi 17:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diako1971 (talk • contribs)
 * They are confirmed only by the author of that book, which is based on the accounts of Iranian pilots. -YMB29 (talk) 19:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding "By Whom?" Content in 2nd paragraph. Source material, cited by Robin J. Lee, instances in which kills were confirmed by wingmen. Confirmed kills are registered within squadrons and seldom receive outside approval or verification. 1808, 8 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.189.251.16 (talk)

Syria section
Most kills are not verified by the other side, including F-15's MiG kills. The paragraph about the Syrian kills is written according to WP:ASF. It has been already mentioned in the preceding paragraph that the Israelis don't verify the kills. So Wanderer602, stop your reverting. The only reason you are here is because you are wiki stalking me... -YMB29 (talk) 17:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If the kills were unverified then they should not be represented as such. Instead they should be clearly marked as claims instead of kills. ASF quite clearly states that: When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct - your edits did not follow this and instead presented unsubstantiated claims as air victories. Especially since you were admittedly perfectly aware that the claims were not verified by the Israeli and you still chose to present them as victories were you not yourself in violation of the ASF? As to claimed wikistalking, a bit wrong, i came across MiG-23 article quite separately. But you are of course entitled to have your own opinions. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, you just happened to come across an article that I was recently editing...
 * Look at the way kills in other articles are described. Is every kill credited to an F-15 or F-16 confirmed by the other side? No, but the word claim is not used in the articles on these aircraft.
 * Apparently, you missed the According to Ilyin or Russian historian Vladimir Ilyin writes, which were added as stated in WP:ASF. You need to read the rules carefully... -YMB29 (talk) 18:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * And I'm also entitled to an opinion. The two of you seem to be at each others throats wherever you run into each other. I don't know if you run into each other by accident or through deliberate stalking, but whatever it is it is boring. As well as destructive. As for claims versus kills, kills must be verified, either through being acknowledged by the opponent or through being well documented (that's one of the reasons why most fighter aircraft carry gun cameras), if they're not verified then they're just claims, and should be presented as such. And that goes for both sides in a conflict. Thomas.W (talk) 18:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Well most kills are not verified by guncamera or confirmation from the other side.
 * The point is that each side has sources supporting its view and both views should be presented and attributed to the sources. -YMB29 (talk) 18:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The point is that each side has sources supporting its view and both views should be presented and attributed to the sources. <<<--- Uhhh, not unless the sources are reliable, which does not seem to be the case here. Will tag these dubious claims appropriately.  Azx2  04:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If you think the sources are unreliable, go to the reliable sources noticeboard and get confirmation there.
 * Otherwise, remove the tags. -YMB29 (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I would say so because the claim of shooting down three F-16s down in three days. Also considering that do not appear to mention the 1982 war at all. Also I would like to present this report about the 1982 conflict that calls these claims into question. Also I would expect a LOT more media coverage in the same way that happened when a[F-117 was shot down in 1999].Articseahorse (talk) 22:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Just because Western military and media reports of that time don't mention it, does not mean it should not be mentioned in the article. -YMB29 (talk) 20:36, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * But claims such as this should be considered unconfirmed because shooting down three F-16s in three days by a single pilot is a big deal that the West would have noticed. There would have been some evidence it it's destruction. Not to mention that that the  would have been put on  displayas proof of the kills. Also what about gun camera footage? But the biggest thing that I have a issue with is in the comment above this one about the Iran F-14 victorys over Mig-23s. That they came from a book that was written based on the accounts of the Iranian pilots that it was questionable. But I believe that you have done the same for citing F-16s kills as confirmed. Articseahorse (talk) 01:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It does not say that the kills are confirmed. They are unconfirmed, just like most of the Israeli kills. -YMB29 (talk) 04:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yet the way that some of the entries are worded make it seem that that have been confirmed. This is not just the case for the IDF, but with the USAF and the Iran Air Force. Articseahorse (talk) 01:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I see this in the Syria section, but the kills are for F-4s and A-4s, which I think are confirmed.
 * What sentences you think need to be reworded? -YMB29 (talk) 17:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Here is some information about the publication:
 * It is cited by many other sources, including some books in English. -YMB29 (talk) 00:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Requested quote
Armies in Lebanon 1982-1984
 * "No less than 41 Syrian aircraft were shot down in three major air battles, for a loss of no Israeli planes... ...Altogether, the Syrian Air Force would lose a total of 91 aircraft over Lebanon, including the latest MiG-23 and MiG-25 types, plus six helicopters, without being able to claim a single aerial victory in return."

Current operators section updates
The current operators section should be updated to reflect the latest assessment of the strength of the world's air forces (http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace/media/reports_pdf/world-air-forces-2013-101015.aspx). 68.4.28.33 (talk) 20:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian

Numbers shown there are just wrong. Libyan Air Force is showing a bit more than 1 MiG-21 flying. There have been 3-4 MiG-21's and a couple of MiG-23's as far as few days ago. Syrian Air Force statistics look totally wrong. Their numbers on smaller or "hostile" air forces where the MiG-23 is likely to operate are just wrong. It's pointless to update the MiG-23 article on the basis of clearly wrong data.

Voice reminder systems did NOT originate with the MiG 23
The Northrop B-58 "Hustler" had a female voice reminder system back in the late 1950s. 

Therefore, I'm removing the unsourced and incorrect text from the article


 * ", and was later heavily borrowed by Western aircraft manufacturers, eventually becoming standard in all jet fighters around the world"

which states that female voice reminder systems were introduced with the MiG-23 (which wasn't placed into production until 1967). loupgarous (talk) 12:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-23
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-23's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "flightglobal.com": From Sukhoi Su-24: http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace/media/reports_pdf/world-air-forces-2013-101015.aspx From Mikoyan MiG-29: "Unified' MiG-29 has bright future, says Korotkov." Flight International, July 2012. Retrieved 2 September 2012. 

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Gulf War Tornado losses
Under the Gulf War section, an IP recently added info suggesting the RAF and Italian Air Forces did not attribute any Tornado losses to Air-to-air fire, countering a claim that a MiG-23 downed one Tornado during the conflict. However, the sources cited by the IP don't entirely support this as written. The RAF source lists two Tornado losses with "causes undetermined". The Italian Air Force source is a dead link that gives a 404 error. Unless better sources are provided, I intend to remove the statement pertaining to RAF/Italian Tornado losses. Cheers! Skyraider1 (talk) 02:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The link to the Italian site seems to be working again, although it is in Italian, so I can't actually tell what it says. So rather than split hairs about Tornado losses in the MiG-23 article (as opposed to in the Tornado article), I'll leave it as written. Cheers! Skyraider1 (talk) 00:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Design & Construction
Is it possible to get more on these areas? Some posters on these talk pages refer to the use of a lot of steel in the wing box, which is quite believable, but not in the main article and what about the rest of the airframe.? Why was the undercarriage so configured? I have read elsewhere that there was a rough field capability, so why should a heavy landing on concrete cause the gear to break as suggested above? Appreciate all the effort expended so far, and I have no reference material on this aircraft which is why I came here looking in the first place. Best regards to all.Kitbag (talk) 05:56, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-23. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140116115958/http://backfiretu-22m.tripod.com/id11.html to http://backfiretu-22m.tripod.com/id11.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110609205352/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Images/Special/PRO/2009/LastFlight_MIG_23.jpg.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Images/Special/PRO/2009/LastFlight_MIG_23.jpg.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090808173317/http://www.iss.co.za/Af/profiles/Namibia/SecInfo.html to http://www.iss.co.za/Af/profiles/Namibia/SecInfo.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120323175909/http://www.f-117a.com/Bond.html to http://www.f-117a.com/Bond.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:05, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Specifications
The specifications currently listed do not match those quoted in either of the sources (Belyakov & Marmain's MiG: Fifty Years of Secret Aircraft design and Deagle.com). Belyakov and Marmain does not give specifications for the MLD but does for the similar ML - the dimensions match (although no height is quoted) and the loaded and max take-off weights match (no empty weight is given). It quotes a speed of Mach 2.35 (2500 km/h) with wings swept and Mach 0.8 (940 km/h) with wings unswept - no mention of whether at low or high altitude. Ceiling is as stated, while the ferry range stated is with three 800L drop tanks. No combat radius, normal range or climb rate is given. The speeds quoted appear to be for the very different MiG-23BN. Deagle.com probably isn't a reliable source anyway and doesn't say what version the limited specs it does provide is for.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:52, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Real speed of Mig 23 MLD
The Mig-23 MLD is the last version of the Mig-23 role fighter. It's possible that the max speed is just 1880 km/h at high altitude  ? In the book " MiG-23/27 Flogger: Soviet Swing-Wing Fighter / Strike Aircraft" (Aerofax) by Yefim Gordon the max speed of Mig-23 MLD is  indicated as 2.500 km/h,  at high altitude ( p 71 )  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Garat (talk • contribs) 15:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-23. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080923153108/http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj89/win89/hurley.html to http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj89/win89/hurley.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090905053101/http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/nnumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=923UB to http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/nnumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=923UB

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

F-111 vs. F-111B
The F-111 is a fighter bomber, not an "interceptor".

Only the ill-fated F-111B has been designed as an naval inceptor. The flawed designed led to the statement of one admiral, "There isn't enough power in all Christendom to make that airplane what we want!".

--109.91.39.185 (talk) 18:06, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Mig23 Dobroslavci.png

Mig-23 overall length
Are the length numbers including or excluding the pitot tube, elevators, tail fin? Thx in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.10.217.169 (talk) 14:17, 5 December 2019 (UTC)