The Worst Fighter in Russian History? 

There’s no reason to compare a Mig-23 to the F-111 other than the variable geometry wing. The things you’ve compared it on, range and speed mean nothing. The F-111 was an absolute failure as a fighter but an excellent strike aircraft. Comparison with the Mirage III or equivalent would have made more sense. Instead you’ve drawn false equivalents with US aircraft that don’t compare.

Always worth remembering that many Soviet aircraft operated in harsh conditions at home and were operated by poorer countries abroad. Its easy to complain about an asset when your military doesn't have the money for maintenance, good airstrips, regular combat training and so on. Its not always just about the aircraft.

As a kid, the Flogger was perhaps, along with the Saab Viggen, the aircraft that intrigued me the most. I'd buy Airfix kits with my pocket money and amongst the completed kits that I kept the longest were these two aircraft. I remember that I rarely painted the models afterwards but I did paint the Flogger. The swing wing design is probably what interested me the most about it.

When you order a f14 off wish

At 1:20 you say "MiG were looking for a replacement for the old MiG-23 model". Judging by the footage you show, I think you meant a replacement for the MiG-21.

Calling the MiG-23 bad is fundamentally wrong. 23 wound was very mediocre due to childhood illnesses, but already starting from 23M it was a very worthy fighter / interceptor. Long-range missiles, good characteristics in terms of thrust-to-weight ratio and maneuverability, allowed him to utterly surpass all enemy aircraft. Starting from 23MLD, it was already a perfect 3rd generation aircraft, which could easily fight with any 4th generation of its time.

Fun fact is that MiG released very interesting experimental YE-8 design in early 1960s. It was MiG-21 derivative, but it featured new nose cone for a powerful radar, belly ram air intake, canards and extremely powerful engine (which gave this aircraft more than 1:1 TWR). But it was abandoned after prototype crash, and swing-wing MiG-23 was chosen as it seemed like superior design this time.

Well tbh here the MiG 23 had a bad reputation during its service cause it took part in conflicts against way more advanced western aircraft such as F16,F15,F14 etc which are 1 generation ahead of the MiG 23 variants they fought against (MF.M,BN etc). Also the pilots which operated these MiG 23s during these conflicts were much much less experienced and flying with much more outdated tech compared to the Western pilots which also explains why they had so many MiG 23 losses. If they fought soviet pilots with thousands of flight hours and more advanced and improved MiG 23 versions such as the MLA and MLD Ι doubt if the feedback would ve been the same.

During dissimilar combat training over Area-51, captured Floggers were used. They learned it had massive acceleration in level flight.

The MiG23 was not a bad plane. It's made to outperform the F4, and it is. It is discredited because of the "Arab" versions without serious radar and medium-range missiles. In the war against Israel, the Syrians did not use the newer versions in the most correct way. And the Israelis themselves had superior organization and intelligence, information processing and military thinking, and they would still win even with older aircraft. Then in Israel there were already the new generation - F15 and F16, which are logically superior to the older design. An analogue of the MiG23 with the same level of technology and time is the MirageF1, which is weaker than the MiG23. Also the latest versions of F4 (again weaker).

On January 1, 1993, Czechoslovakia split into two independent states, the Czech Republic and Slovakia... hope that makes sense :D

It's nice to see the video contain footage of an actual Mig-23 rather than of aircraft completely unrelated to the subject of the video as has been the case in your past videos. Keep this up!!

Friend of mine from high school went in the air force in the 80's and they tracked a mig23 as it flew from Poland over east Germany then entered west Germany. When fighters were scrambled they observed it had no pilot ( he had ejected but the plane kept flying). It ended up running out of fuel and crashing into a house on the border of France and Belgium.

The MiG-23 was more about altitude and speed. It had respectable (and robust) Beyond Visual Range Capabilities in its day, only beaten by the MiG-25, but it lacked the ability to turn and burn with an F-4D/E (which was not particularly agile either). USAF pilots seem to suggest that the turn performance of the MiG-23 was 'somewhere between' an F-104A and F-4C but I am assuming it could match either at climb or altitude. The MiG-23 was really a BVR-interceptor.

I remember reading a US training team had acquired a mig23 and it was insane in acceleration. Slower than an F-14 but killed it off the line with acceleration. The engine had to be limited or else it would go too fast in a straight line

The MiG-23 was one of the best aircraft of its time. It made its first appearence in 1967. One shouldn't compare it with the later adversaries like the F-15 and the F-16. It was made to win the F-4 Phantom and it achieved this goal splendidly. In the skillful hands of the Soviet pilots it was a formidable Phantom-killer.

If you read the book, "Red Hats", about the secret squadron in Nevada, they had their own unique experiences with the MiG-23... None of them good, oddly the 23 was too aerodynamic and passed a certain speed which compressed the control surfaces it didn't want to slow down , which meant the pilot was just along for the ride for a while and was hopefully in level flight when it occurred. The F-111 and F-14 had a system that automatically set the wing angle.... The MiG-23, the pilot had set it manually, other assessments stated task load on the pilot was heavy, not good for a dogfighter. It had fuel stashed everywhere, including 50 Imperial Gallons in the Vertical Stabilizer... It looked like hitting it anywhere was going to turn it into a match, being compact and important components packed everywhere didn't help either. That said, during the Angola vs South Africa conflict the South African Pilots in the early variants of the Mirage F-1, were reportedly not to anxious to get into a fight with MiG-23s.

The Mig 23 did well against our Mirage F1's in Angola. The radar and their air to air rocket was superior to what we had.

If anyone wants more on this aircraft paper skies has a wonderful video on it. Use both these videos to enjoy the history side of RU-vid

Vietnam didn't own any Mig 23, some "Mig 23 in Vietnam" pictures were actually Soviet aircrafts that based in Vietnam during the Cold War

When the MiG 23 appeared it had an engine of approximately the same power as the F 16 with 50% more mass than the F 16. The instruments were not ergonomically arranged and required constant monitoring due to the manual change of the wing angles, so that the pilots had little time to take care of the situation around the aircraft. In order for the pilots to see the situation, they would have to look between their legs. That is where the radar screen was located.

MiG-23, the Soviet Union's answer to the F-4 Phantom. Fun fact with the MiG-23 is that it copied the F-4 Phantom's engine intakes. So much so they even kept the blades between the intakes/fuselage meant to prevent landing nets from an aircraft carrier causing unnecessary damage to the aircraft. People often claim the intakes were not copied but it's odd the MiG-23 would have features that the F-4 had specifically for carrier landings when the MiG-23 wasn't a carrier aircraft. This heavily implies the engineers working on the MiG-23 copied features from the F-4 without knowing exactly what those features were for. To me it makes it quite obvious that they took the F-111 and married it with the F-4 Phantom and ended up with an aircraft that was barely better than the F-4 Phantom. Problem with this aircraft though is, is that it was quickly made obsolete within only a few years of service. It was barely an upgrade over the MiG-21 when it entered service, and once more modernized versions of the MiG-23 came about it was already too late, as far more advanced western designs had already entered service. I'd argue comparing the MiG-23 to aircraft like the F-16, F-14, and F-15 shouldn't really be done. To be honest, it's more comparable to the F-4 particularly the E variant than other American aircraft. For how much older the F-4 is. That doesn't bald well for the MiG-23 in my opinion. What I'm saying is, the MiG-23 is basically as I said before a Soviet F-4 Phantom literally. They have nearly identical performance wise with the F-4E actually having a maneuverability advantage. So it mostly comes down to weapons, electronic suites, and pilot training. To be blunt. By the time the MiG-23 came out the concept of Super Sonic Fighters being relevant was already going the way of the dodo. They're still relevant only in the context that they're fast. It's the only advantage a F-4E or MiG-23 would have over say something like an F-16 or MiG-29 and that is if they're modernized versions. Put it this way, within a year or two the F-16 and F-15 would exist. Meanwhile the MiG-23 was considered barely an upgrade by most pilots from the MiG-21. As I said. MiG-23 should be compared to the F-4E Phantom. It's the closest aircraft performance wise that the US Air Force had to the MiG-23 even if the MiG-23 was slightly better in some areas.

he said that the 23 was the only Soviet wing fighter; that's just not true, the Fencer was a swing wing plane. This guy needs to do his research better. Granted the Fencer was more of a fighter bomber and strike aircraft.

It was built for a war that was never fought ie: a conflict possibly nuclear in central Europe where airbases would have been probably wiped out early on - in this context we would have been left with the Harrier as the champion of the West… at more or less the same time Dassault was developing the F1 with a strong reinforced undercarriage…to operate from hastily prepared runways…

Western people think the MiG-23 is the worst Russian combat aircraft? Interesting, I thought otherwise. For instance, I’ve heard the Israelis felt the Flogger was a much better air combat performer than the later and far more advanced MiG-25.

My father was The commanding officer for Mig 23BN/Mig 27 squadrons He always said that was the only aircraft which gave him a hard time when it came to instructing his juniors....

The requirement was not for a shorter take-off run - but rather the ability to meet the performance requirements with the larger (heavier) radar, weapons and fuel requirements, while still being able to operate from the airfields then operating MiG-21s it was designed to replace. Scaling up the MiG-21 would mean scaling up the take-off run. Hence, the swing wing. It was an interceptor first. Not a dogfighter. The comparison to the F-111 is ludicrous. It did what it was designed to do.

Groundbreaking design= makes big impact craters.

Read something about an American test pilot flying either the MiG 23 or the 27. He was surprised that they weren't very big.

This is the Soviet fighter that killed an American General. General Robert M Bond, he was decorated for his combat service and his peacetime role. He died in an accident in Nevada while flying a Soviet-built Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-23 jet fighter.

I remember when the Mig 23 came online in quantity. All kinds of articles had it as a “better” than the F-4. It wasn’t but, we didn’t know.

I heard in another video about it that the mig-23 is the first Jet that ever had a second afterburner installed in a single engine. However with both afterburners on, the engine would damage itself after minutes and need to be replaced once the jet was back on the ground

Ooh I was waiting for this one. Ironically one of my favourite planes of all time.

Still a good looking Bird regardless of any design flaws.

The Russian mig 23 was a decent jet for its time. It is also one of the fastest accelerate aircraft and can also out run f16 it is also the powerfulest single engine fighter with 28,660lbf of thrust for its time

I believe it's hard to compare Russian airplanes, when operated by russian pilots in Russia, and the same planes operated by foreign pilots in foreign countries. (ex: the Mig 21 in Vietnam)

Man the Flogger probably has the worst luck when it comes to all the main soviet fighters throughout the years. Such a cool aircraft and yet it's the forgotten middle child between the Fishbed and Fulcrum, and thats not mentioning the large amounts of misinformation surrounding it too.

The LaGG-3 would probably be a worthy contender.

When I look a this fighter jet all I can think of is: “I’m an island boy, I'ma just island boy, I’m an island boy, I'ma just island boy…” 🤓

"Powerful fighter jets like the SU 57" You meant to say powerful flying continents?

Don't tell war thunder that another of their precious soviet vehicles was a lot worse than they claim lol

I always found the MiG-23 to be an intersting aircraft. Also I really just love the way the thing looks. It looks like if you built a fighter jet muscle car. You look at it and the whole thing looks like just the most engine in the least airplane in order to be the fastest. I don't know if it was good to fly, considering I've never even flown it in a video game (and actually, come to think of that, where are my MiG-23s in games? The MiG-21 is always there, then they jump straight to the MiG-29 and SU-27). What I do know is that the thing looks fast as fuck and dangerous too.

I always enjoy your videos. But l did think this one a little harsh. The F111 Aardvark mentioned in comparison was in itself a poorly executed design and hanger Queen. But l enjoy the camaraderie and good manners in the posts.

Finally saw on at the Air Force museum in Dayton OH. It looked like it was going to fall apart while sitting there.

1. It was developed in order to cover the USSR borders vs. incoming F-111s and F-4 Phantoms. * The far north and the freezing-far-east were covered by Mig-25 and some Su-15. 2. Compare it to F-14 . . . also a radar-centric weapons-systems defensive-interception platform. 3. The Mig-21bis from 1972 onwards was revised in the 1990s thanks the to drastic miniaturization of electronics from the 1960s to the 1990s. 4. The shift to the ML version of 1978 included: 4.1 ~10% lighter air-frame. 4.2 ~10% more powerful motor. 4.3 Helmet-mounted sight for close-in IR missile dogfights. 5. The abysmal failure of the original Mig-23 might have been the cardinal issue, which broke the back of the Egyptian pro-Soviet camel, which was desperately looking for an answer to the F-4 Phantom II on the Israeli service (and its indigenous missiles). 6. It might have still scored an Israeli F-16 in a hit and run attack early on June 1982.

Ah! The MiG-23! One just crashed in Belleville, Michigan.

As a former Mig-23 MF and ML pilot I can say that you´re not right about many informations.

Fun fact: the original MIG23 was called the YE8 prototype. It basically was a MIG21 with massive upgrades.

A MIG23 just crashed at the Michigan airshow last week. Luckily the pilots managed to eject safely.

I remember I read an article from Airforce Monthly(UK Magazine)some twenty five years ago, an article acquired from Warsaw pact report and comparison of data of: F15A,F16A,MiG23 MLD & IAI Kfir C2. The article claimed the Soviet came out a conclusion that the performances of MiG23 was inferior in all rounds in a dogfight with F15A & F16A, except slightly better than Kfir C2. The Soviets suggest MiG23 pilots not to engage this kind of close combat but adopting "Hit & Run" by launching medium range (semi radar/infra) guided air to air missiles through its powerful radar from a distance and fled away with high speed. Which met it's design and role as an "Interceptor" instead a fighter!

Never understood why they wanted to replace the Mig-21! I personally would’ve just modified and upgraded the 21. It was such a versatile plane and proved capable.

What about there version of the Harrier jump jet? It was that bad it couldn't carry any weapons. Do that next

Yeah, the worst fighter that some F-14 pilots have encountered in the Iran-Iraq war if I'm not mistaking and were amazed to see how the Flogger was actually turning better at lower speeds than the Tomcat and had to get away from the fight. Not to talk about the F-4 which of course being worse in both T/W ratio and maneuverability compared to the Tomcat was even easier to kill from a MIG-23. The Mig-23MF (and not the ML or MLD which was even better then the predecessors) was even outturning (data proven, not words) the F-16A at higher altitudes. The worst fighter in the russian history may have actually been a very ugly early Su-15 (not the later Flagon). Bad avionics and radars? Yes. The russians have always been in great lack of good quality or performant radars, but their aircraft have almost always been better in turn fights than the western ones.

Wasn't the SU 17 the earliest Soviet swing wing production fighter?

Flogger was the only 3rd gen fighter jet in the world, and in that sense it was unique and awesome. It was a necessary milestone to move further. USA tried skipping a generation and came up with F-14 Tomcat, which would have been an awesome aircraft if it had good engines... without adequate engines Tomcats were probably less maneuverable than Floggers, and were worse at high energy maneuverability because of engines stalling. And F-14 was a 4th gen fighter. USA based Tomcat's design on drastically improving MiG 23 ideas.. and basically failed. (and I think Tomcats are the most beautiful aircraft out there), then USA had to go back to improving on MiG-21 design to come up with F-16. Soviet designers were leading when it came to ideas and prototypes forcing USA to adopt and improve upon them. So Flogger was the BEST simply because there wasn't anything else in his 3rd generation.

Romania never had this airplain. Poland have one regiment: 28 PLM OPK - 36 MF + 6 UB in Redzikowo Słupsk airfield (now in this base is US AEGIS Offshors base)

From the iconic simple agile yet long life mig 21 to this overengineered heavy to maintain mig 23.

I just watch interview with Czech pilot and he, contrary to this, said it was much better and more reliable aircraft than mig21 and his only issue was that he had to learn or go through everything he needs for the next mission, because airplaine had 200 switches and it was not possible to remember all of them. And then there were many variants, MF mostly for ground attack and ML which was way more agile, lighter and shorter with more efficient engines and his complain was also need to trim some control surfaces with change of speed.

Kid: Mom can we get f14 Mom: we have f14 at home :F14 at home

Thanks for sharing the info on MIG23. A f ew of my unanswered questions got answered I think. 1. The aircrfat was not the best and proven design and gone into production and also supplied to various countries 2. The aircraft was sold with inferior radars to other countries 3. It had guns that recoil of which was damaging itself

The intakes were direct copy's of the F4 Phantom's. Russia obtained a few good condition crashed F-4's as well as 105's and reverse engineered them.

The export "MS" models were barebones with the same Safir radar as the Mig-21 and with only R-60 IR guided missiles. I feel this is where a lot of negativity towards the aircraft stems from. The ML model was just as capable as an F-16A, but by then it was already being phased by the Mig-29.

The Mig-23 wasn't quite the "dud" claimed in this video. One has to remember that in the middle east conflicts, the Mig-23 was going against much more advanced aircraft like Israeli and American F-15s and F-16s. Those F-15s and F-16s weren't "monkey" versions of the aircraft like the monkey versions of the Mig-23 that were exported. Also, when the Mig-23 went up against more evenly matched aircraft like the Mirage III and Mirage F1, the Mig-23 dominated them as evidenced by the Angolan/Cuban war against Apartheid South African aggression in the late 1980s.

This whole video is built on false premises. MiG-23s were meant to act as an interceptor like all Soviet Fighters and not dog fight. So it’s hard to fail at something you were not meant to be. The Engine didn’t need to have a long service life because the Soviets designed it so the engines can be easily removed and replaced within 45 minutes and had spare engines as part of the aircraft service package.

1:27 wait so a successor plane of the mig-23 is the mig-23??

Mig-23 was 3d generation jet-fighter and it's supposed to counter 3d generation planes of nato countries. And nato had 2 of them - american F-4E Phantom II and French Mirage F1. And among them Mig-23 was the best and was superior that was proven in all conflicts.. But Mig-23 had bad luck, because of few circumstances and it was forced , mostly to counter American 4th generation jet fighters - F-16, F-15 and F-14 and it most cases Mig-23 was of export versions, driven by 3d world countries pilots and terribly outnumbered. Though, Mig-23 had worse characteristics it managed to be more or less even and managed to get a few victiories against 4th generation jet fighters. In some areas it outperformed F-16 and managed to give real fight to F-15.

The Mig-27 was far worse than the Mig-23. The gun on the 27 would vibrate so bad that the whole airframe would start coming apart. It was completely unusable.

It's the thought that counts. (btw I read an article like 2-3 days ago saying the MiG-21 is the worse jet in history, not in Russian history but in all countries history)

6:17 it was exported to Czechia and Czechoslovakia?

Well, at least it was not nicknamed "flying coffin" like the F104

I tend to believe that the Sukhoi Su-17 was the first swept-wing fighter aircraft in Soviet service, albeit just a trifle earlier.

The MiG-23 wasn’t technically the first swing-wing fighter of the Soviet Union; that was the Su-17. The MiG-23 was first flown in 1967, and the Su-17 first flew in 1966. Both began operational service in 1970.

So many lies and bad info, The MIG-23 wasn't a bad aircraft, and no, it wasn't exported to Vietnam

At 10:09 is incorrect. The Mig-23 was produced in very high numbers but nowhere near 11,000. They produced over 5,000. I think he mixed the numbers up with the Mig-21 which was produced in those numbers. The Mig-21 is still the most-produced fighter aircraft of all time. I imagine that number will never be surpassed.

so they copied the Aardvark and couldn't solve the problems that came with the design?

Just for facts: To all those saying it's a cheap copy of f14. Mig23 first flight 1967 F14 first flight 1970

The MiG-23 was designed as a component of an integrated AD system involving radars, SAMs and C&C systems. Unfortunately for most of its customers, they ended up getting only part of the whole package and some of what they got was downgraded from what the USSR designed for its own use. When used individually against western designs which arose from a different philosophy which placed more emphasis on individual pilot training, it’s therefore unsurprising that the MiG came off second best. The F-111 comparison seems pretty bogus as that was a strike/attack aircraft rather than an interceptor.

The facts are more or less correct, but your comparison with the F111 is totally irrelevant, an airplane that was an interdictor, not an air superiority figther and except for the FB11 version l, not an strategic bomber.

Good footage, well done. The persistent anti-Russian flavour of the commentary undermines objectivity; the technology the CCCP/Russia developed and their inventiveness in the face of meagre (compared to the USA) economic resources is not acknowledged. Never underestimate your opponent!

Big error at the start. You mention replacement of the Mig 23, showing footage of the Mig 21. Indeed you meant to say ‘Mig 21’… Check it out, at around 1.28 mins into the video…

@Dark Skies Did you add the graininess to some of the footage used for this video? It did not enhance the visuals in any way and was annoying at times.

GOD BLESS AMERICA AND THE FAMILY'S OF AMERICA 🇺🇸 FREEDOM IS AT HAND, OLD GLORY FOREVER AMERICA 🇺🇸 ETC

i love how the su57 has a "reputation" when there is legit like 10 of them lmfao

Seems like most of your MiG-21 footage is stretched from its original 4:3 ("squarescreen") aspect ratio to fill out a 16:9 widescreen. That produces annoying, unsightly, and distracting distorting effects, making everything seem squashed down from the top and bottom and stretched out to the left and right. Please please stop doing that. It's completely OK to do pillar-boxing, with black vertical bars on the right and left.

So, it's just another traditional russian military airplane: loads of FUD that exceedingly cover a bag of spanners.

In Thailand those days , not long after the Vietnam war , there was terrible news to people that Vienam had the newest deploy Mig23. Then Thai govt started to acquire new US fighters in which F5G was offering by US. Finally , it became F16A instead.

The point about how the swept wing machinery obscured vision for the pilot is really interesting. Is that why the F14 had the cockpit raised above the plane body? Same thing with the Flanker, come to think of it.

Did he just say the SU-57 is a powerful fighter?

My father was a mig 23 pilot, he flew along f-16s in the mig23 and had favourable results in simulated fights in the simulator and in flight. It was yes, dangerous. But you can't have something that they must fear without danger.

One of my favourite fighters. 😊👍

Was the MIG 23 not the attack aircraft and was the MIG 27 more the fighter variant?

Looks like they ripped of the splitter plates from the F-4

The video actually explains where a lot of the rep came from…the third world customers who were also trained accordingly with the same degradation as the plane they bought. The problem the Soviets had with the mig23 was the same problem every other top Air Force in the world had at that time. Trying to build the “wonder plane” dog fighter, strike, interceptor, close air support, etc. it was a WW2 mentality that was rendered obsolete after 1945. Still even if the Mig23 was the worst Soviet fighter it’s like saying the M16 was Americas worst service rifle. Which is true but only in proper context the M16 was believed to be unnecessary to clean and didn’t have modifications requested until the A1. So compare the M16 to the M14 or M4 yes it’s the worst still didn’t really make the rifle the worst in the world. There were many rifles issued world wide that were far worse

No mention of the intakes being exactly copy’s of the F4?

There was one pecuiliar day during the Yom Kippur War in which the Egyptians lost 3 MiG-23 fighters.

Worst fighter? The Mig-23 is the fastest single engine fighter ever made

I remember watching (1982 on morning news) footage of MiG-23s falling out of the sky over Lebanon. F-15s and F-16s were eating the 23's lunch.

Well I guess when we get the Razbam's MiG23 for DCS, then we can finally see what it could actually do in good hands...

This fighter saw battle in Angola. It competed against the Mirage (flow by South Africa). Unlike the MiG21, It was VERY successful and ensured that Angola/Cuba/Russia gained air superiority. It was a huge contributing factor in the Communist countries turning the war around (in their favour). You can go to google earth, to south Angola, to a city called Lubango, there is an airport east of the city. You can see a bunch of these parked at the airport. . I don't believe any were actually sold to Zimbabwe. I believe Zimbabwe received some MiG29s that were blown up while on the ground (by the South Africans). South Africa could not and would not allow for a Communist aligned Zimbabwe to have such a fast fighter in such close proximity to the South African capital city (Pretoria).

When you are out of Floggers. You are out of targets.