Monday, 28 November 2022

Interview with 2 Romanian MiG-23 pilots

Two Romanian MiG-23 pilots kindly accepted an interview for the blog. This country operated 36 MiG-23MF and 8 MiG-23UB until 2001. V. has 100-150 hours on it, and G.I. 810, having served as an instructor before retiring. I would like to thank them for their time and effort.

1. What was your first impression of the MiG-23?  What were the main advantages when compared to previous generation fighters in Romania?

I wasn't very happy in the spring of '86 when I was told I would be moving to the MiG 23...I had just moved on to more serious training and combat duties on the 21st when suddenly my MK promotion (57th Fighter Regiment at that time which was located in Mihail Kogalniceanu hence the initials MK) was moved to the theorethical course and then flying on the 23rd. Up to that time I was not at all impressed with the 23rd in any way. It didn't seem to me that it was superior to the MiG 21 and anyway the opinions about its performance in our world, of aviators, were more negative than positive. In time, during the almost 4 years of flying it, I managed to realize where and what were the advantages and disadvantages of this aircraft.

At first glance the plane was larger and obviously heavier with variable geometry and was the USSR's answer to similar aerodynamic solutions in the West (F-111 and then F-14). At this first assessment I realized that it certainly did not have such a short flight range and that it probably had some other advantages that I will discover when I start flying it.

After starting the flight I realized first of all that the engine automatic (and I mean the elapsed time for the engine to get from Idle to Military and from Idle to Full Afterburner) was much more advanced and the times were extremely low which was very good because these times at 21 were frighteningly high. One interesting thing I discovered after boarding the cockpit was that the Throttle  no longer moved on a circular sector (as on all the planes flown before) but moved linearly and very easily and could be very well controlled.

Later I would also discover that although stable on the slope and at slower speed, the landing itself had to be done carefully because if you made contact with the nose wheel first and then tried to fix it, the landing would turn into a disaster as I found out not from myself or any of my colleagues but from what Russian pilots told us. It was absolutely forbidden to push the stick forward when landing, which if I am not mistaken was also written on a warning plate - obviously in Russian - in the cockpit.

During this interview I will add other things I discovered with the experience of flying it.

2. Visibility is considered one of the weak points. Did you find it to be an issue?

Maybe for those who had not flown the MiG 21 the visibility in the cockpit could be judged as inadequate, but we came from the plane that besides having poor visibility in the cockpit was also coming at 430 km/h on the landing slope, so it was not a problem for us. The MiG 21 was not an easy plane to fly and not very forgiving of the mistakes inherent in beginners. After I started flying it (I'm talking about the 23) it seemed to me that the speed on the slope was low (it was coming at 400 km/h which is not really very small either).

M.K. summer of 1996 - MiG 23 cockpit photo.


But in the course of this interview I will add to the answers some from a colleague – G.I. -a few years older than me who gained more experience on this plane flying it until retirement.

G.I.: Visibility in the cockpit was poor…as was in 21..I was in the cockpit of an F16, with the canopy closed, and there is no comparison... The one-piece canopy is something else....

3. Many Airforces, including the Romanian, found that the MiG-23 was expensive, and carried on using MiG-21s. Do you think that the extra cost and complexity was worth it?

I don't recall these cost issues ever being on anyone's radar, regardless of the level of the tier being considered. It was not at all our job to quantify costs and whether they were high or low...our job was quite different and that was not done according to normal indicators either....

G.I: As far as I know, no country with 23s upgraded them, because, like us, they thought they were efficient, but they were big fuel eaters and not only...

4. How many hours did you fly on the type?


I personally not more than 100-150  hours ...but let's not forget that the time of the transit on this plane corresponds to the moments of sad fame of our nation when the economies imposed by Ceausescu and the communist policy were acutely reflected in the flight hours allocated to pilots of all categories. With it I started night flying and flying in all weather conditions day and night and thanks to the slightly more advanced avionics than the 21 this category of flight could be approached more easily.

G.I.: I flew about 750 hours on the MIG-23 MF, and about 160 on the 23 UB ( the twin seater ) .  I was  flight instructor both day and night in all weather conditions .....

5. What was the maximum range of the radar?

The detection range of the Saphire Multi Mode Radar was no more than 40-45 km from the forward hemisphere for a target with a RCS ( Radar Cross Section) in the range of fighter size aircraft or around 60 km for a target with a RCS  in the range of transport or bomber size aircraft but at altitudes above 9-11,000 metres. But you couldn't lock on  the target for less than 30 km…

What is worth noting as a huge step forward for the offensive sensor on board the MiG23 aircraft compared to aircraft before it is this first multi-mode Doppler radar with look up shoot up/look down shoot down possibilities (ΔH = +6/-4 km) quite rudimentary. This radar allowed the use of BVR R23 R and T missiles in the forward hemisphere and later to the newer R24 R and T variants which we did not have in our inventory.

6. What was the maximum range of the R-24 missiles? Did you use both versions?

We didn't have R-24 missiles, but R-23 with 2 variants R and T.. with IR seeker head or SARH... I  didn't launch any real R-23 missile, because, our bosses said at the time that it was expensive. So I have no idea how an R-23 missile goes.  Those were the days...  But we've all done simulated launches in forward ( and rear ) hemisphere, with school R-23s, at about 10-12 km range......

And in fact, no missiles were ever fired in live firing exercises at the USSR Astrahan range. The missile used for these exercises of real interception of a remote-controlled target was always of the R3S type.  From the memories of my regimental colleague in charge of weapons and firing the only time we used 2 R23 Air-to-Air missiles (in the whole history of the MiG 23) totally unjustifiably was in a mission executed during the revolution of `89 when they were launched in the Boresight in Air-to-Ground mode (!!!) on surface targets somewhere near the Danube Delta and obviously the result did not matter.

The missile theoretically had a kill probability of 0.8 and looked good, but in real combat conditions against a maneuvering target it was limited to a maximum load of 5g and the launching aircraft could not exceed 4g. From the rear hemisphere the maximum and minimum launch distances were more than modest and were, depending on the height, somewhere between 12-14 km and 3-4 km (at medium and low altitudes) respectively 20-25 km and 7-8 km at higher altitudes.

Another important fact proving the poor performance of avionics and weapons computers is the impossibility of using the combined R23R and R23T variant. For silent approach depending on the tactical situation (or what is now called SA) this missile would have been useful but as I showed above its performance was not the most satisfactory...

7. Were you trained to fire one R-24R followed by a R-24T to avoid asymmetrical loads? Or both of the same type?

As I have already shown in the answer to the previous question, a mixed R23 R and R23 T variant could not be made, but only the same type. Asymmetric flight was possible but no one has ever had such a real experience because we have only landed the R23RU school missile and only one on the gloves on the fixed plane of the mobile wing. Even more interesting is the fact that all of us who got to do QRA (Quick Reaction Alert) alarms day or night with this fighter never fired the missiles that were ready on the plane at the alarm room...

8. How far away could you detect targets with the IRST?

With IRST (Infra Red Search and Track) type TP 23 installed on board the aircraft things are a little different. Personally, I have not been able to use it on the few occasions I have had because there is not this sympathy for this kind of use in combat or because over the years of practice those more experienced than us have not used it much to share their experience. In terms of performance, it could detect the target at 5-6 km and the combined weapons system gave a firing solution similar to that of the radar.

I don't know how confident I was in this type of passive sensor but certainly at 23 I didn't consider it a big deal (totally the wrong approach if you think about it !!).

9. What do you think was the best flight envelope for the MiG-23 (altitude and speed)?

I think the altitude range where the 23 was superior to its contemporary aircraft  was somewhere between 2-4000 m and speed between 850 - 950 km/h ( but it's just my opinion and not based on deep experience on this type of aircraft).

MiG-23 pilots.


But it was hard to see that. We were a long way from terms like corner-speed or rate of turn. These terms are built on specific close air combat missions that I never did with the MiG 23. We were using 90-95% of the aircraft on air interception missions based on the fact that it had a much better radar than the 21, being able to engage targets in both the front and rear hemispheres and using its look-up / look-down capability.

10. Do you remember the maximum speed and height you reached with the MiG-23?

Yes I remember this because the Tumansky R29-300 engine was extremely powerful and actually when we launched at full speed and altitude the plane was accelerating slightly towards M=2 and the height was already 17500 m...

G.I.: On an intercept, of a MIG-23 , a colleague on target post, I reached H= 16.5 km... and max speed...I "ran" after a Russian bomber, in the framework of the Warsaw Treaty, with M=2,2, because I was taken far behind him.. MIG-23 had max. permissible ceiling 18,5 km, and max permissible speed M=2,35...

11. When flying, what was the most common position of the variable geometry wings (16, 45, or 72 degrees)? Were there any limitation in G loads or manoeuvres when changing the wing position?

The most common wing position was on 16. All positions were limited by speed and allowable overload....When changing the wing position, the airplane got a bit off balance and you had to trim it all the time.... In the cockpit there was even an indicator with a model of an airplane that changed its wing position according to the one you set manually (with the lever on the left horizontal console next to the flaps buttons) and that had two windows in which the speed and Mach number restrictions for that position were written. It was also suggestive and in the field of view....

12. Did you practice any ground attack mission? What type of armament did you use? How effective was the MiG-23 in this role?

I didn`t use the aircraft in air to ground missions; from the memories of colleague G.I.:  
We executed air-to-ground firing with the on-board 23 mm cannon GS23 and 57 mm PRNDs. They were effective ( in my opinion seeing them go in on target). MIG -23 had the possibility to take also 2 x UB-32 pods, so 64 rockets in one attack... One time I launched 32 rockets in the range and I made havoc.....

The aircraft also had an H-23 Air to Ground missile that could be taken for this type of mission and had on the left glove  a DELTA gondola that was used for guidance. This missile I don't recall ever being used for range training but only as a test...Anyway the firing range was less than 10 km and you had to be in sight of the target fixing the crosshair on it which from the point of view of flight safety in the enemy area was almost nonsense.

13. MiG-23 suffered heavy losses against the Israeli Air Force in the Lebanon. did you get any information/feedback on how to fight NATO jets?

At the time I flew this aircraft it was difficult to find anywhere literature that explicitly documented the situations in which these aircraft were used in air combat and what was the result of these incidents..... After 90 I managed to discover another world of aviation closer to the truth thanks to my involvement in the upgrade program of the MiG 21 otherwise I am not convinced that I was discovering something else than my colleagues. ...But the thirst for knowledge of foreign aviation has always accompanied me and I remember that in the mid 80's in order to satisfy my curiosity on this subject I subscribed to a Chinese magazine (!!!) which had the summary of the articles in English... there I discovered interesting things I didn't know about such as the radar performance of the F-14A, the ejection seat of the MiG-29, the K-36D and many others...

14. Romania got the MF variant, later on more advanced versions like the ML/MLD were developed. Were you aware of them? Do you know if Romania got interested?

Of course Romania was not interested in them - at that time you could not really choose what you wanted from the Russians but only what was “offered” to you.

It doesn't really matter the MiG 23 version of the plane.... or as my colleague G.I. says: I went to the Bulgarians, who had ML and MLD and found( how !!) that they were not superior to MF's....( although between you and me I think they were...).

15. MiG-23 is still used by a few countries, are you surprised about its longevity?

I'm not surprised by his longevity. I am surprised that there are still spare parts and consumables for it...But if we look worldwide they are still flying F-5, F-4, MiG-21, T-38 ( some even older than MiG-23 !) so we should not be surprised at all. And I don't think the Russians have a Boneyard...

1-st Fighter Squadron patch…..MiG 23 formation flying somewhere in the middle of `90`s.


G.I.: Used in a few countries, where , what's left,...I'm not surprised by its longevity...It was a successful plane, very powerful, as an engine, with good avionics, but with many flight restrictions...And it had something else...very demanding when landing...It didn't admit anything...If you made a mistake, you broke it.

16. Is there any anecdote you would like to share before completing the interview?

I had a couple of story-worthy experiences... one that took place shortly (read experience !) after flying solo. On a flight after a mission to get to know the piloting technique in the working area (the mission consisted of turns, dives, tosses, etc.) on the way to landing, on the slope (we were flying in normal weather conditions with very good visibility)  the tower (who at that time was an experienced pilot who could help you on the slope by giving you valuable information about speed, height, attitude, etc.) tells me dryly "check speed and height". The distance from which he saw my progress was about 4-5 km. Strange that up to that point I didn't realise anything was wrong but then I noticed that all the devices using static and dynamic pressure information (i.e. airspeed indicator, altimeter and vertical velocity indicator) were stuck at a value that didn't match my position on the slope. Even nicer was when in a language totally inappropriate for radio calls in emergency situations I said to the tower in a jerky way "The airspeed indicator, altimeter and vertical velocity indicator are showing signs of fatigue..." and I made contact with the runway at approximately 390 km/h (from the FDR) but all ended well.....or when on the first intercept mission

I forgot to move the wing from 16 ° degrees to 45°  when I had already exceeded the speed restriction for the 16 ° wing by more than 200 km/h and the plane was shaking like I wanted to eject..... or when one night in the low altitude area where I had to do manoeuvres to get used to the piloting technique at night at low altitude the plane didn't want to descend below 300 m because one of the flight safety systems that was coupled to the height set on the radio altimeter had the wrong switch on the contact was off it was on and off it was on......and I have at least one more but I think I'd better stop here.

Other interviews:

I am always looking for more veterans, active members or people related with the defence industry to accept interviews. If you enjoyed reading the material and would be happy to accept an anonimous interview you can get in contact with me. My e-mail can be found in this link at the heading. Otherwise leave a message in the comment sections.

- Interview with a former M48 commander in the National Guard of the US
- Interview with a former M-84 commander
- Interview with a former Merkava tanker
- Interview with a former Abrams tanker
- Interview with a former M60A2 "Starship" tanker
- Interview with a former Centurion tanker in the Army of Australia
- Interview with a former Type-59 tanker in the Army of Albania
- Interview with a former Leopard 2 tanker in the Army of the Netherlands
- Interview with a former Romanian MiG-29 pilot
- Interview with a former M60 tanker
- Interview with a former Pakistani Army Type-59 tanker
- Interview with a former Leopard 1 tank commander in the Army of Canada
- Interview with a former Merkava tanker
- Interview with a former M60A1 tanker
- Interview with a former M60/Abrams tanker
- Interview with a former Olifant tanker
- Interview with a former Chieftain tanker
- Interview with a former M551 Sheridan driver
- Interview with a former Centurion tank driver in the Army of Sweden
- Interview with a former Centurion tanker in the Army of Denmark
- Interview with a USAF pilot who flew the F-106 Delta Dart
- Interview with an US Army M48A5/M60A1 veteran tanker
- Interview with a former British artilleryman and veteran of the Gulf War
- Former M60 tanker in the Army of Austria
- Former Chieftain crew member
- Former Chieftain gunner
- AMX30 commander of the Army of France
- NCO of the Army of Serbia 
- Former crew member of Challenger 2
Former Leclerc commander
T-72 driver in Czech Army  
- US Army M60 tank crewmman
- Interview with D., former US Army tanker with experience in the M60 and M1 Abrams
- Interview with Stefan Kotsch, former NVA/Bundeswehr tanker  
- Interview with former Marine and writer Kenneth Estes