# SAAB J35D v MiG-21 v Mirage IIIE v E/E Lightning F3 v F-8E Crusader?



## Lucky13 (Sep 23, 2014)

Who would be the first up (pilot on stand by, in ready room) and the last one standing? No missiles, just guns here....let's go for places, 5-4-3-2-1.


----------



## davparlr (Dec 11, 2014)

Lucky13 said:


> Who would be the first up (pilot on stand by, in ready room) and the last one standing? No missiles, just guns here....let's go for places, 5-4-3-2-1.



Assuming ready room to cockpit time is the same, I would say, without a doubt, no. 1 would be the F-8E since it would be on a carrier therefore short taxi (none if pre-positioned on a catapult) and VERY short takeoff run. The rest probably all roughly the same with only the positioning of ready room and location of aircraft to the runway.


----------



## yulzari (Jan 16, 2015)

First one to height would be a Saunders Roe SR177........................


----------



## GregP (Jan 22, 2015)

E.E. Lightning, no doubt. Go watvh a typical departure ...

And this one is a 2-seat trainer!


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CDLbokf9sg_


----------



## Gixxerman (Jan 23, 2015)

I'm a big fan of the Lightning, lovely aircraft.
Shame it had such short 'legs' (at least to begin with until the big belly tank...and even then?) was difficult to hang weapons off (tho the use of over-wing tanks was always a fairly unique in my eyes mean look.


----------



## Glider (Jan 24, 2015)

Lightning, Crusader, J35, Mig 21, Mirage IIIe


----------



## Saab9k (Feb 6, 2015)

Hypothetical question of course, but I would place my bet on Draken. The scramble time of Swedish and Finnish Drakens at the height of the Cold War was rather below than over 2 minutes. Draken's maneuverability at low speeds and altitude is also underrated. And yes, I might be biased but having seen F-16, F-18, JAS-39, AJ-37, MiG21 bis and J35
Draken performing live and some of them in action, Draken is my all-time favourite. I think Finnish Air Force Fighter Squadron 11 vets would back me up on this: Saab J35 Draken is simply the best and most beautiful fighter jet ever!


----------



## davebender (Feb 11, 2015)

Not realistic but if missiles are forbidden I would pick the F-8. It was called "last of the gunfighters" for a reason. Second choice would be Mirage III based on war record with Israeli pilots. They scored quite a few gun kills with this aircraft.

For low level fight I think Hawker Hunter is worthy of consideration. Very maneuverable and it was armed with four 30mm ADEN revolver cannon. 

If the competition is simply about climbing to altitude I would pick the E/E Lighting. Not the best combat aircraft but it could climb like a bat out of Hell.


----------



## Glider (Feb 14, 2015)

People tend to focus on the Lightning's speed and climb and tend to forget that it had for its time a very advanced radar / missile combination. The Red Top missile and its associated radar gave it a considerable advantage over any of the other aircraft which relied on the Sidewinder / Atoll missiles. 

As for the Hunter its a special aircraft as its the only one I have any experience of, but its greatest fan would have to admit that not carrying an air to air missile was a major drawback for the RAF units that flew it. I know tat some overseas air forces did arm them with air to air missiles


----------



## davebender (Feb 18, 2015)

Why is that an issue for this scenario which uses guns only?


----------



## Glider (Feb 18, 2015)

Fair point


----------



## parsifal (Nov 16, 2017)

Mig-21 vs EE Lightning

Mig-21 can turn tighter than Lightning, so in a turning fight the "bleed-off" won't matter, as Lightning won't last long enough to make Mig-21's turn rate deteriorate. In a straight-line fight, Lightning accelerates far faster than Mig-21 and has a better rate of climb, so it can engage/disengage at will... until it runs out of fuel.If Lightning initiates, expect 1 or two passes then it runs for home, with Mig-21 probably dying.If Mig-21 initiates, Lightning probably dies before it can accelerate out of danger. Mig-21 probably attacks out of a dive.Interesting "dogfight"... two aircraft primarily designed as bomber-interceptors trying to fight each other.

Mig-21 vs SAAB J35D

In the early years the (older) Draken was the better fighter. Why? Because of its radar, fire control system, weapons and the connection to the swedish air control system. The Draken was aerodynamically the best fighter of its time. The B-Draken was able to attack from the front earlier than the MiG-21.

The F-Draken had a very sophisticated Pulse-Doppler-Radar from Ericsson and a very good fire control system. They fired radar-guided RB27 an heat seeking RB28 missiles, which were improved versions of the AIM-26B and AIM-4D Falcon from Hughes. The (modified) danish Draken were superb attack planes, too.

That all said, the MiG-21 was an important plane for the East Block member states, built in high numbers. So it overtook the Draken due many modernization programs.



Mig-21 vs Mirage IIIe
The MiG-21 is more agile (superior power to weight) but in combat between the two it often came off worse because the Mirage III were piloted by better trained Israeli pilots with better (untypical of Mirage) AAMs. The Mirage had a generally better main radar but both are subject to upgrade in the modern world.

Overall I'd give the fight to to the MiG all factors being equal. Which they never are.


Mirage IIIE vs F8 Crusader

In exercises with our RAAF manned Mirages, USN Crusaders were generally at best the equal of the Mirage, but usually a bit sluggish and certainly not superior in maneuverability except at certain specific altitudes. F-8 were not well equipped with missiles until fitted with Matras, which our Mirages carried as standard. Later the later marks of Crusader were altered to carry a range of different missiles which overtook the performance of our own missiles. Later marks of the crusader were superior to the Mirage, and on board radars and other sensors were always superior

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Nov 17, 2017)

Draken vs Crusader: No brainer. Draken wins hands down. This would only happen in Swedish/Finnish/Danish airspace, as they are not aggressors. Besides being superior aircraft, home court advantage goes to Draken. Their ultimate capabilities were not well known to potential opponents.


----------



## Graeme (Nov 17, 2017)

Lucky13 said:


> Who would be the first up



Jan - do you mean the first aircraft to lift its wheels off the tarmac/carrier deck?


----------



## Graeme (Nov 17, 2017)

I looked at - 'First to 40,000 ft'...

Lightning
Draken
Mirage
Fishbed
Crusader.
(In that order)

But I wonder how accurate the climb figures are in publications during the Cold War? Propaganda?


----------



## Glider (Nov 18, 2017)

Re the 
Mig-21 vs EE Lightning

_Mig-21 can turn tighter than Lightning, so in a turning fight the "bleed-off" won't matter, as Lightning won't last long enough to make Mig-21's turn rate deteriorate. In a straight-line fight, Lightning accelerates far faster than Mig-21 and has a better rate of climb, so it can engage/disengage at will... until it runs out of fuel.If Lightning initiates, expect 1 or two passes then it runs for home, with Mig-21 probably dying.If Mig-21 initiates, Lightning probably dies before it can accelerate out of danger. Mig-21 probably attacks out of a dive.Interesting "dogfight"... two aircraft primarily designed as bomber-interceptors trying to fight each other.
_
I have to say that its my belief that the Lightning would be all over the Mig 21. In acceleration and climb the Lightning has all the advantages and remembering that the F4 did well against the Mig 21 as they fought in the vertical there is no reason to doubt that the Lightning would do at least as well. Which is a thought, an F4 trying to go vertical against the Lightning could come seriously unstuck.

As to agility the Lighting whilst no F16, was a lot better than most people think and at very high speeds could take anyone on being capable of 5 G turns at Mach 2. Also relevant is the radar and fire control system which was a lot better on the Lightning, the AIRPASS radar system was the first HOTAS system and combined to the first true heads up display

Finally the Red Top was probably the best IR missile of the time having a much greater envelope and even a limited head on capability. They were far from perfect but a significant improvement on the ATOLL and early Sidewinders of the time.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Nov 18, 2017)

I should also add the Lightning was the first fighter to go supersonic without using the afterburner which is worth something in combat and getting the tactical advantage

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Graeme (Nov 20, 2017)

And the first European aircraft to achieve "supercruise" was the very un-supersonic looking Gerfaut...

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 20, 2017)

Lucky13 said:


> No missiles, just guns here



The unfortunate conclusion for the Lightning F.3 to this requirement is that it would lose hands down, as the F.3 was armed only with AAMs; no guns.


----------



## Glider (Nov 21, 2017)

nuuumannn said:


> The unfortunate conclusion for the Lightning F.3 to this requirement is that it would lose hands down, as the F.3 was armed only with AAMs; no guns.


But all the other versions carried cannon and the F3a and F6 had the Red Tops as well so why pick on the F3?


----------



## parsifal (Nov 21, 2017)

Because the thread title specifies the f3 I think. I agree though, not having missiles doesn't make a whole lot of sense


----------



## Glider (Nov 21, 2017)

fair point but if you keep the guns only can I keep the Red Tops. Like to see anyone get in gun range of a Lightning that didn't want to get shot at


----------



## parsifal (Nov 21, 2017)

Red Top was originally a rationalised, upgraded version of the earlier Firestraeak . In 1956, DeHavilland started work on the Blue Jay Mark 4 (its development codename) and Firestreak Mk. IV. Such were the changes that it was effectively a new missile. It arranged its components in more logical fashion than the Firestreak (which had its warhead in the tail), with an improved "Violet Banner" seeker, "Green Garland" IR Fuze , and a more powerful "Linnet" booster rocket. It also had a larger warhead, at 31 kg (68.3 lb) against 22.7 kg (50 lb).

The Red Top was faster, and had greater range and maneuvrability than the Firestreak, and its more sensitive IR seeker enabled a wider range of engagement angles. Being more sensitive it could home in on a target that had been warmed by air friction heating. In the aftermath of the 1957 Defence White Paper, Red Top was initially seen to be a stopgap measure only until the Bloodhound SAM came into service. This meant that most of the planned improvements to Red Top were never carried out, including all aspect capability (as seen on the later AIM-9L/M Sidewinder and later marks of the AA-2). Red Top was only "capable of all aspect homing against super-sonic targets." "Unlike modern [1990s] missiles, Red Top and Firestreak could only be fired outside cloud, and in winter, skies were rarely clear over the UK."

The Red Top entered service in 1964, arming the Lightning and sea vixens. It remained in limited service until the final retirement of the Lightning in 1988. Unusually, the missile that the Red Top was intended to replace – Firestreak – also remained in limited service on the Lightning until 1988. 

A variant called Blue Dolphin or Blue Jay Mk. V, was proposed, using semi active homing for capability similar to the AIM 7 Sparrow , but this was cancelled in 1958. 

Guidance for the weapon was provided by the Violet Banner infra-red seeker. For the early 1960s this was a very sophisticated scanner and was one of the first infra-red missiles to introduce a cooling system in the seeker head to improve the infra-red image of the target. In all infra-red guided missiles (and even infra-red cameras) background heat from inside the sensor such as that generated by the hot electronic equipment or the heat built up on the seeker’s window as a result of friction as the missile flies though the air can overpower the comparatively weak signal of the target. Cooling the seeker head therefore clears up the infra-red image of the target and dramatically increases sensitivity

This led to a general belief that Red Top was the world’s first all-aspect infra-red air-to-air missile however this is not entirely true. Red Top could only engage targets from the front that were travelling at supersonic speeds thanks to the target developing a rather large heat plume from its engines and the friction-heating of the fuselage at high speeds. For targets travelling at subsonic speed then a more traditional rear-hemisphere attack was required. An often cited problem with the seeker however was that cloud inhibited its effectiveness in tracking a target but it is important to note that this was a common problem with all infra-red weapons of the day. While this would potentially be a drawback fighting tactical aircraft at low to medium altitude it remained a very effective weapon intercepting high altitude bombers where there was little cloud. The seeker was aided by the launch aircraft’s own radar which can transmit the location of the target to the missile while its on the rail so that the seeker is looking directly at the target upon launch.

Red Top was cleared for service in 1964 and armed the RAF’s English Electric Lightning F.3/6 and the Royal Navy’s De Havilland Sea Vixen FAW.2. While the Javelin was armed with the earlier Firestreak plans to equip it with Red Top were shelved due to the aircraft’s impending retirement. Of the two aircraft that carried Red Top operationally the Sea Vixen was arguably the better platform for the weapon having a second crewman who could plot and prosecute the target more efficiently without having to fly the aircraft as well. The Sea Vixen could carry up to four weapons whereas the Lightning could only carry two (theoretically the Lightning could carry four weapons but plans for additional weapons to be carried under the wing pylons for export aircraft never materialised).

The Lightning’s own performance actually increased the performance envelope of the missile. When flying at speeds in excess of Mach.1 at the Lightning’s service ceiling of 54,000ft the Red Top could generate enough energy to reach an altitude in excess of 70,000ft. The Lightning’s supersonic speed also increased range and reports from testing claim the weapon flying out to a head-on target range of 7-8 miles (when in the chase position this range will decrease as the target is moving away and so the weapon has to overtake it). Carrying the quite heavy weapon did impose restrictions on the light and aerodynamically pure Lightning and pilot notes for the Lightning F.6 model dictated that whilst armed the aircraft should not fly passed Mach 1.75 so as to not overstress the airframe.

Any infra-red air-to-air missile developed in the 1960s will ultimately be compared to the US AIM-9 Sidewinder family. Compared to the AIM-9B Sidewinder, Red Top was a far superior weapon with a more sophisticated seeker, longer range, greater agility and a substantially more powerful warhead. The AIM-9B also had a very limiting launch load factor of just 2.6G whereas Red Top could be fired at up to 4G making Red Top the better weapon in a dogfight. The only real advantage the AIM-9B had was that it was much lighter weighing just 180lbs compared to Red Top which weighed in at nearly 340lbs and could be more easily integrated on to a wider array of aircraft. This latter fact was the key to its export success compared to most other air-to-air weapons of the era including Firestreak and Red Top.

When you consider that the primary Soviet close-in air-to-air missile for the 1960s and 70s was the AA-2 “Atoll”, a reverse engineered AIM-9B, then it can be claimed that Red Top was better than this weapon also. Any comparison of the Lightning to the Mig-21 each using missiles needs to be also a comparison of the capabilities of Red Top (as carried by the Lightning, that is just two missiles) to the capabilities of the AA-2 as carried by the Mig-21. The AA-2 was a virtual copy of the AIM -9B, so the performance capabilities can be considered as virtually interchangeable. Like the AIM-9B, the AA-2 was progressively improved over time during the 1960s, such that by the early 70’s its hit probabilities were superior to the Red Top. 

The AIM-9B’s in their early configurations gave a generally poor showing over Vietnam. This forced rapid development of an improved model, the AIM-9D Sidewinder and this had advantages and disadvantages when compared to Red Top. The AIM-9D had a marginally longer head-on range compared to Red Top again dependant on the conditions at launch. Red Top still had the more sensitive seeker and its larger window gave it a better view of the world outside. Also Red Top’s larger warhead meant that it was more likely to destroy whatever it hit or inflict fatal damage with a proximity hit. It’s interesting to note however that when the Royal Navy selected McDonnell Douglas’ F-4 Phantom II in its Anglicized F-4K Phantoms form both Red Top and AIM-9D were tested against each other. The Admiralty decided to keep the AIM-9D as the aircraft’s primary close-in weapon despite Red Top already being supported in service with the Sea Vixen. The main reason cited for this was to simplify the introduction of the already overly complex British Phantom to squadron service.

Consequently, Red Top was withdrawn from Royal Navy service in 1972 when the Sea Vixens were retired leaving the Sidewinder armed Phantoms as the Fleet Air Arm’s primary fighter. Red Top continued to arm the RAF’s Lightnings until 1988 and in July of that year the very last live round was fired over Cardigan Bay, South Wales 

The 24 September 1958 Chinese acquisition of an American AIM-9B Sidewinder missile marked the beginning of a breakthrough in the development of Soviet air-to-air missiles. The missile, fired from a Taiwanese F-86 Sabre aircraft, lodged without exploding in a Chinese MiG-17. The missile was sent to Toropov's engineering office to be copied, and the product the K-13, long the most popular Soviet air-to-air missile.

The recovered Sidewinder had a number of valuable features, not least of which was the modular construction that facilitated ease in production and operation. The simplicity of the AIM-9 was in marked contrast to the complexity of contemporary Soviet missiles. The Sidewinder's infrared-guided homing head contained a free-running gyroscope and was much smaller than Soviet counterparts, and the steering and in-flight stabilization system were equally superior. Gennadiy Sokolovskiy, later chief engineer at the Vympel team, said that "the Sidewinder missile was to us a university offering a course in missile construction technology which has upgraded our engineering education and updated our approach to production of future missiles."

The Soviets soon made advances over the original Sidewinder model, making dozens of modifications to the initial design. In 1960 series-production of the K-13 missile (also called R-3 or Object 310) began. In 1962 the R-3S (K13A or Object 310) became the first version to be produced in large numbers, though its homing operation took much more time (22 seconds instead of 11 seconds). In 1961 development began of the high-altitude K-13R (R-3R or Object 320) with a semiactive radar head, which was entered service with combat aircraft in 1966. The training versions were the R-3U missiles ("uchebnaya", barrel with a homing set, not fired from an aircraft) and the R-3P ("prakticheskaya" differing from the combat version by absence of an explosive charge). The RM-3V (RM denoting "raketa-mishen" [target-missile] served as an aerial target.

Specific limitations of the Atoll were: At altitudes below 47,500 feet at launch, the aircraft must be in a maneuver of less than two Gs. At altitudes above 47,500 feet, the aircraft launch I maneuver limitation is 6Gs. Minimum launch range is 3,280 feet; maximum range is dependent on launch aircraft speed and quantity of target radiation, The missile can make lOG maneuvers at sea level and I4G maneuvers at 50,000 feet. The missile cannot guide within 30 degrees of the sun and has great difficulty from 30 to 50 degrees. At altitude, launch mode is pursuit from 30 degrees above or below target and within an azimuth of 48 degrees. Missile can be launched in snap-up mode but mancuver Icapability is degraded above 50,000 feet. Ground clutter seriously degrades the ability of the missile to guide. At low level, the attacker therefore usually does not launch at a target below his altitude. During late 1960s the Vympel team began working on the K-13M (R-13M, Object 380) modification of the K-13 missile, which in 1973 was certified as an operational weapon. It has a cooled homing head, a radio rather than optical closing-in igniter, and a more potent warhead. Analogous modifications of the R-55 resulted in the R-55M missile. The last version of the K-13 is the R-13M1 with a modified steering apparatus.

AA-2 capabilities continued to be improved by the Chinese with their PL series of the missile.

_PL-2_
After successfully examining and imitating the American sidewinder, the Soviet Union then gave the design and technical information of the K-13 to the Chinese along with the schematics of the MiG-21. Duplicate production of the Soviet design began in 1964. Upon receiving the K-13, the Chinese began license production of the missile and redesignated it as the PL-2. Characteristically, the PL-2 missile featured a canard aerodynamic configuration, was slender, cylindrical, and semi‑spherical nose. The missile also had two pairs of triangular fins for control and two pairs of crossed trapezoidal wings. The PL-2 had a maximum speed of Mach 2.2. and was designed to counter fighters and medium bombers. Unlike the PL-1, the PL-2 missile used passive infrared homing, which allowed the attacking aircraft to retreat after missile launch. The Commission of Certification for Special Weapons of the State Council approved the PL-2 missile for batch production in 1967. Production of the PL-2 missile increased into the 1970’s after the construction of two missile factories in the 1970s.

_PL-2B_
The first model of the PL-2 missile displayed flaws ws in its counter-interference abilities (i.e. its ability to discern the heat of an jet engine to the sun), its propensity for the optical fuse to explode early, and short range. A second, improved version of the PL-2, designated as the PL-2B, was approved for production in 1978. Versus its predecessor, the PL-2B had an improved homing head and fuse. Its counter-interference capabilities were improved, velocity increased, and the optical fuse became more sensitive. In addition, the velocity and electrical circuitry of the missile was also improved. In the end, the PL-2B had 60% and 95% commonality with the PL-2 in terms of parts and components respectively. Testing was conducted in 1980, in which the missile suffered problems of early bursting. The problem was solved by August 1980, and in October 1981, the PL-2B missile was certified for the military.

_PL-3_
The PL-3 air-to-air missile was the first independently developed air-to-air missile. The PL-3’s design emphasized high-speed and high-altitude performance. The missile was superior to the PL-2, due it its increased range, accuracy, and lethality. The PL-3 also characteristically was different: it had an enlarged lifting service, more balanced angle of attack, and a new warhead. Like the PL-1 and PL-2, the PL-3 was designed primarily to counter fighters and medium bombers. Research for the PL-3 missile began in 1965 after the project was issued by the Third Ministry of Machine Building. Test production of the missile began in 1968. The PL-3 missile initially suffered problems from the effect aerodynamic heat had on the engine case’s strength and the premature bursting of the fuse. Such a problem was solved when the circuitry of the missile was improved and after a device was installed that automatically controlled the fuse of the missile. Testing of the PL-3 missile went as far into 1979, when J-8 aircraft test fired the missiles with success. By 1980, the PL-3’s design was approved by the Conventional Military Products Certification Commission.

_PL-5_
The PL-5B missile was a second generation missile based on the PL-2. It characteristically was smaller in diameter and was light weight, just like the PL-2. The PL-5B, however, was more technologically advanced in comparison to the PL-2. Developed by Institute No. 605 beginning in 1966 with the construction of two prototype demonstrators. Additional test missiles were built in 1967 up to 1971. Unfortunately, the Cultural Revolution hampered its development. Research resumed in 1982, in which the design of the missile was finally tested. The PL-5B initially suffered problems of the fuse prematurely bursting, however such problems were solved. By 1986, the design of the PL-5B missile was certified.

The PL-5E [_Pili_ = Thunderbolt, or _Pen Lung_ = Air Dragon] air-to-air missile has a maximum mobility overload of 40g, exceeding the 35g of the AIM-9L of the United States. Mobility overload a unit for measuring the mobility of aircraft. The larger the value the better the aircraft can adapt to violent mid-air mobility. An air-to-air missile with a great overload means that the attacked side is less likely to escape the attack). The speed of the missile is Mach 2.5 (2.5 times sound speed) and its maximum range is 14,000 meters.

Mig-21s had the ability to carry usually 4 but up to 6 missiles of various kinds. This gave them an immediate numbers advantage in terms of firepower over the Lightning. Early versions of the AA-2 were definitely inferior to the Red Top, but over time improvements were made that rendered the AA-2 superior to the Red top, which remained basically unmodernised

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Graeme (Nov 22, 2017)

To my knowledge there was only one other jet aircraft of the era with the English Electric Lightning that tried stacking the two engines in a vertical arrangement. The French Grognard...

Sud-Ouest SO.2400 (Grognard) Ground Attack Aircraft Prototype

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 23, 2017)

Glider said:


> But all the other versions carried cannon and the F3a and F6 had the Red Tops as well so why pick on the F3?



Because the F.3 is mentioned in the title - sorry, I was being a little pedantic, not to mention facetious. 

The F.3A was a prototype only and was redesignated F.6 in service, but the F.2A had four cannon, whereas the other gun armed Lightnings all had two.


----------



## Zipper730 (Dec 13, 2017)

parsifal said:


> Mig-21 vs EE Lightning
> 
> Mig-21 can turn tighter than Lightning, so in a turning fight the "bleed-off" won't matter, as Lightning won't last long enough to make Mig-21's turn rate deteriorate.


I remember something to the effect that the sustained turning rate of the MiG-21 was somewhat above 6g, and at least some F-104's (possibly when fitted with GE-19's) could sustain in the ballpark of 7g with maneuver flaps out (as could the F-4 without them) at around 425 kias.

At lower altitudes the F-4's would turn inside the MiG-21's, and presumably the same for the F-104's when their flaps were extended to T/O. There was at least one case where an F-104 was able to get inside an F-5 (this probably did entail very specific circumstances such as I described). The lightning was said to be better than the F-104 so depending on altitude if they kept the speed optimal, they might be able to beat the MiG-21 under those conditions

I don't know where the F-8 ranks in here, but there was an F-104 pilot who said that they were generally consistently beaten by the F-8's until the GE-19's were installed (which seems to indicate a tighter turning circle, or a higher sustained g-load), which allowed them to outperform them.



> Mig-21 vs SAAB J35D
> 
> In the early years the (older) Draken was the better fighter. Why? Because of its radar, fire control system, weapons and the connection to the swedish air control system.


I don't really know much about the radar & fire-control system capabilities compared to either USAF designs (F-101B, F-102, F-106), and know little about the Stril as well (for example, I have no idea how it compared to SAGE). The capabilities of the J-35 have been a slight interest of me for sometime.



> The Draken was aerodynamically the best fighter of its time.


While slightly off topic, how did it compare with the F-104 and Lightning in terms of speed, acceleration, climb-rate, and ability to hold supersonic without a/b?



> Mig-21 vs Mirage IIIe
> The MiG-21 is more agile (superior power to weight) but in combat between the two it often came off worse because the Mirage III were piloted by better trained Israeli pilots with better (untypical of Mirage) AAMs.


The MiG-21 had rather poor rear visibility too


> Mirage IIIE vs F8 Crusader
> 
> In exercises with our RAAF manned Mirages, USN Crusaders were generally at best the equal of the Mirage, but usually a bit sluggish and certainly not superior in maneuverability except at certain specific altitudes.


Probably lower...


----------

