# Making the best of MiG-21



## michael82 (Jul 15, 2010)

From below article it appears that 21 can still hold its own in dogfight:


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 15, 2010)

Great info!


----------



## Glider (Jul 15, 2010)

Very Interesting.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 15, 2010)

Great post, thanks!


----------



## Airframes (Jul 15, 2010)

Interesting read, thanks!


----------



## BombTaxi (Jul 15, 2010)

Fascinating stuff... a great example of what happens when 'received wisdom' is challenged.


----------



## Glider (Jul 15, 2010)

It tends to support the Indian Airforce who have always said that they could give most airforces a hard time with the Mig 21.


----------



## imalko (Jul 16, 2010)

Interesting read. Thanks for sharing.
Nice to see it was written by someone from these parts. Not that big a surprise though as we do operate MiG-21 since 1962.


----------



## renrich (Jul 16, 2010)

I know the USN pilot who flew an A6 in one of the first comparisons of the Mig 21 versus the A6. He said that they were very surprised at how maneuverable the A6 was, especially at low speeds.


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 17, 2010)

You didn't read the conclusions apparently, did you. 50:1 kill ratio against latest wester fighters, claims of significant advantantages of a 60 degree sweep wing with no camber contradicted in their analysis, obvious quotes by US analyses taken out of context by numerous/different authors ( just read it for continuity), notes that the Tumansky powerplant is sorely lacking, the avionics are piss poor, yadda yadda yadda.

This same claim could be made that the MB336, BAE Hawk or A4K equipped with all aspect short range missiles, AESA conformal radar and helmet mounted display system makes an air superiority vehicle.

You want to make a claim that such a platform is a cheap alternative for low technology order of battle? I'm in.

Otherwise... rubbish.


----------



## michael82 (Jul 19, 2010)

Thanks for posts!
"Glider.."
I think that IAF achievements with MiG-21 is on account of modern AAMs only.

"renrich.."
Big wing of A-6 speaks for very tight instantaneous turn radius and relatively low induced drag in turns ie it slowly looses speed in turn. But fight can be only downward since thrust is low.

"Matt308 ........"
I suppose article was written to Fishbed users to highlight unexploited low speed lift and pitch pointing, for those that have no money to buy T-50 or F-35...or do not see point in wasting money in crisis time. 
I personaly do not like MiG-21 like aircraft but it seems it has important low speed lift and pitch pointing potential, that is not in the manuals, but can be useful to operators.

Trouble with MB336..A-4K..is that they can not achieve angles of attack of modern fighters, as opposed to MiG-21 that can fly trimmed and stable at more than 30 deg at low speeds. Nor modern fighters can run away from 21. For example SEP of some most modern fighters is 0 at 0.5 Mach lower speed than of 21 at hi-altitudes. 

I think US Aggressor 21 showed itself dangerous in low speed turns and pointing. At least F-15 pilots said so. And all that with just gun and old AIM-9 type AAMs. 
I exercises with MiG-29 (with F-16 like AOA limt) US learned that combat against helmet pointed R-73 was thing to avoid as kill ratio was countless. Any aircraft with such weapon system would do similarly. Irony is that AIM-82 introduced that idea, I think. 
That why Western priority was AIM-9X, AMRAAM and Stealth. Remember what was kill ratio during Falkland war just because of AIM-9L (Harriers didn't dare to use VIFF).
But confronting F-22 with AIM-9X with MiG-21 with R-73 in dogfight is not wise for F-22 because chances exists for both and F-22 is hundred times more expensive. And stealth does not works always as history showed. Situations will always come that most sci-fi fighters must engage in dogfight.


----------



## michael82 (Jul 27, 2010)

MiG-21 is not wonder, it is just useful and it has some surprising abilities that are not exploited.. 
There is one aphorism: It does not matter how big dog is in the fight, but how big 'fight' is in the dog. Remember Vietnam, Afghanistan.. No hi-tech weapon is good against decisive defender.


----------



## michael82 (Sep 6, 2010)

I wonder is there any recent-fighter's comparison like "Fighter Performance in Practice" book on eBay


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 7, 2010)

Though I admire the Fishbed (a dozen or so were put to a good use in Croatian AF in key battles in 1995), it's an really old horse, needing a replacement ASAP - in all AFs still using it.


----------



## Glider (Sep 7, 2010)

There is a tendency to compare the Mig 21 with fairly modern aircraft such as the F16 or the dominant fighter of the 60's the F4. In numbers the aircraft the Mig 21 it might be worth comparing it against the F104, Mirage III/V and F5A, F5E.

For my money the only one of these that I would prefer is the F5E which is a close match. The F104 was fine in a straight line but don't even think of turning. The Mirage was better but bled energy like mad if it kept manoeuvring for any length of time. The F5A was probably as agile but underpowered and the F5E had all the extras of the various marks of F5A plus extra power and a better endurance/payload.

I left the Lightning out as it would happily take on any of them.


----------



## razor1uk (Sep 7, 2010)

I will read this...some aspects already postwed sound food for thought at least. Laters peoples


----------



## michael82 (Sep 8, 2010)

Glider said:


> There is a tendency to compare the Mig 21 with fairly modern aircraft such as the F16 or the dominant fighter of the 60's the F4. In numbers the aircraft the Mig 21 it might be worth comparing it against the F104, Mirage III/V and F5A, F5E.
> 
> For my money the only one of these that I would prefer is the F5E which is a close match. The F104 was fine in a straight line but don't even think of turning. The Mirage was better but bled energy like mad if it kept manoeuvring for any length of time. The F5A was probably as agile but underpowered and the F5E had all the extras of the various marks of F5A plus extra power and a better endurance/payload.
> 
> I left the Lightning out as it would happily take on any of them.



Fine comment. I reckon 21 is compared to F-4 because they were competitors in war (F-16 was also '82 in Middle East). 
F-5E is without hi speed intercept capability (against say Backfire) as it has SEP 0 at Mach 0.5 slower speed than even 21F, not to mention how underpowered F-5A was. But if I had F-5, I would kept it until economy crisis is over.
How about Lightning? I haven't heard that it was trouble for F-15 during exercises. What about its corner velocity or high alpha handling.


----------



## michael82 (Oct 13, 2010)

It seems that nobody agrees on these a/c abilities, agencies, air forces...not even Israelis 
Has anyone else had a look on it at eBay and would offer a comment ?
Fighter Performance in Practice: F-4 Phantom vs MIG-21 - eBay (item 290477872650 end time Oct-20-10 05:49:04 PDT)
Thanks !!!


----------



## Glider (Oct 13, 2010)

michael82 said:


> It seems that nobody agrees on these a/c abilities, agencies, air forces...not even Israelis
> Has anyone else had a look on it at eBay and would offer a comment ?
> Fighter Performance in Practice: F-4 Phantom vs MIG-21 - eBay (item 290477872650 end time Oct-20-10 05:49:04 PDT)
> Thanks !!!



Did you look at the first posting?


----------



## Matt308 (Oct 13, 2010)

+1


----------

