# Is Mig 21 Better For Fight



## angryman (Nov 18, 2020)

Hello everyone I saw all the threads here I just want to know that Is Mig-21 Aircraft & t shirt for men better for fight Because there are many aircraft for fighting still Mig-21 Is better for Fighting tell me about it


----------



## Peter Gunn (Nov 18, 2020)

First, welcome to the forum.

Second, better at what kind of fight and against what as the opposition?

MiG 21 vs ???

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Nov 18, 2020)

I think it is a spammer's entry trying to cheat us.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 18, 2020)



Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Nov 18, 2020)

In a pub brawl I think the MIG 21 might be at a disadvantage. There's no room for manoeuvres. However if the fight spilt out into the car park the MIG will win most times. If a Police F4 Phantom fires a Sparrow missile from the supermarket car park the MIG is toast.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Nov 18, 2020)

fastmongrel said:


> In a pub brawl I think the MIG 21 might be at a disadvantage. There's no room for manoeuvres. However if the fight spilt out into the car park the MIG will win most times. If a Police F4 Phantom fires a Sparrow missile from the supermarket car park the MIG is toast.


Sure, you say that now, but what about the Groundhogs?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 18, 2020)

Peter Gunn said:


> Sure, you say that now, but what about the Groundhogs?



Those are nasty...


----------



## Airframes (Nov 18, 2020)

And almost invulnerable, if fitted with self-sealing nutsacks ..................

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 18, 2020)

The Migroundhog 21 couldn't carry enough nuts to reach the next field.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Nov 18, 2020)

As memo serves MiG-21 was drawing back the air at the front and blowing out at the end greatly. For the reason we called it "a pipe". Also it was said that a brick was of better aerodynamic perfection than the MiG without the flaps lowered down.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Airframes (Nov 18, 2020)

Sucking in the air, and blowing it out the back - sounds like a politician !!

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wurger (Nov 18, 2020)

That's true my friend. The difference is that the MiG 21 exhaust fumes were always seen while the politician's ones aren't. So you never know if you have already been blown or haven't yet.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Airframes (Nov 18, 2020)

Very true !


----------



## angryman (Nov 19, 2020)

Peter Gunn said:


> First, welcome to the forum.
> 
> Second, better at what kind of fight and against what as the opposition?
> 
> MiG 21 vs ???


F-16


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 19, 2020)

angryman said:


> F-16


The F-16 will take it out easily in a fight.
The Israelis had a high kill ratio over Syrian and Egyptin MiG-21s in the various encounters in the middle-east.

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


----------



## Zipper730 (Dec 14, 2020)

Earlier F-4's did have some advantages over the MiG's: It's just the crews weren't as well trained as desired due to the following issues

*Air superiority wasn't considered essential for victory **
At the time (1953-1975) national policy was heavily geared around nuclear war with the USAF being built primarily around this role, with the USN able to go either way. While the USN might not have been happy about playing second-fiddle, in a strange way, it was a gift, as it gave them a versatility, the USAF could not have as easily achieved.
*Nuclear War*
*Limited War*: There were some thoughts of limited conflicts, though they weren't given much prioritization, it appears. These would involve the use of nuclear weapons to clear large formations of enemy forces on battlefields, and conflicts with nations that lacked or had small nuclear arsenals without ICBM's (and probably other ballistic-missiles that could hit US territory). Such a conflict could start out this way, or escalate to this level from a conventional war. Since such weapons are quite destructive, once the decision to use them is made, the enemy probably won't get much of a chance to learn from such mistakes, particularly if a change in tactics accompanies their use. The problem with conventional war is that it could go out of control and escalate to total war.
*Total War:* This was basically the predominant method fo thinking: Everything would be struck in rapid succession with air-bases, radar-sites, and things of that sort paved over before the larger bombers start coming through to destroy the primary targets of choice. Because of the enormous destructive capability of nuclear weapons, you'd only have to get through once (that said, targets were to be hit 2-4 times, probably in rapid succession as an insurance policy), and the war would be over in a day or two. With ICBM's and SLBM's entering the equation (late 1950's to early 1960's): The most heavily defended (and in some cases, unfortunately, the most heavily populated) targets would be taken out by these, and that would occur in 15 minutes or less for SLBM's (owing to the fact that all in our inventory used solid propellant, and had shorter range), and about 55-65 minutes early on, shortening to 24-35 minutes for ICBMs (Early ICBMs used non-storable propellant and had to be raised onto the surface prior to launch; later on, they used storable liquid, or solid propellants and could be launched out of a hardened silo). Because of the fact that strike aircraft (and eventually almost all aircraft) would come in low and fast to slip through air-defenses, there would be little warning of an impending attack, and the absolutely apocalyptic destruction to the country as a whole, and the command and control systems, would mean there'd be no ability to coordinate anything, let alone learn from mistakes made.

*Conventional War*: Whether conventional or total, there's a number of differences involved.
More individual sorties: After all, conventional ordinance isn't as destructive, so more bombs are needed to do the same job.
Different tactics are needed: At the most basic level, the requirements for accuracy is higher and/or more sorties are needed to achieve the desired/required level of destruction.
Lower Acceptable Losses: Since the odds of taking out every target in one fell swoop is not always guaranteed, an offensive measured in months is needed for this purpose, and during the Cold War, conventional conflicts took place in the bigger picture of escalation to nuclear war. One had to have enough equipment to maintain deterrence, or armageddon-causing destruction, while fighting the conventional war. So, losses always had to be kept low. With nuclear war, the enemy would be wiped out quickly with a small number of sorties, in a conventional conflict, you'll see wars last days to weeks if handled superbly, weeks to months if handled well, and if badly mismanaged, years. The enemy gets to learn from each battle, so they can restructure around what you're doing. With Vietnam, as an example, even if we wiped out their airfields, operations could be carried out from China. And they might learn a thing or two about how the attack was carried out and what things to do. For example in Vietnam, they had stuff dispersed everywhere from some negative experiences.
Summary: The longer duration of the conflict often means that slipping under the radar and delivering devastating attacks without increasingly sophisticated and hardened defenses becomes harder as they can learn from their mistakes. This makes the use of fighters useful, particularly if the decision is made to call in large bombers for the job. For low altitude attacks, there was some use for having fighter escort if an enemy can pick you out and chase you down: While the F-105 was extremely quick at low altitude, the F-100's were a bit less, and could use a higher performance fighter for the task.


The rationale for this decision was based around this was that, while nuclear weapons are more expensive round per round, and require more infrastructure to build them, the level of destruction produced was so extreme that a relatively small number of rounds were needed to do the job and that lowered cost. The fact that the US had sort of become the policeman of the free-world -- and that included supplying the militaries of other nations on a routine basis for a long period of time -- proved very costly. Of course it meant that we only had enough conventional ordinance for a few months at moderate intensity (during the Vietnam War, there were numerous cases where arms shortages popped up, and it required tapping into bombs that were WWII vintage or earlier).

*The balance between safety and effective training*
Safety requires doing things that minimize the risk of harm or death to air-crews: Many transsonic and supersonic planes had some unforgiving handling traits which ranged from tricky to diabolical.
Training for combat requires getting pilots used to performing highly aggressive maneuvers that often end up pushing the airplane to the edge of its performance envelope. This kind of flying has an intrinsic danger to it. Where do you draw the line?

DISCLAIMER: Item 1: Is basically based on some information I've heard over the years, some of it's accurate, some of the conclusions derived from it appear to conform to known trends regarding policy decisions, but not all are certain. As a result, don't quote me on any of this -- I might be wrong.

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


----------



## Zipper730 (Jan 15, 2021)

Just to be clear, was their basic premise about the lack of air-superiority being necessary for nuclear war correct: I understand the rationale, but was the rationale rational?



 FLYBOYJ
, 

 GrauGeist
, 
P
 pbehn


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 15, 2021)

Zipper730 said:


> Just to be clear, was their basic premise about the lack of air-superiority being necessary for nuclear war correct: I understand the rationale, but was the rationale rational?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Only if a combatant *thinks* they can launch a first strike and win with no retaliation!!!


----------



## Zipper730 (Jan 15, 2021)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Only if a combatant *thinks* they can launch a first strike and win with no retaliation!!!


So, if the other guy launches first -- then you *do* need it?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 15, 2021)

Zipper730 said:


> So, if the other guy launches first -- then you *do* need it?


If you can't retaliate or do anything about his incoming, then it's pretty obvious!


----------



## Zipper730 (Jan 15, 2021)

I was thinking about something else: Did Soviet / Communist Bloc air-defenses all operate up high, or some operate at moderate to low altitudes? It seems silly but they had a numerical superiority to our aircraft and could take certain liberties we couldn't as a result.

The aircraft we had for nuclear strike were often painted silver colors pre Vietnam: While it seems part of it trailed back to WWII in an effort to increase performance, it also proved a reflective surface for the flash of a nuclear-bomb. That said, such a surface is prone to produce glint, which can sometimes be seen beyond the distance the aircraft can be normally spotted (I remember a case where a pilot in Vietnam was involved in aerial combat and noticed a glint, and realized it was a MiG and turned into it -- up to that point, he had no idea it was there), and if we were flying in the weeds, they might have been able to pick up such a glint, and dive onto it.

While the F-105 was so fast at low altitude that they might not have had much anything to catch it, the F-84, F-86, F3H, and A4D were subsonic aircraft at low altitude, far as I know, and would be catchable. While I'm pretty sure the USAF would probably send the highest performers through first to pave out the way for the less capable performers, and the bombers, there would likely be some fighters up in the air that would be real ticked off their base and stuff was being blown up.


----------

