Mig21 and fighter maneuverability in todays terms

Hey Tango,

Thanx for the Interesting Link:

I remember reading about various COPE INDIA Exercise (maybe the one you reference but I think they were subsequent) and the USAF was very Mum on the Results. Some references to the Results mentioned being "Classified". If the Eagles got Spanked that Bad - I can see Why.

The USAF is Good at what it does; but there are also many Nations out there with Highly Experienced & Highly Skilled Pilots flying Top-Notch Equipment. Where-as the USAF puts emphasis on being Good Officers (sometimes ahead of being Good Pilots); Experience in the Cockpit will trump time in a Staff Job everytime. And Sequestration doesn't help - you want Good Sticks - they gotta Fly !

The article is baloney. Let's just say that it's not the first one to be written with a particular slant, and lacking in other useful information.

Here's a hint: F-15C pilots train for one thing only: Air to air. They train a LOT.

Here's another one: R27s don't get first shots against most AMRAAM platforms. So, what were the simulated weapons of those eagles?

And they most important one: these exercises aren't some sort of friendly match. They are SCRIPTED to attain specific training goals, not to show who's best.

PS: the motion that the mig21 somehow keeps up with modem fighters is also baloney. It doesn't have the fuel, power, space for radar, or other useful characteristics to do it with no matter how much you modernize it. What they don't tell you is that despite all this stuff, the bison depends very heavily on external support to accomplish anything useful in air to air. That is why it's being replaced.

It's like the F-5 variant with the slammers. It's great that it has them, but don't expect to see it cutting down mig-29s or flankers.

I don't think anyone is saying Mig21 is "a match" for modern aircraft.

The article, did you read it? Says that the Mig is very stable at low speeds and high angles of attack, and in this one specific area it can keep up with modern fighters. But we all know that the chances that it would get pass the BVR capabilities of F15c or F16c are very low, to nonexistent.

I think you are missing the point of the article. It is just quite amazing that this old plane can perform so well in ANY aspect against modern types.

Just looking at the dated aero dynamics on the mig21... it doesn't look like it could fly slowly does it? It looks like a missile with a man in it.

The article, did you read it? Says that the Mig is very stable at low speeds and high angles of attack, and in this one specific area it can keep up with modern fighters.

So can a P-51. What's the point? It'll still get waxed in BFM.

I think you are missing the point of the article. It is just quite amazing that this old plane can perform so well in ANY aspect against modern types.

It's neither amazing, nor does it perform 'so well'. It can float around at high AoA and slow speed - ok, cool. So can a whole bunch of other aircraft, both modern and new. Again, it's like saying a cessna has such an amazing aspect in performance against fighters - it turns really tight!

Just looking at the dated aero dynamics on the mig21... it doesn't look like it could fly slowly does it? It looks like a missile with a man in it.

WW2 aircraft have dated aerodynamics too. Sure, they don't look like missiles with a man in'em, certainly - then again actual missiles can pull quite a bit of AoA too. So, where's the surprise?

F-16 was never built for BVR, but it does pretty nicely at it. It's the RADAR that makes the difference, not the airframe.

Don't forget the Rafael vs. F-22 fight. There is video on YT from the Rafael. The argument is always the same "F-22 wasn't built for dogfighting". Well, neither were a great many other aircraft (Mirage III vs. Hawker Hunter - Hunter was built for maneuverability, but got kicked by the Mach 2 interceptor through superior piloting). Never say never.

My point is not to bash the F-22, but to highlight that there is a lot of hype about US aircraft capability, as much as there is bashing of the opposition. Fact is, the USA isn't the only country capable of producing great aircraft. They can also produce some garbage like others, too (F-35 being the latest example). The USA was positively jealous of the British aircraft industry.

Best regards,

Tango.

Why? Did you hear they cancelled all airshow appearances this year in the UK? Do you know why? The VTOL capability destroys runway surfaces - they have to lay special mats for them! I'd call that rubbish. That is forgetting all the other problems with the design (and I'm not talking avionics).

Best regards,

Tango.

That's not a problem with the design. The aircraft was designed to have a certain amount of trust, with a jet engine. That means a certain amount of energy is being blasted out of that tube, and it is enough to damage runways. Nothing strange here. What did you want them to do, make Harrier V2? Harriers suck quite badly compared to F-35's when it comes to doing the same mission - if they could lift the payload that the F-35 does, and have similar fuel capacity and thus range, they'd also be damaging runways.

What other problems with the design? Are you talking about Sprey's BS? The F-35 is a strike fighter, as a strike fighter it'll do quite well.

It'll also outmaneuver MiG-21's ;)

Why? Did you hear they cancelled all airshow appearances this year in the UK? Do you know why? The VTOL capability destroys runway surfaces - they have to lay special mats for them! I'd call that rubbish. That is forgetting all the other problems with the design (and I'm not talking avionics).

 

Best regards,

Tango.

Why? Did you hear they cancelled all airshow appearances this year in the UK? Do you know why? The VTOL capability destroys runway surfaces - they have to lay special mats for them! I'd call that rubbish. That is forgetting all the other problems with the design (and I'm not talking avionics).

 

Best regards,

Tango.

Tango, I was at Farnborough in July and the Harrier was not allowed to hover so as not to damage the runway :music_whistling:

F-16 was never built for BVR, but it does pretty nicely at it.

... against lower capability targets. There's a reason why F-15's and F-22's are around, and it's not all done by F-16's. It's a great fighter, but it has its limits like everything else.

It's the RADAR that makes the difference, not the airframe.

And the F-16 has a piddly little radar :)

Don't forget the Rafael vs. F-22 fight. There is video on YT from the Rafael. The argument is always the same "F-22 wasn't built for dogfighting".

The video where everyone says 'the Rafael got the gun kill' even though the Rafael's pilot never actually called it?

The F-22 was dogfighting quite nicely, even though it was in the worst situation possible (bandit on six). The Raptor pilot lost the merge, and that's all she wrote.

My point is not to bash the F-22, but to highlight that there is a lot of hype about US aircraft capability, as much as there is bashing of the opposition. Fact is, the USA isn't the only country capable of producing great aircraft. They can also produce some garbage like others, too (F-35 being the latest example). The USA was positively jealous of the British aircraft industry.

The British aircraft industry has neither Raptors nor F-35's, and IIRC it didn't even built the tiffies all by itself. Not to bash the British aircraft industry, but they can't do quite as much in-house as the USA does. It's pretty much all about money.

And yes, you're bashing.

The problem with the British aviation industry is that it was destroyed decades ago. Building wings for Eurofighter doesn't count.

"All modern aircraft have four dimensions: span, length, height and politics. TSR2 simply got the first three right." - Sir Sydney Camm

but they can't do quite as much in-house as the USA does. It's pretty much all about money.

Replace "money" with "politics" and I'd agree.

Best regards,

Tango.

"money" "politics"

Both backed by nothing but fresh air.. :smartass:

Hey i'm allowed to be a smart ass today it's my Birthday. :D

Edit: I like Tango:drunk:

That's not a problem with the design. The aircraft was designed to have a certain amount of trust, with a jet engine. That means a certain amount of energy is being blasted out of that tube, and it is enough to damage runways. Nothing strange here. What did you want them to do, make Harrier V2? Harriers suck quite badly compared to F-35's when it comes to doing the same mission - if they could lift the payload that the F-35 does, and have similar fuel capacity and thus range, they'd also be damaging runways.

 

What other problems with the design? Are you talking about Sprey's BS? The F-35 is a strike fighter, as a strike fighter it'll do quite well.

 

It'll also outmaneuver MiG-21's ;)

I'm fairly sure the initial jab at runway damage is also an inaccurate statement.

ALL F-35s were grounded this summer, due to the investigation resulting from an engine fire. Most UK airshows happened this summer. VTOL (more accurately STOVL) had nothing to do with it.

I suspect - though I'd have to check my maths - that the jet efflux velocity and exhaust from F-35's turbofan/lift fan combination is lower than Harrier ever was.

The Yak-141 famously melted the Tarmac at Farnborough, but that was a rather different beastie.

... against lower capability targets. There's a reason why F-15's and F-22's are around, and it's not all done by F-16's. It's a great fighter, but it has its limits like everything else.

 

 

 

And the F-16 has a piddly little radar :)

 

Yet whats the practical difference, same weapons radar still exceeds weapon range and situational awareness relys more on supporting assets and datalinks than an aircrafts own sensors.

Both backed by nothing but fresh air.. :smartass:

Indeed.

Hey i'm allowed to be a smart ass today it's my Birthday. :D

Happy birthday!

Edit: I like Tango:drunk:

Best regards,

Tango.

Yet whats the practical difference, same weapons radar still exceeds weapon range and situational awareness relys more on supporting assets and datalinks than an aircrafts own sensors.

The radar net is only as good as all the radars contributing to it. F-16 vs F-15 avionics wise might not differ too drastically flying near AWACS over friendly skies, but in a deep penetration mission that could change.

The authors suggest that the Mig21 operators missed an opportunity to upgrade their Mig21bis so they can fire R-73 with a helmet sight.

I wonder how many Mig21bis upgraded like this it would take to beat a flight of F15c armed with AIM120c?

4 F15c could carry 16 AIM120c I guess so assuming half hit you would need at least 8 Migs to even get in range of the R-73.

Maybe 12 Mig21bis with helmet and R73 would challenge 4 F15c with AIM120c?

So many variables it hard to calculate.

I have often seen that quote by the "expert" saying Mig21 can beat F35 in a dogfight. I always thought this was total bull shit but now at least I can see why he would say this. Even if it is a simplification to say so.

that depends on what you need to do. The max rate speed of the f-15 is around 370-400kts but the minimum radius turn speed will be much much lower, probably about 230kts. This would mean that the mig if turning slow could potentially take down another fighter, however a real player/pilot would know this and know to keep his speed to take the mig into his realm!

Night of the living Thread.

Maybe he'll get an answer for 2026.

;-)

Why? Did you hear they cancelled all airshow appearances this year in the UK? Do you know why? The VTOL capability destroys runway surfaces - they have to lay special mats for them! I'd call that rubbish. That is forgetting all the other problems with the design (and I'm not talking avionics).

 

Best regards,

Tango.

Funny...because the USAF, Norwegian Royal airforce and Israeli AF have been flying them off runways -and the USMC- off runways and amphibious decks for 2 years without issue. Not to mention I actually saw an F-35B at an airshow last sumMet and distinctly remember the runway NOT busting up. I guess Dozens it nations have purchased so many F-35s that the per-unit cost is lower than a super hornet b/c the F-35 is a POS

Funny...because the USAF, Norwegian Royal airforce and Israeli AF have been flying them off runways -and the USMC- off runways and amphibious decks for 2 years without issue. Not to mention I actually saw an F-35B at an airshow last sumMet and distinctly remember the runway NOT busting up. I guess Dozens it nations have purchased so many F-35s that the per-unit cost is lower than a super hornet b/c the F-35 is a POS

I remember that the mat thing was true as well, i also remember that they had to make the blast deflectors on aircraft carriers out of special materials to handle jet blast because the decks kept melting, i would say mats for vtol aircraft probably isnt too far fetched considering just how much hot gas is flying out the back of the exaust

The mat was for the surface of amphibious ships. They’ve never cancelled airshows for it. Maybe ST instead of vertical. Point was that it was another arbitrary criticism of the F-35