F4C versus MIG21

[ricardian]

Interested declassified report (http://tinyurl.com/lklybsx) on F4C versus MIG21 in Vietnam. Print quality of PDF not too good unfortunately but mostly readable.

[initials]

Thanks for that ricardian, interesting....some background on Silver Dawn:
The short but interesting life of a plane called rivet top. - Free Online Library (http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+short+but+interesting+life+of+a+plane+called+rivet+top.-a0168510660)

[Mr.Noritake]

Oh dear.

Please skim through this;

http://www.slideshare.net/mishanbgd/fighter-performance-in-practice-f4-phantom-vs-mig21?related=5

and this;

http://www.slideshare.net/mishanbgd/mi-g-21-and-fighter-maneuverability-in-todays-terms?related=4

before we end up in another circular and ultimately pointless argument, because the facts are quite simple to understand.

[initials]

Oh dear...were we arguing?

[Pontius Navigator]

Well Mr N, aka Hanoi Jane, would hope so.

[Mr.Noritake]

Silly boy!

How could you confuse the world-renown Yo-Yo Noritake with that evil woman?

[Pontius Navigator]

HJ is a bloke, just like you.

[Mr.Noritake]

HI is a bloke, just you.

I KNOW that sentence means something, I'm just not sure what.

Translation pls.

[Mr.Noritake]

See? Change a letter, add a word and the whole thing makes sense.

But we're talking about F4C's and Mig 21's here. Do you have a point to make in this discussion?

And while we're on the subject (or, rather, while I am...) why do many here have an irrational belief that if it begins with 'Mig' it's naturally inferior to whatever model of American/Brit/Euro air-machine were its contemporaries?

I know I come from 'the other side of the fence' on this one, but we were never blessed with a intelligence services which under-rated those types we might come up against. If anything, we tended to believe your hype, only to discover later that the reality of your equipment was far less than your brochures promised.

Client state pilots rarely achieved the training levels of their Soviet counterparts yet, in Viet Nam and on occasions in the various Arab - Israeli conflicts, Mig pilots in various versions acquitted themselves admirably against a far better trained adversary equipped with (allegedly) more advanced aircraft.

If you want it in a nutshell, Migs have always had the edge - both in terms of maneuverability and serviceability* - against Western fighters of a similar era.

There. End of discussion. Merry Christmas everyone!


* I would exclude the products of SAAB from this assessment. They design like Russians.

[Haraka]

N.B. the MiG 21 series underwent a long period of development and, as with many other aircraft, the "export" versions weren't necessarily representative of the serving home product..
In conversations with MiG 21 and Ex- MiG 21 pilots in the 80's , I found this point was often made.

"bis" wasn't just a cosmetic appellation :)

[Pontius Navigator]

Mr N, HJ was a compatriot of yours and noted for near trolling and was banned, reprieved and banned again.

[melmothtw]

Trolling? HJ was hilarious, and I'm glad he's back.

[Dominator2]

Mr Noritake,

Remember that the early Migs would have been nothing if the British Government had not given the Soviets our jet angine technology.
Even up to recent years the Russian Avaition Industry has lagged behind with the latest computer technology. However, once they GAIN the information they are quick to put it to good use.
The Western Airforces used to laugh at those who only achieved 150 hrs a year and did much with simulation. How times have changed.
There is still no doubt in my mind that in 1970 - 1982 the Phantom FGR2 was the most capable fighter aircraft in the Central Region.

[Mr.Noritake]

Mr Navigator, if what you say is true, I'm sure this 'Hanoi Jane' character merely proposed a perspective at variance with that acceptable to the majority. Reason enough, I'm sure, to be dismissed in disgrace.

After all, pointing out that long cherished opinions may be naught but the befuddled thinking of rapidly atrophying minds is a little... well... rude.

I'm glad he's gone. However, I shall endeavour to carry his torch albeit in a kinder and more compassionate manner.

Now, may we return to the Mig 21 which would have spanked the bottom of your Vulcan like the naughty uninvited guest it would have been?

[Mr.Noritake]

Indeed, Dominator2. I suspect the Mig 15 might not have been the pain in the ass it became had it not been for the kindness of the British Government of the day.

I'm comforted to hear you feel the FGR 2 represented the 'most capable fighter aircraft in the Central Region'. As my seasonal gift to you I shan't trouble you with evidence to the contrary.

[Pontius Navigator]

Mr N, your intelligence services were not alone in over estimating opposition hardware. If they assessed the opposition was wholly inferior then the military case for upgrades and new designs would be weakened.

Remember the Mig 15 in its day was a world beater. The F4 was superior to the Mig simply because it out classed it with missiles, endurance, refuelling, performance, equipment and two crew.

In a 1v1 in a merge advantages dropped to fuel and a second pair of eyes.

A contemporary US int report said "one 360 deg orbit thrown sufficiently far out is sufficient to abort the average GCI."

[Mr.Noritake]

If we're talking about the heyday of the F4 / Mig 21 then we have enough contemporary evidence to be slightly more transparent than your post suggests.

The F4 rarely flew with all its toys in working order, its missiles were quite fearsome - when they worked, which wasn't often, and its superior endurance wasn't really relevant when its opponent could disengage with minimal risk when the fuel light blinked. However I'll happily admit that a second pair of eyes in the cockpit in that era could be a game-changer.

The relative performance of each aircraft in Viet Nam speaks for itself, with the caveat that the statistics presented by both sides still can't be trusted. It suited the Vietnamese to claim an air-to-air victory when ground fire or SAM's may have accomplished the dirty deed, and it suited the Americans to claim their losses weren't due to an 'obsolete' aircraft flown by a tiny oriental, but to some random peasant with a lucky shot or a Soviet controlled SAM site.

Mr Navigator, you're not a silly chap. You know far more than you discuss here regarding the relative merits of '70's, '80's and '90's Soviet and Western aircraft and supporting defensive / offensive systems. So why do you tease me so?

Just admit it. The Mig 21 gave you nightmares. Probably still does.

[Pontius Navigator]

Mr N, wrong opponent.

The Mig 21 was generally assigned to the Tactical Air Armies, all 4,000 of them

Our main opposition was the Fishpot and later Flaggon although our assessment was that the greatest threat came from the Firebar. There we care talking of an aircraft in the same class as the Sea Vixen and to some extent F4.

[con-pilot]

No, no, Mr. N is 100 percent correct. That is why anytime western air forces came up against Migs, the Migs always had total air superiority over the western air forces.

I don't think that an F-15 as ever shot down a Mig, not even a Mig 15.

[Mr.Noritake]

OK456:

Because hitting the 'shift' key mid-or-end-word upsets my equilibrium.

[Mr.Noritake]

con-pilot:

I wondered when the cavalry would ride to the rescue... :-)

[MPN11]

Interesting. There was/is a regular contributor on a British Army website from the 'other side' ... he was actually interesting, informative and didn't stir things for the sake of it. Actually quite a good chap.

[Mr.Noritake]

MPN11

That's certainly interesting.

[Pontius Navigator]

Mr N, not talking now?

[Mr.Noritake]

PN:

I suspect you'd have met more Mig 21's than anticipated.

I know very little of the European theatre of '70's - '90's so I shall defer to your greater experience in the area. Surprised about the Yak 28 though. I never heard anything positive about it, seemed to have a reputation as a crew-killer.

And I'm eating my dinner. Give me a break, huh?

[Pontius Navigator]

Mr N, expected to operate behind the Fishbeds, they were not assigned to the IAPVOStrany. The Yak had a superior radar, until we got hold of a copy, as it was a 2-seater. The Foxhound was also a significant threat but tended to be deployed to counter SAC rather than us.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Air_Defence_Forces

[Mr.Noritake]

OMG? You STOLE a radar that wasn't yours? How damned underhand!

And to think, I totally supported all those who said the Chinese stealing the F 35 'secrets' wasn't the way to play the game...

BTW, did you know that Continental Europeans don't have a word in their language for 'fair play'? Only the Brits and the Chinese have one. We should be friends, we think the same way.

[Pontius Navigator]

We didn't steal it, they delivered it, a bit like the USMC delivering an AWG 10 to the NVA.

[West Coast]

The F4 rarely flew with all its toys in working order, its missiles were quite fearsome - when they worked, which wasn't often, and its superior endurance wasn't really relevant when its opponent could disengage with minimal risk when the fuel light blinked. However I'll happily admit that a second pair of eyes in the cockpit in that era could be a game-changer.

Jane

You have a habit of offering opinion. Offer up substantiated, verifiable facts if you want to sway opinion. Your posting are better matched to a Vietnamese Tom Clancy style book than to pprune.

[MPN11]

Of course, regardless of how 'amusing' Mr Nortaki's conversations are, its also a very 'amusing' fishing expedition from some perspectives.

But then the grown-ups here already know that.


I got rid of all my Noritake china years ago. My first wife took it all.

[pr00ne]

Mr.Noritake,

My job in the early 70's, if the balloon had gone up was, flying an RAF FGR2, to drop a bucket of US supplied instant sunshine on a SAM site in East Germany.

We knew exactly how many Mig 21's we would have faced, and we knew exactly where they were. They would not have stopped us...

[Mr.Noritake]

I'm hot for you too, West Coast.

Here's a plan; instead of expecting me to offer proof of my outrageous claims, how's about you offering an independent analysis which disproves anything I've suggested regarding the '60's and '70's era F 4?

Set to it, m'boy!

[Pontius Navigator]

MPN 11, still have ours and even found a source fir replacements.

[Mr.Noritake]

prOOne:

*sigh*

[West Coast]

Jane

Lemme see, you want me to try and prove your case for you when you offer up opinion as fact. Yeah...no.

You can set off on your own unverifiable goose chase. Your post might as well not exist as it's opinion based only. And that opinion is that of a defense writer and not omeone with first hand knowledge.

[Pontius Navigator]

Looking at Wiki, there is an impressive number of kills attributed to the Mig.

Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mig_21)

I haven't sought comparable numbers for the counter however.

[Mr.Noritake]

West Coast:

I suspect you already realise how little I care for your opinion. Had you, at any stage in our various encounters, displayed evidence of an open enquiring mind on the subject(s) under discussion I might feel differently. But you haven't, so I don't.

I'm not here to persuade you, nor do I expect to move you one millimetre from your entrenched beliefs. I'm here to express an opinion; an opinion based in part on personal experience and in part of the experiences of those with whom I've been privileged to serve.

You have your stance. I respect that. But I see no need for us to continue to engage in meaningless and pointless disputes. We have nothing to learn from each other. Kindly add me your 'ignore' list.

Merry Christmas.

[RAFEngO74to09]

According to this source: The F-4C Phantom II (http://www.pacificaviationmuseum.org/pearl-harbor-blog/the-f-4c-phantom-ii)

F-4 (all models) kills during the Vietnam War: 164.5
F-4 Kill Ratio - Vietnam: 2:1
F-4 kills (all models to date): 280

[bcgallacher]

Con Pilot - F15s had confirmed kills against Mig 21,23,25 and 29 in the 1991 gulf war.

[Mr.Noritake]

I seriously doubt there will ever exist, this side of eternity, an accurate and verifiable list of F4 or Mig 21 'kills' in any confrontation. Too many vested interests at play.

[Mr.Noritake]

Con Pilot was being mischievous when he introduced the F 15 into the discussion.

He's a naughty scamp.

[Pontius Navigator]

Mr N, looking at the Mig 21 in wiki there is no doubt it is a fine fighter. Objectively it seems to me the losses appear to be 2:1 so clearly number count.

[bike2lv]

I wondered where Hanoi Jane went- the Pprune one I mean. He/ Noritake should post more often- not often someone says nice things about the GIBS (guy in back seat). Nice that some posters have said an extra pair of eyes, rather than another 200 pds of fuel, is desirable.:ok::D:)
Also i don't see how discussing relative merits of 50 year old aircraft could be considered trolling... I'll go back under my bridge now, i hear billy-goats coming. :E

[Mr.Noritake]

Mr Navigator,

The day I come to rely on Wiki for anything other than a few hours mindless entertainment is the day I'll believe the F 35 will prove to be the Saviour of the West.

Without getting into endless (but fun) discussions on the matter, I can only say that I've yet to meet a qualified Mig 21 pilot of a certain generation who didn't firmly believe his aircraft had the beating of anything he was likely to meet in the pretty blue skies.

Does that count for anything? Personally, I believe it does, 'cos I've met quite a few F 4 aviators who didn't have the same level of confidence in their machines.

[West Coast]

Had you, at any stage in our various encounters, displayed evidence of an open enquiring mind on the subject(s) under discussion I might feel differently.

Jane

I base and change my viewpoints on verifiable data and opinion of those with first hand knowledge. Opinions of a Vietnamese defense journal writer don't fall into either of those categories. Amusing yes, potentially true, yes, verified, no.

You surely wouldn't offer up an opinion on the state of the F-4 kit in Vietnam minus fact, would you?

Ps, I do miss your rants regarding Chinese expansionism. Have they or the Vietnamese govt muzzled you?

[West Coast]

I can only say that I've yet to meet a qualified Mig 21 pilot of a certain generation who didn't firmly believe his aircraft had the beating of anything he was likely to meet in the pretty blue skies.

Did you talk with the ones who got shot down?

[Courtney Mil]

The 2:1 kill ratio is about right for that conflict. However, it's hardly a meaningful metric for comparing two aircraft. I'm sure most here will understand that, but just in case... ...the home team has GCI, closely based replacements, operating well inside their range and aren't facing other threats or trying to execute missions other than air-to-air. There was also a significant RoE issue. So, nice numbers, but the wrong vehicle for comparison.

You can do the sums yourself if you so chose, but in round figures the overall F4 kill ratio is around 3:1 (306:106), MiG21's is around 1:2 (240:501). Again all in different conflicts so no more or less meaningful than the earlier comparison.

And there are lots more factors involved in assessing combat effectiveness that just going up head-to-head. As we all know.

[Pontius Navigator]

Mr N, I am a contributor.

As for belief, young men are invincible. We had every confidence of slipping past the picket ship, avoiding a pair of SA 3 batteries 4.6 Miles apart, getting lost in the Pripet marshes before defeating the SA2/3 and ADA at our target before exiting safely at high level to land safely post-mission.

Just like your Mig driver in fact.

That B52 could survive at height in a denser SAM environment in a conventional war suggests our chances in a nuclear holocaust were not too bad .

[Mr.Noritake]

West Coast:

Do you think you get to be a 'Vietnamese Defence journal writer' without having done some air defending?

Most F 4 kit I saw was in bits.

Ironically, PPRuNe muzzled me :-)

[Mr.Noritake]

Did you talk with the ones who got shot down?

Some. Your point?

[West Coast]

Jane

Were you then a MiG21 pilot who flew the aircraft against US aircraft in battle?

A simple yes or no will suffice. It's easy to verify against your previous postings under your old account.

[Mr.Noritake]

West Coast:

No. I'm a young puppy :-)

[RetiredF4]

I'm not going to participate in your exchange of oppinions on this matter, as i'm biased by having flown the F4 for more than 3.000 hours. I have no expierience in real combat though.

But it was a question we as new pilots were interested as well. I started training in the F4-E/F 1977, some of the instructor pilots had first hand combat expierience from Nam. I was looking for further information and bought the book "aces aerial victories, the United States Air Force in Southeast Asia 1965-1973". It is a collection of first hand accounts by Air Force fighter crews who flew combat missions over North Vietnam between 1965-1973. Further References are from "The Albert F.Simpson Historical Research Center Air University" and "Office of Air Force History Headquarters USAF"

I found it online as pdf file, I recommend to read it to assist in your discussion.

http://www.afhso.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-100921-010.pdf

[West Coast]

Then your offering opinion only. That's fine, your right (I think it's a right in Vietnam) to do so.

Problem is, aviation folks like facts not a fanciful opinion of a defense journal writer.

[Mach Two]

And, Noritake, what air defending have you done? I only ask because your words here suggest to me that you are more informed by reading and political influence than by experience.

[dagenham]

I think we have to thank Gail peck for a lot of the familiarity with the mig family. Many of our brethren have been baptised and able to spread the knowledge with first hand experience.

The 21 is a highly capable fighter and should not be underestimated, the slow handling ability needs to be seen to be believed.... I wonder if our red star friends had the benefit of f4s in the deserts of Russia to play with the outcome would have been reversed.

If the a4 can beat tomcats and f18s why not the 21 against the f15?

[Pontius Navigator]

As CM points out, ratios of 3:1 or 1:2 (simply 1.5:1) in themselves are meaningless unless you strip out red on red, G-A, and other aircraft kills.

What remains however is that more Mugs got shot down so you need greater numbers to achieve parity and can attribute the imbalance to sophistication. Simple and reliable may get airborne but then becomes a target.

[iRaven]

When you look at the FISHBED pilot claims in North Vietnam you see 'aces' like Nguyễn Hồng Nh claiming AQM-34 Firebees in their count. Maybe the RAF does have some recent kills then with the Jindivik in Cardigan Bay? :p

iRaven

[Courtney Mil]

why not the 21 against the f15?

Really? I think the simple answer is technology. Put the two airframes head-to-head on equal terms and the Eagle should detect, identify, commit and kill the 21 pre-merge. Unless you wish to set different criteria to measure this.

[dagenham]

Agreed... But how often do the roe permit this.....

There are not many conflicts where the politicos have the balls to allow free use of bvr? In an ecm environment the 21 as hard to spot as an f5....

In addition you would be surprised at how many f15s and 16 lost to the 21 at tonopah on the first two to three engagements.

[Mr.Noritake]

West Coast, M2, et al:

Sorry, I'm not deliberately being obtuse by avoiding answering all your requests for 'proof', but it doesn't take a great leap of imagination to realise I can't be as straightforward as I would like in our conversations.

I would *love* to dazzle you with my CV. However, that momentary pleasure would cause me more grief than you could possibly imagine.

If you wish to write me off as someone with no air defender experience, that's your prerogative. If you doubt my words, ditto. If you wish to view me as a 16-year-old locked in his bedroom spouting forth opinions he's read in books, knock yourselves out. I care little.

I post. You read (if you wish). I reply. And there it ends. 'k?

[West Coast]

Jane

You've gone to great length to address the concerns of those who have questioned you, so forgive me if I think you do care.

Hiding from the boogeyman (Vietnamese gov?) doesn't explain your lack of nuance of the subject simply from what you've already posted. No CV is needed. I never flew pointy ones and yet I'm able to poke holes in your argument let alone the likes of CM and others here who have and raised concerns as to the veracity and or accuracy of your claims.

I agree on your ROE in your final paragraph. I however can't elevate your posts beyond opinion minus some compelling data to support your claims.

[Mach Two]

I'm sure that's quite handy, Noritake. How strange to pitch up here to talk about your past experience and then not be able to tell us what that is. Maybe we should just accept your opinions as facts without any facts. Anyway.

CMil, I see your point about fighter comparison. I would go further and say that a true comparison might also need to include assessment of capability without direct interaction. The sum of a battle goes way beyond individual contacts.

[Al R]

Mister Noritake;

I post. You read (if you wish). I reply. And there it ends. 'k?

Just so I know, do you have the power to respond to what we read and if we don't wish to read, will you still be able to answer yourself anyway?

[O-P]

Mr Noritake,

Do you find it strange that you currently reside in a country that allows 'Free Speech', yet, you free constrained in expressing your knowledge, professional history and opinions because the masters back home are watching you?

Perhaps you would be dragged back from 'dreary old England' and given your own private room and a stick of bamboo shoved up your......:mad:.

Is there a pprune in Viet Nam?

[Vitesse]

This thread is exactly the same way as on flight sim forums I read, except that some here have been there and done it!

This video shows off a recently released MiG-21 Bis sim from an airline pilot's perspective. NFI, btw.

http://youtu.be/Gn3D8SuUp7Y

[Ewan Whosearmy]

Ricardian

Good link, thanks.

[Ewan Whosearmy]

As one poster has already alluded to, there was an entire programme dedicated to pitting the MiG-21 (Fishbed C/E and other early models, including Shenyang J-7s) against every tactical fighter in the US arsenal. It was called CONSTANT PEG and it demonstrated without doubt that in the right hands, and with the 'right' RoE in force, the MiG-21 could defeat much more modern and 'capable' fighters.

Of note is that CP was preceded and followed by other exploitation programmes that did the same thing but as one-offs (HAVE DOUGHNUT and HAVE COAT are examples).

So, why not pick up a book or two, then come back and debate the salient points if you don't agree with them? It'll be much more interesting the constant bickering and quibbling in evidence on this thread!

Red Eagles: America's Secret MiGs (General Aviation): Steve Davies: 9781846039706: Amazon.com: Books

America's Secret MiG Squadron: The Red Eagles of Project CONSTANT PEG (General Aviation): Gaillard R. Peck Jr.: 9781849089760: Amazon.com: Books

[Mr.Noritake]

You've gone to great length to address the concerns of those who have questioned you, so forgive me if I think you do care.

One post, eleven sentences. Not a huge effort. More an effort to be polite as you seem to have adopted a less confrontational approach of late.

Hiding from the boogeyman (Vietnamese gov?) doesn't explain your lack of nuance of the subject

Getting into verifiable details on an open forum would be silly. As I'm sure you're aware, our tactics differed (and still do) from yours. As you're fond of saying on PPRuNe, those who need to know the detail know the detail. Those who don't...

Besides, we're best buddies with you people now. You want to use us as a buffer in the South China Sea (though we're not allowed to call it that any more) and elsewhere. Fat chance.

Maybe we should just accept your opinions as facts without any facts.

Yes, M2, maybe you should.

...will you still be able to answer yourself anyway?

Answering questions of interest to no one but myself is my favourite way of passing a few hours of my day.

Oh, don't fret people, I'll be back in the land of bamboo sticks up the **** in a few months. A much more interesting question for you to pose would have been, 'WTF are you doing in the UK?'

What I am happy to say openly is that I've flown the F 5 and, due to the kindness of others, have flown back seat in a rather decrepit F 4 and was due to fly back then front seat in an F 15 until someone important decided it would be A Very Bad Idea, though I did get a good cockpit briefing and look-see around the beast.

Opinions (without verifiable facts)? F 4 looked and flew like a truck. F 15 looked utterly sublime. You should be very pleased with yourselves. F 5 is probably the nicest plane I've ever flown. Everything just works, beautifully. Easy to maintain, beautifully but simply constructed, roomy cockpit, no vices I could find. It impressed our Russian masters greatly, and I can understand why.

See? I can say nice things about American aircraft and there's no need to go into specifics for me to do so. But the F 4? I have no idea why it holds such a place of reverence in American hearts. I simply have to accept that it does, that you'll never see it any other way, and move on.

Now, I have some Christmas shopping to undertake in the land of the free. I need to obtain the latest copy of a Mig Flight sim in case you ask me difficult questions and purchase some M&S Luxury Mince Pies and Brandy Butter - you can't get these things in HCMC at this time of year :-)

[melmothtw]

Well, I'm probably in a club of one here, but welcome back Mr Noritake. This forum is a brighter and more interesting place for your presence.

Hope you get to enjoy the rest of your stay in the UK, and look forward to reading more of your insights over the coming days...

[GreenKnight121]

As one poster has already alluded to, there was an entire programme dedicated to pitting the MiG-21 (Fishbed C/E and other early models, including Shenyang J-7s) against every tactical fighter in the US arsenal. It was called CONSTANT PEG and it demonstrated without doubt that in the right hands, and with the 'right' RoE in force, the MiG-21 could defeat much more modern and 'capable' fighters.

Yes - with the 'right' RoE in force a P-51 could beat a F-22 consistently.

They key is to try the aircraft when the only ROE is "use everything you have in and know about both aircraft to win" and see what happens.

Yes, the MiG-21 was a d@mned good fighter - when allowed to use its strengths and not forced into a situation where its weaknesses came into play. It was better than the F-104 and would I would have loved to see it stand toe-to-toe with a F-5E (the 1972 version, not a modernized later one).

However, the reality is that once USAF and USN pilots got some real-world-based air combat maneuvering training, losses of F-4s to MiGs of all sorts dropped drastically in Vietnam - many of the actual (as opposed to claimed) air-air kills of F-4s by MiGs in Vietnam were relatively early on in the conflict, while most of the actual F-4 air-air kills of MiGs were later.


I note that Mr. Noritake's whole "thesis" is about the F-4C vs MiG-21... the F-4D was better, and the F-4E far better than either - as were the USN/USMC's F-4Js/Ns/Ss over the F-4B used in Vietnam.

Both the F-4C/D and the F-4B were poor maneuvering aircraft, with unreliable radars - if they were all the F-4 had been, then I would have sympathy with Mr. N's views.

The USAF's F-5Es were much more maneuverable than the C/Ds (wing slats, etc), the smokeless engines reduced detection distance greatly, and the internal gun was a great improvement as well. Once the radar was fixed low-flying enemy aircraft were easy targets.

I'd really love to see an F-4S against any model of MiG-21 - the 2-position wing slats combined with the slotted stabilators to greatly improve maneuverability, smokeless engines were added, and the radar was superb.


The F-4 was a great aircraft because it could do so many things very well - it was the first really multi-role fighter/strike aircraft in the western world.

[Thud105]

I've always believed that the IAF's F-4's did OK against the various Arab-operated MiG-21s Jane - is that not the case?

[Mr.Noritake]

Of course they did Thud105 (an unfortunate user name in this discussion, n'est-ce pas?) but you're comparing apples with penguins, and I'm talking about the pilots, not the planes.

The IAF of that era had perhaps the best fighter pilot training and development program known to man, whereas the Arab nations had... well... Arabic attitudes towards training and combat.

There was only ever going to be one winner, and it had nothing to do with the aircraft involved.

[Mr.Noritake]

I realise you weren't replying to me GreenKnight121, so I'll just sit quietly over here in my corner rolling my eyes...

[Mr.Noritake]

melmothtw:

I think I shall regard you as my British brother. Someone who understands when I'm being serious and when I'm being trivial, and finds something interesting or amusing in both.

Thank you for your kind words. Although I'm not here for praise, when it arrives unexpectedly it's appreciated.

[Courtney Mil]

Mr N, I think you mean "n'est-ce pas." Otherwise it doesn't make sense.

[Mr.Noritake]

Thank you for the correction, Courtney. I stumble with the language of our former masters :-(

[Lonewolf_50]

Since the F-4 was built as an interceptor, and some of this discussion gets into the pros and cons of a turning dog fight, it is interesting to see why people take the positions they do. My only data points on dog fighting of this era is from USN and USMC pilots who were 'Nam experienced, and whose general approach was to use to one's energy advantage and NOT get into an energy bleeding turning fight: going vertical was a way to get the advantage. (Best briefing I saw on that was by a Major named George Stuart, call sign "Smut." )

A signal advantage of the MiG-21 and F-5E (an aggressor used in fighter training with a similar performance envelope to MiG-21) in a turning fight was small visual signature: as Manfred von Richtoffen might point out, who sees the other first has an edge in a dog fight.

It's nearly 50 years later and the BVR RoE has been used ... how often? :confused: I'd need to dig up some notes from a few years ago, but IIRC the IAF used that sort of RoE during the turkey shoot over the Bekaa Valley.

Question for thought: at what point will the "Western" RoE permit the use of all of the very expensive kit that makes a BVR engagement an air-to-air advantage?
A question worth asking, but one we can't answer here.

[Haraka]

F-5E (an aggressor used in fighter training with a similar performance envelope to MiG-21)

I've heard late mark MiG 21 pilots argue to the contrary to that one in crew-room chat (But mine is not a qualified opinion) .

[HAS59]

This is a very interesting chat but one which is unlikely to end in any conclusion. The F-4C has been mentioned by specific version but no so the MiG-21 so it's all very open ended, maybe deliberately so.
I'll chip in my unqualified 'four peneths' worth.
No fighter aircraft ever shot down another one. No bomber ever bombed a target. The people in the aircraft did, using the aircraft and its systems to their best advantage.
In roughly equal aircraft the better pilot will often have the edge. Aspects such as motivation, determination, health, fitness and training all have as much to bring to the combat than simply the piece of metal that they are flying and how fast it can turn.

[Biggus]

It's a while since I read it, but I seem to remember that this book gives a very good, "warts and all" perspective on operating the F-4 (albeit without any combat experience):

Hardback:

F4 Phantom: A Pilot's Story: Amazon.co.uk: Robert Prest: 9780304303113: Books


Paperback:

F-4 Phantom: A Pilot's Story: Amazon.co.uk: Robert Prest: 9780552116152: Books


It's also not written by an American, so there's no danger of being accused of having national bias.

[RetiredF4]

Mr. Noritake
What I am happy to say openly is that I've flown the F 5 and, due to the kindness of others, have flown back seat in a rather decrepit F 4 and was due to fly back then front seat in an F 15 until someone important decided it would be A Very Bad Idea, though I did get a good cockpit briefing and look-see around the beast.

I tried to keep out if the argument, but with the above statement you have my attention.

You judge the F4 on your expierience from just one passenger flight, and that holds no value at all. I've flown the T-38 and had one ride in the Netherlands NF-5, and felt not much difference in handling. A beauty to fly, but not much excess thrust with two tanks and two Winders. They told us the MIG 21 of that time would perform in a similar way, i have no proof though. I had one ride in the F15 about 30 years ago, and the fuel consumption in low level was awful. My planning of the routing with 420 kts groundspeed to visit some Bavarian Castles enroute went down the drain within 30 minutes after takeoff.

But i would neither aircraft judge by these single flights. I could judge them by having flown against a variety of fighter aircraft ( most more advanced than our F-4) in dissimilar air combat training, but due to the adherence of established ROE's my point of view might not be the correct one. But I never went in one of those engagements with the knowledge to have no chance to win the fight. Speed is life, and we could generate a lot of it with those engines.

I spent all my flying life in F-4 aircraft, and it looked like a flying brick, but in the hands of an expierienced crew (yes, i used my tailgunners to the max extent possible) this aircraft could do more than it looked like from the outside. We instructors were not able to make a crew combat ready in a few flights, but at the end of the training program the handling of the jet in all sorts of situations to its most advantage was no problem at all.

Your POV after one flight in it is pointless.

[Mr.Noritake]

RetiredF4:

I can't find myself disagreeing with a word you've written, though I have tried.

Regretfully, it would be unwise for me to say more than I've already offered. But my opinion is based on considerable personal experience, and that experience has relevance to the subject under discussion.

As I noted elsewhere, you may believe whatever you wish. I could be an outstandingly competent troll, or I could be an outstandingly fortunate pilot. You could be a tubby ex-airframe fitter with a vivid imagination, or you could be a many-thousand-hour F 4 pilot who can make it dance like Alessandra Ferri. We'll never know for sure, will we?

On the assumption that you actually were an F 4 instructor in the GAF, did you have the opportunity to fly in / against the ex-East German Mig 29's? If you did, penny for your thoughts?

[Bevo]

Since I have first-hand knowledge of flying both the MiG-21 and F-7M, as well as lot of time in the various models of the F-4, I would like to add a couple of comments. The MiG-21/F-7M was relatively simple aircraft that were easy to fly. The biggest issue with the MiG-21 is its lack of on-board fuel. If an F-4 and MiG-21 were equally distant from their respective basses, the F-4 could simply hold off the MiG until it ran out of fuel. The other issue of course was the lack of a real radar in the MiG-21.

Fighter pilots never, ever want to allow themselves to get low and slow...that is a death sentence. As one gains experience one learns to stay as fast and use the vertical. I would also like to note that the MiG-21 had a very high induced drag with its delta wing and so it slowed down in a hard turning fight. The MiG was then slow to accelerate out of that condition. In an F-4 you could in fact turn with a MiG-21 below 250 kts by using approach flaps (1/2 flaps). In that condition you could actually turn in front of the MiG-21 if you were above him since he could not bring his nose up to track you. This was not on the approved list of F-4 maneuvers but was effective. And here I am talking about the MiG-21Fishbed C/E and the really nice and light F-7M.

Another item to consider, since crew training has been raised, is that during my combat tour in 1971-72 at least on quarter of the F-4 pilots in my squadron had come from non-fighter aircraft just prior to their tour. This was because of the USAF policy of a single one year tour and then rotation. In addition, the USAF at that time said that any pilot having gone through pilot training could fly any aircraft. That of course is true; they could fly the aircraft but not necessarily proficiently perform the mission. It took more than a three month “conversion course” for pilot to become functioning fighter pilot rather than the pilot of a fighter.

During the Vietnam war had the Vietnamese had the F-4 and the US had MiG-21 I believe the result would have been interesting. The Vietnamese would not have been able to get many aircraft in the air and the US would not have been able to get many aircraft to the combat area because of range issues. Plus the number of booms dropped by the US would have been drastically reduced.


Lonewolf_50 - It's nearly 50 years later and the BVR RoE has been used ... how often? During Desert Storm the RoE required two separate forms of on-board indetification, or a confirmation from AWACS. At that time the F-15 was the only aircraft that had two on-board systems capable of performing ID and were allowed to use those systems for BVR shots.

[MPN11]

And so this thread creeps ever nearer to current tactics, ROE and capabilities. :=

Mr. Noritake must be rubbing his hands with glee ... "What next will they reveal if I goad them enough?"

[Mr.Noritake]

'since he could not bring his nose up to track you.'

Utter, compete, almost criminal, nonsense.

[RetiredF4]

Mr. Noritake
On the assumption that you actually were an F 4 instructor in the GAF, did you have the opportunity to fly in / against the ex-East German Mig 29's? If you did, penny for your thoughts?

No, I have not, as my time in the GAF was already ending when the MIG 29 was doing more than just a few demo flights with the GAF. But I would have loved to fly it, and I talked to pilots who flew it for some years. The turning performance was described as awfull, the time on station due to fuel consumption as not adequate. The GAF sold their MIG 29 to Poland and other states and kept their F-4F until last year, when JG71 Richthofen retired them with a "Phantom Farewell" display. I was honoured to take part in this ceremony as a guest of my former fighter wing. Bevo describes a lot of valid points, all of them hold value and there would be others to be considered. I could add to those, and others could too.

In the first days after the Berlin wall came down our wing got an unanounced visit of MIG 21 pilots from the former NVA. They stood at our door and asked for some insight in our daily flying training and told us about heir way of training and flying. We had nothing to hide. To make the story short, it was obvious that their standardized training differed big time from our daily flying ops. They were only allowed to do what they were trained for, what they had practiced on the ground. They were dependent on good weather and were not trained to make own judgement calls. They could not believe that our air task orders arrived in the squadron and two hours later the jets were on its way. On this day we ordered two jets to fly out and back to Aviano in Italy to pick up the things in need for the welcome party in the evening (steaks, shrimps, lobster, you name it). When we landed and unloaded our shopping items, they still did not believe that we had been away. They lived and trained in a different world.

Their training might habe been good for standard situations, but normally there are none in combat.

It is not the machine which decides a fight or a battle, its the combination of machine, men, their training and command.

[Mr.Noritake]

RetiredF4:

Your first post made complete sense. Your second... well... less so.

Enjoy your retirement.

[West Coast]

Jane

If you can't substantiate then its best to remain quiet, maybe time to return to lurker status before you run yourself off from pprune again like you did under the jane handle.

[Mr.Noritake]

West Coast:

And you were being so nice. :-(

I didn't 'run myself off PPRuNe'. Some contributors didn't appreciate being told they were wrong. I upset some people of influence, that's all. **** happens.

Would you like me to offer my name plus a whole load of spurious data relating to my service in (insert your air force of choice) flying (insert your aircraft of choice) which you couldn't possibly verify without having access to facilities that I seriously doubt any of you currently have access to?

What would be the point? I can't verify that a single one of you are who you claim to be. That's the nature of the internet.

Can't cope? Then may I politely suggest that you occupy your time going through the reading list recommended in this thread.

[Courtney Mil]

I agree with West Coast entirely. N, you persistently insist that we all take your credentials as given. You have made a lot of claims about various comparisons and deride folk if you think they may not beleive you. Now that a couple of people (that are well known here) have been able to offer experiences that rather deflate your claims, all you can do is to make derisory comments.

To Bevo describing when the MiG was slow:

Utter, compete, almost criminal, nonsense.

To RetiredF4:


Your first post made complete sense. Your second... well... less so.

Enjoy your retirement.

Not only have you now fallen from what appeared to be a partly reasonable discussion, albeit without much backup, you are now engaging in being rather disrespectful to people that have simply made well explained and valid points.

Please don't go back to your old ways. It's not needed.

EDIT TO ADD: you are wrong about verification of identities. Remember that many of us know each other and understand exactly who we're conversing with here.

[Mr.Noritake]

Courtney:

You will have (had) access to data relating to the low speed AoA performance of most models of the Mig 21, ditto most versions of the F 4. Read it, then tell me I'm wrong.

For his own (probably very sound) reasons, Bevo chooses to profess otherwise.

As for RetiredF4; his second post made reference to a number of observations with which I take variance but which I don't care to dispute here, hence the comment that his second post did not, to me, make complete sense. I wished him a happy retirement. I see nothing disrespectful in my response.

YOU may be able to identify your chums. I can't. And my chums don't post here, ergo my comments regarding verification.

[Courtney Mil]

And therein lies the problem.

Yes I have studied the data and they pretty well support the points raised by many here.

Bevo's point was about low speed nose authority was well made and you would need to ask him for the exact conditions he was describing before you could rightfully dismiss it as "almost criminal nonsense."

RetiredF4's statement made good sense. Just because you didn't like it...

his second post made reference to a number of observations with which I take variance but which I don't care to dispute here

...does not mean it didn't make sense.

Apart from two links to a bunch of slides, you haven't really done anything in this thread other than argue and attempt to discredit others' statements. You have offered no facts and when challenged to do so, you hide behind some fictitious threat to your life, or whatever it is. If you came here to discuss the F4C vs MiG21, please start doing so. Don't just stir things up for whatever reason.

By the way. Your words

But we're talking about F4C's and Mig 21's here. Do you have a point to make in this discussion? could equally apply to you. Especially as most of the data you offered us in Post#3 refer to F4E.

[RetiredF4]

You will have (had) access to data relating to the low speed AoA performance of most models of the Mig 21, ditto most versions of the F 4. Read it, then tell me I'm wrong.

Low speed AOA data are not relevant, a trained F4 crew would not plan to fight in that AOA region, and if they would end up in that speed regime would use all means to regain energy and thus maneuvering options as quick as possible. Extend, leave the fight, come back when speed is in the green again. I know people who went slow in engagements (training engagements), and I know some who died in doing so. The reason for their death is not written on their grave, but it helped others avoiding the same mistakes. Well, not all learned, to be fair, but I did the hard way.

I expected your comment on my second post, as grasping its content needs an understanding of the whole system, machine, crew, training and command, not only some numbers out of the tech manual. Fights are not won by those numbers , but by the people who are able to use those numbers to their advantage.

[Mr.Noritake]

RetiredF4:

It was this:

In an F-4 you could in fact turn with a MiG-21 below 250 kts by using approach flaps (1/2 flaps). In that condition you could actually turn in front of the MiG-21 if you were above him since he could not bring his nose up to track you.

comment of Bevo's which led me to make the observation regarding the nose pointing ability of the Mig 21 at low speed.

I 'grasped your contents' of your second post just fine. I took variance with your assertion regarding Mig 29 turning performance and am somewhat surprised by your assertion that there were 'former NVA' pilots swanning around in Europe at the time you mention.

But, as I said, I'm happy to let your comments pass as I have no wish to engage in discussion on them.

[Mach Two]

Noritake, given that we all understand the MiG21's ability to bleed energy in a turning fight, perhaps you would enlighten us concerning the airspeed at which the 21 would not have the nose authority to pitch up to engage an aircraft above it.

[Mr.Noritake]

Courtney:

If you consider my comments fraudulent, unbelievable, incorrect, unverifiable, unpalatable or just downright wrong, please disengage.

I clearly have nothing to teach you, therefore continuing to discuss my posts will only drag you down the road of increasingly personal attacks. I have no need to justify myself or my opinions to you, nor you to me.

I'm happy that you hold your opinions to be true. I have no desire to dissuade you from your beliefs. This is the internet. It's a resource only if you wish it to be so.

Merry Christmas, Courtney. You live in a beautiful part of France. I'm almost jealous :-)

[Mach Two]

Actually, while we're asking questions, could you tell us which model of F4 you had a pax ride in? Did you get to see the weapon system? Did you recognise the big technological difference between that and the 21?

And one last one. Who on earth was going to give you a front seat F-15 ride?

[Mr.Noritake]

M2:

No, I would not. If you need to know that information it will already be in your domain. If you don't, I'm not about to provide it.

[Lonewolf_50]

Bevo, thanks for the Desert Storm recollection.
(On a personal note, I am glad to see that someone got to use the fancy kit that we paid so much for. :ok:)
The use of BVR versus mixing it up is germane to modern fighter ops because there is far more to the modern fighter's air to air capability than the dogfight ... this was also true in the 1960's (time frame for the discussion) even though the dog fight remained of interest/importance. (Okay, ACM).
Retired F4's observation about the criticality of the crew (or section) in a given air to air engagement has been born out since the aces of WW I vintage were wreaking havoc among the less skilled, and the less well trained. I am pretty sure that it is true today. (I suspect a few honest Syrian Air Force pilots from back in the 80's would agree with that general comment ... )
I seem to recall that an A-4 pilot (http://www.epnaao.com/BIOS_files/REGULARS/Swartz-%20Theodore%20R.pdf)knocked down a MiG by using a Zuni Rocket ...

[Mr.Noritake]

M2:

Second set of q's.

a) No, yes, yes.

b) Someone who hadn't cleared it with the right people.

[Mach Two]

Pretty much as I expected, Noritake.

[Mr.Noritake]

Pleased I didn't disappoint, M2.

[Bevo]

'since he could not bring his nose up to track you.'

Utter, compete, almost criminal, nonsense.

I'm not sure what "data" you are looking at (Ps data would be a good start). You remind me of some folks I dealt with in the USAF who told my squadron "we don't need your flight test info we have our analysis". And as you told CM I can disengage anytime - and now is the time.

[Mr.Noritake]

Sound call, Bevo. You were getting low and slow.

[O-P]

Mr N,

I have no interest in WTF you are doing in the UK. I really couldn't care less, at a guess you are selling fake teacups or 'knocked-off' trainers. Now, guess what I do?

[Mr.Noritake]

O-P:

Evidence would suggest that, in part, you attempt to stereotype a culture on the internet and make vaguely racist remarks.

But I'm sure that's not the *real* you, merely the keyboard warrior you.

You're probably a very nice chap in person. Anyway, I choose to comfort myself by thinking this.

[Archimedes]

Sound call, Bevo. You were getting low and slow.

I'd imagine that'd be because Bevo knows that's generally been held to be the correct approach to deal with troublesome Vietnamese insurgents in the most effective and precise manner...

<Coat, hat>

[Mr.Noritake]

Bevo, being smart, can probably get away with it.

Many of his compatriots wouldn't.

[O-P]

Mr N,

Ask my wife if I'm a racist, she was born in Viet Nam (68).

EDIT: Guess what she does?

[West Coast]

Jane

In an F-4 you could in fact turn with a MiG-21 below 250 kts by using approach flaps (1/2 flaps). In that condition you could actually turn in front of the MiG-21 if you were above him since he could not bring his nose up to track you.

comment of Bevo's which led me to make the observation regarding the nose pointing ability of the Mig 21 at low speed.

Curious how you're using comments from posters to arrive at your conclusion. The others here are pulling from thier own memory, some from having flown both to arrive at theirs.

There's nothing wrong admitting you're a defense journo type and not a pilot.

Yes, I also would like to know who offered a front seat ride in a F-15. Microsoft?

[O-P]

Mr N,

As the F4C is no longer in service, how would you tackle it in your MiG 21? Your tactics must have changed for a 4/5th gen fighter?

PS. I need some 'pucker' Nike Air Jordan 7s if you have them. (Size 11, 9, 5 and 6 US)

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

Gawd, it's like watching a pre-pubescent pissing contest against a wall!

I don't think Mr N has been at all disrespectful, and he has been taking incoming fire in the form of aircraft type or nationalistic parochialism at least as good as he has given.

Didn't we all learn LONG AGO that there is NEVER a clear cut answer when comparing aircraft A versus aircraft B?

Didn't we also learn long ago that, unless you know them personally, there really is no way of validating anyone's ID on the interwebs. So much relies on taking someone's claimed credentials at face value, but if you don't believe them, then don't. But so far you've all spent six pages challenging each other and getting, effectively, nowhere!

Now, back to my popcorn, and here's hoping I actually learn something in the next few posts and pages.

[melmothtw]

So Mr Noritake has been banned.

Good to see this forum has no place for people expressing contrary points of view in a witty and tounge-in-cheek manner, responding to sometimes purile and often offensive put downs with good grace and humour.

Definitely no place on PPRuNe for that kind of behaviour.

[Pontius Navigator]

TOTY Award?

[just another jocky]

Under which forum rule/protocol/procedure was he banned?

[Pontius Navigator]

Jaj, he demonstrated concisely how he did not fit the room definition of military professionals.

I know we welcome others too such as declared journalists, broadcasters, enthusiastic civilians, and crusty has-beens like me. When you fit none of these categories you stand in danger of being ejected. He didn't and he w a s.

[Vendee]

Curious how you're using comments from posters to arrive at your conclusion.

Well no, if you read what he said, he was taking issue with another posters comments, specifically regarding the low speed performance of the MIG 21.

[Vendee]

Jaj, he demonstrated concisely how he did not fit the room definition of military professionals.Room definition? Some might say "Clique".

"Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here."

[melmothtw]

First they came for Typhoon93, and I said nothing.
Then they came for Mr Noritake....

[Pontius Navigator]

Cliques have rules. MA is pretty tolerant; look at the number of private rooms in Prune.

IMHO MA gains from its openness (within limits)

[Courtney Mil]

Mel,

I take your point, but I've just been looking back through the thread and apart from post 9, which basically said that MiG pilots acquitted themselves well, and a couple of remarks rubbishing others' posts, he didn't actually contribute anything to the "discussion". It was more about stereo typing Vietnamese and what you're saying is wrong, but you can believe what you want. I think he was starting to behave quite badly (haven't we all occasionally?) and to dominate the thread in such a way that there was no aviation discussion about the subject.

Worth a ban? Not for me to say, but someone obviously thought so and the mods must have agreed. Perhaps too close to trolling from someone already banned.

Pontius Nav,

I see your point too. In the main I don't care much who posts here as long as they are reasonable about it and don't try to pretend to be something they clearly are not. Sometimes the exit door is for people that simply won't listen and try to wind folks up.

But as I said, it's not for me to say.

Courtney

[melmothtw]

Stop being so damned reasonable Courtney! ;-)

I understand that Mr Noritake rubbed folks up the wrong way and may not have been viewed as adding to the discussion, but unlike a lot of folks he stated his case with a great deal of humour and brushed off personal jibes with a certain aplomb that I found endearing as well as highly entertaining. He certainly wasn't being offensive, IMHO.

Anyway, merry Christmas.

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

Banned...???


How precious!

[Courtney Mil]

Sorry, Mel. I'll add it to my NY resolution list!:ok:

[Haraka]

Sorry to see him go in some ways.
I know nothing much at all about flying F4s, F5s or MiG 21s ( mainly only being involved over some years in specifying, hanging on and/or exploiting recce kit on all three of these aircraft species around the world).
There will always be opposing points of view and I echoed his sentiments regarding too readily "writing off" the other side's aircraft and capabilities.

I remember reading a U.K. assessment of the Me 109 from the late 1930's, in which it was described as " that inferior product". ( I will not engage in the:8 Me /Bf canard)

Nothing changes.

Happy Christmas and best wishes to all.

[Vitesse]

Shame he's been banned. The thread had potential.

If you're going to opine then it helps to back up statements. That way we'd all be entertained and perhaps learn something.

This may make you laugh or groan, or both.

MiG-21: People?s fighter or plane dangerous? | Russia & India Report (http://in.rbth.com/articles/2012/12/20/mig-21_peoples_fighter_or_plane_dangerous_21167.html)

[Pontius Navigator]

The YouTube video earlier showing various simulations illustrated one drawbacks the Mig 21- the canopy arch blocking forward vision and one post-mission analysis suggested that in a successful interception of 4x4 F105 that the Mig pilot had seen 3 of the formations.

[orca]

I can't imagine, having never sat in one, that the visibility was fabulous from a F-4, seems to have a significant amount of iron mongery to get in the way. That being said, in the Sea Jet, Harrier and Super a Hornet there was a canopy bow and I never once wished it wasn't there...one would have to be quite clever to sneak up in someone using nothing but a canopy bow for cover!

[just another jocky]

I understand that Mr Noritake rubbed folks up the wrong way and may not have been viewed as adding to the discussion, but unlike a lot of folks he stated his case with a great deal of humour and brushed off personal jibes with a certain aplomb that I found endearing as well as highly entertaining. He certainly wasn't being offensive, IMHO.

Can't help but agree with you there m8, although I suspect he did qualify as a troll, despite his amusing way of dealing with folk. And he all but admitted his previous (banned) persona which probably qualified him for another ban.

Merry Xmas, peace and goodwill to all.

[Courtney Mil]

Vitesse,

Thank you for your link; I really enjoyed reading the article. There was a lot of scuttlebutt after Cope India 04 and, I think, a lot of misunderstanding. It very much suited the press and the IAF to highlight the stats such as 9:1 kill ratio in their favour and a 90% "success" rate. What they didn't tell you was the nature of the set up for the exercise.

It was nothing much to do with the lack of AESA radar in the F-15, it was a lot more to do with the fact that 15s were given no BVR weapons capability and the engagements were largely in the order of 6v18. That's what they signed up to.

Now, I have to say that they also underestimated the IAF capability (it wasn't only MiG21) and the IAF's tactics were both good and adaptive. But the outcomes have to be viewed with the criteria in mind.

Courtney

[Pontius Navigator]

Orca, IIRC, the Mig retained a very thick bullet proof glass windshield as protection from the B52 tail gun. This didn't help with the visibility.

[Dominator2]

Orca,

The vis from the F4 was much better than from many ac of that generation. The view from the RCP of the F4B was poor but later models were improved, slightly. Remember that if the opponent flew a constant aspect attack they may remain behind the canopy bow until impact. Another good reason for not flying in straight lines!
I see that after a dodgey start you eventually flew a real jet!

[orca]

I don't disagree with your point about geometry Dominator, having briefed countless times to keep the intercept on collision to avoid tracking in the canopy - I just think it's a bit much blaming 'No Joy' on the bow. You can move your head or the jet's nose and I personally think that atmospherics and background are far more significant.

The funny thing about all this is that we have very few data points for actual jet vs jet combat and, as done to death by others, it's never a straight answer.

The Sea Harrier for example wasn't miles better than the Mirage, Dagger and A-4...but a combination of jet, aircrew, fuel, fighter control, tactics, 9-Lima and primary role saw the only data point go in the Sea Harrier's favour. Did the world rush out to buy them...errr, no....and rightly so.

[Vitesse]

There was a lot of scuttlebutt after Cope India 04

Hi Courtney,

I've read some opinions which differ slightly from the article and I think there was a return match? I liked some of the quotes in the piece.

[ShotOne]

Well the Mig 21 clearly wins the longevity prize; there's even a few on the air display circuit in the US.

[Bevo]

Well the Mig 21 clearly wins the longevity prize; there's even a few on the air display circuit in the US.
OK BUT:

At last report, a fair number of Iranian Phantoms are still in service in the attack and antiship role, kept flying by the clandestine acquisition of spares, as well as considerable local ingenuity in the reverse-engineering and manufacture of such spares. It is said to have around 65 flyable F-4E Phantom II aircraft mainly based at 3rd Hamedan, 6th Bushehr and 9th Bandar Abbas tactical fighter bases, with a few aging F-4D aircraft based in Chahbahar 10th AB.


The Hellenic Air Force operates 12 RF-4Es and 34 F-4Es. The Hellenic Air Force participated at the Malta International Airshow with an F-4E PI 2000 Phantom II from Andravida Air Force Base in Greece. This will be the second time Greece participates at the air show, having sent another Phantom II in 2005. The air show took place over the weekend of Sept. 27-28.

Turkey is one of the largest F-4 Phantom operators in the world and has used its aircraft in bombing raids against Kurdish forces along the Iraqi border. All of turkey’s aircraft were heavily upgraded by Israel which has greatly enhanced the aircraft’s capabilities. Turkey continues to use the RF-4 as its main reconnaissance aircraft and it was in this role that one of its planes was shot down by Syria in June 2012, almost bringing the two countries into conflict. As recent as April 2014, a Turkish RF-4 Phantom was involved in an altercation with Greek fighter aircraft when it was conducting operations over the Aegean Sea. Turkey continues to purchase newer and more modern fighter designs but the F-4 phantom will continue to be an important part of its air force for at least the next decade.

http://www.byronhartshorn.com (http://www.byronhartshorn.com/2014/12/03/a-very-busy-aircraft-the-f-4-phantom-in-the-21st-century/)

The Collins Foundation currently has an F-4D available for air shows.

McDonnell F-4D Phantom II - The Collings Foundation (http://www.collingsfoundation.org/Houston/tx_f-4dphantom.htm)

[Rhino power]

Japan (RF-4E Kai / RF-4EJ Kai / F-4EJ Kai / F-4EJ), South Korea (F-4E) and the USAF (QF-4E / QRF-4C) can also be added to the F-4 current users list as well, although the USAF only uses them as manned/un-manned drones. So, the MiG-21 clearly HASN'T won the longevity prize yet... Oh, and the civilian F-4D owned and operated by the, Collings Foundation, will hopefully be joined by one of the early pre-production models this year, operated by another civilian outfit.

-RP

[TBM-Legend]

My friend Skip Holm who flew F-105's and F-4's in Vietnam and subsequently flew Mig-21's in the USAF 'quiet' program told me that if we knew how good the Mig-21 really was we would have been a lot more scared...He said it was outstanding to fly and certainly capable of outmanoeuvring the types flown by the USAF/USN there....Skip did the test flying as well on the F-117...

Skip's bio:
Skip James Holm (born February 22, 1944) is a retired pilot who lives on the eastern slope of the Sierra Nevada.
Holm claims to hold the world record for combat flight hours: 1,172. He retired from the U.S. Air Force Reserve in 1992, with the rank of Lieutenant Colonel. He logged his combat hours flying F-105s and F-4s in the Vietnam War. After three tours of duty in Vietnam, he joined Lockheed Skunk Works and test piloted the experimental and production F-117s.
Holm participated in the Reno Air Races since 1981. He has won in the Unlimited class of piston-engined aircraft in 1984, 2000, 2002 and 2003. Holm performed as stand-in pilot in The Right Stuff and Hot Shots!.

[dat581]

I suspect if F-4 crews had been a lot more scared the ROE and tatics would have changed to alow AIM-7s to be fired BVR at the MiGs.

[ShotOne]

"Flew mig 21s in USAF quiet program..." One of (probably) his former steeds now for sale on tradeaplane. Regularly displayed until 4 yrs ago And it can be yours for $69,000!! Syndicate anyone? Whichever was best, doesn't this bring home who won the Cold War...How many Russians can afford their own F4 as a plaything?

[Rhino power]

Whichever was best, doesn't this bring home who won the Cold War...How many Russians can afford their own F4 as a plaything?

It's nothing to do with whether or not you can afford* an F-4 as a 'plaything', it's if the US Gov will allow you to have an F-4 as a 'plaything'...
If memory serves me correctly, it took an act of congress to get permission for the Collings Foundation to own and operate theirs, and the USAF apparently fought it all the way!

-RP

* Money probably will be a significant factor, but not the most significant factor!

[TEEEJ]

The Phantom II currently being restored to flying condition as referenced by Rhino power.

MCDONNELL F4H-1 PHANTOM II BUNO | Wings & Rotors Air Museum (http://wingsandrotors.org/phantom-f4/)

rD7f4v5Az2M&feature=related

[mr fish]

the last few posts bring a question to mind,
given a healthy airshow scene in say forty years time, what would the most modern "vintage" airframe flying?


I'm guessing almost nothing flying today would fall into private hands.


FISH




P.S, happy new year everyone.

[Rhino power]

The Phantom II currently being restored to flying condition as referenced by Rhino power.

MCDONNELL F4H-1 PHANTOM II BUNO | Wings & Rotors Air Museum

Thats the one, TEEJ, thanks for posting the vid, I haven't seen that before! :)

-RP

[Courtney Mil]

Agreed, RP. Nice one, TEEEJ.

[ShotOne]

"Almost nothing flying today would fall into private hands.."

Would you have predicted forty years ago an Avro Vulcan nuclear bomber operated by a band of enthusiasts? There are scores of high performance jets in private hands; dozens of MiGs including at least one MiG29 on the display circuit, numerous Hunters, A4s and a Harrier plus of course the F4 mentioned above. Until recently you could have a joyride in a Lightning or Buccaneer. By contrast a typhoon or F18, for instance, is no harder to maintain or fly than the aforementioned. Is it really so unlikely?

[jonw66]

Thats a good point actually shot one the newer aircraft are easier to look after than the lighting anyway happy Christmas and all that

[dat581]

In many ways an F-18 is much easier to maintain than a Phantom and was designed to be so. There are a few areas that might catch a civilian owner out such as the computer systems which will be unsupportable once the Hornet leaves military service since no civilian aircraft use them and its not just a metal aircraft either so spare parts would be horrendously expensive unless the USN was nice to you and gave you a huge stack of them since they would have no further use for them.

As for the USAF's attitude what the @&$)? Wouldnt you want a Phantom in private hands that can be displayed at base air shows with somebody other than the USAF paying the upkeep and fuel? Free publicity. I hope the USN takes a better attitude to their former F-4A once she is flying again.

[JimNtexas]

In the ancient past I spent about 1000 non-combat hours displacing valuable fuel in the back of F-4C and F-4E/G airplanes.

I don't think any sane F-4 pilot would try to get into a low speed turning contest with a Mig-21, he would try to use the double ugly's power advantage to gain the vertical while encouraging his Mig-21 adversary to bleed off his energy by turning hard with his draggy delta wing.

My main thought is this: If you mission is to defend your air base from attacks by F-105s while under GCI control then the Mig-21 is well suited to that mission.

If you want to project airpower and operate with minimal outside assistance then the F-4, especially the F-4E and later models would be far better choices.

History shows in a direct encounter the F-4 will usually destroy the Mig-21 in combat.

[Pontius Navigator]

Jim, when the Vulcan sucked an F4E into a turning fight it was game over unless the F4 bugged out and reattacked with Sparrow.

[porch monkey]

I just know I'm going to regret asking, but how exactly was it "game over"? Would the Vulcan run the F4 down? It had no means to dispatch the F4.

[Pontius Navigator]

No, run it out of fuel if the F4 tried to hang in and had to use burner. Rolling out, opening range and returning for a high speed pass was the solution.

Same with a Lightning, once you were on the wall of death the loser was the one who ran out of fuel first.

[JimNtexas]

I think because of the high drag the Mig-21 experiences in a tight turn he'd better get a shot off quickly, especially against a slat-wing F-4.

Because the slat-wing F-4's have pretty much the same turn radius as a Mig-21, and since the F-4 has a power advantage the Phantom is going to be able to maintain the turn longer.

And of course the Mig-21 is in a fuel emergency state shortly after wheels in the well he'd better stay close to his base.

Having said that, our hypothetical F-4 pilot probably refused to get into a level turning contest in the first place.

[TEEEJ]

No problem, RP & CM. Glad that you enjoyed the F4H-1 video.

Porch Monkey wrote,

It had no means to dispatch the F4.

;)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Az7MUwQCYAAD2UD.jpg

[porch monkey]

That is gold!:ok:

[Tashengurt]

cap com picture!


Posted from Pprune.org App for Android