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.