F4C versus MIG21
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 59°09N 002°38W (IATA: SOY, ICAO: EGER)
Age: 80
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F4C versus MIG21
Interested declassified report on F4C versus MIG21 in Vietnam. Print quality of PDF not too good unfortunately but mostly readable.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: lovel
Age: 71
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for that ricardian, interesting....some background on Silver Dawn:
The short but interesting life of a plane called rivet top. - Free Online Library
The short but interesting life of a plane called rivet top. - Free Online Library
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Far, far away.
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear.
Please skim through this;
http://www.slideshare.net/mishanbgd/...ig21?related=5
and this;
http://www.slideshare.net/mishanbgd/...erms?related=4
before we end up in another circular and ultimately pointless argument, because the facts are quite simple to understand.
Please skim through this;
http://www.slideshare.net/mishanbgd/...ig21?related=5
and this;
http://www.slideshare.net/mishanbgd/...erms?related=4
before we end up in another circular and ultimately pointless argument, because the facts are quite simple to understand.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
HJ is a bloke, just like you.
Last edited by Pontius Navigator; 22nd Dec 2014 at 15:07.
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Far, far away.
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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
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
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Mr N, HJ was a compatriot of yours and noted for near trolling and was banned, reprieved and banned again.
Last edited by Pontius Navigator; 22nd Dec 2014 at 17:19.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Outside the Fence
Age: 71
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
4 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Far, far away.
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Far, far away.
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
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."
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."
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Far, far away.
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
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.
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.
Aviator Extraordinaire
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 76
Posts: 2,394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
I don't think that an F-15 as ever shot down a Mig, not even a Mig 15.