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

He's a naughty scamp.

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.

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 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.

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?

Did you talk with the ones who got shot down?

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.

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 .

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 :-)

Did you talk with the ones who got shot down?

Some. Your point?

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.

West Coast:

No. I'm a young puppy :-)

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...100921-010.pdf

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Mister Noritake;

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?

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?

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

Ricardian

Good link, thanks.

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!

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 :-)

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...

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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) .

Which MiG?
 

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.