Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    MIG-21, MIG-25, MIG-29SMT. Your views

    Share
    avatar
    d_taddei2
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 781
    Points : 941
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    MIG-21, MIG-25, MIG-29SMT. Your views

    Post  d_taddei2 on Mon Oct 14, 2013 11:25 pm

    Hi all,

    Looking for people views on the following:

    The MIG-21 being the most produced supersonic jetaircraft in the world, and having an extremely long production run, theres still many of the aircraft in service with various countries around the world and with the many upgrades available, my thoughts are does this aircraft still have a future or use with the armies that still field it or should it be taken out of service??????

    The MIG-25 being one of the fastest aircraft to ever be put into service, and with many now being put into reserve, however some still remain in service with a few countries and some which have had upgrades, do these aircraft still have a use? and do they still have a use as a interceptor??? and could the ones in reserve have upgrades done to them to return them to frontline service? or should they be scrapped?

    The MIG-29SMT is this aircraft any good compared to other modern aircraft??? is the SMT upgrade worth it? and should countries who have MIG-29 aircraft upgrade them to SMT?


    any info/views etc would be great.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16010
    Points : 16665
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: MIG-21, MIG-25, MIG-29SMT. Your views

    Post  GarryB on Tue Oct 15, 2013 2:40 am

    The MIG-29SMT is this aircraft any good compared to other modern aircraft??? is the SMT upgrade worth it? and should countries who have MIG-29 aircraft upgrade them to SMT?
    Yes, the Mig-29SMT is a good aircraft... pretty much capable of doing almost anything western equivalents are able to do for less cost.

    Should other countries that have Mig-29s upgrade them to SMT standard? Yes as soon as possible... the upgrade not only makes them multi role and improves performance in all areas including air to air but also transforms it in air to ground... it also reduces operational costs by over 40%.

    The reason most countries who do operate Mig-29s are not upgrading them is either political... eastern europe countries really want to use worn out old F-16s from western countries or have dreams of F-35 or Gripen or some such thing in the long term to get away from using Russian equipment.

    For other users the main problem is that for slightly more money they can get Su-30 Flankers which offer a further step up in performance without being too much more expensive.

    For India they are upgrading their remaining Mig-29s.

    Regarding the Mig-21 it was a great little fighter in its day, but the cost of upgrading it to make it comparable to a modern fighter... it seems to work out cheaper buying a Mig-29 or Flanker.

    The Mig-25 is a lesson in reduced cost... it is mostly made of steel which is cheap but also heavy... the silver mesh around the engines to help keep them cool is also cheaper than the more efficient gold mesh they could have used.

    The plane is still very expensive to operate and is pretty much a one trick pony with speed as its main feature... it would probably be cheaper to buy a Mig-31E which would have better armament and performance... but that wouldn't be cheap either.

    To be honest rather than beating around the bush... I would approach MIG and just look at a Mig-29M2 with reasonable equipment fitted and look at getting the best weapon options I could afford for the mean time... knowing that in the near future there is an AESA in development that could be fitted in 5-10 years time to improve performance if it was needed.

    Failing that a new version of the Yak-130 with a nose mounted radar is interesting too... 3 ton payload is useful as well.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Morpheus Eberhardt
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1949
    Points : 2072
    Join date : 2013-05-20

    Re: MIG-21, MIG-25, MIG-29SMT. Your views

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt on Tue Oct 15, 2013 5:31 am

    GarryB wrote:
    The MIG-29SMT is this aircraft any good compared to other modern aircraft??? is the SMT upgrade worth it? and should countries who have MIG-29 aircraft upgrade them to SMT?
    Yes, the Mig-29SMT is a good aircraft... pretty much capable of doing almost anything western equivalents are able to do for less cost.

    Should other countries that have Mig-29s upgrade them to SMT standard? Yes as soon as possible... the upgrade not only makes them multi role and improves performance in all areas including air to air but also transforms it in air to ground... it also reduces operational costs by over 40%.

    The reason most countries who do operate Mig-29s are not upgrading them is either political... eastern europe countries really want to use worn out old F-16s from western countries or have dreams of F-35 or Gripen or some such thing in the long term to get away from using Russian equipment.

    For other users the main problem is that for slightly more money they can get Su-30 Flankers which offer a further step up in performance without being too much more expensive.

    For India they are upgrading their remaining Mig-29s.

    Regarding the Mig-21 it was a great little fighter in its day, but the cost of upgrading it to make it comparable to a modern fighter... it seems to work out cheaper buying a Mig-29 or Flanker.

    The Mig-25 is a lesson in reduced cost... it is mostly made of steel which is cheap but also heavy... the silver mesh around the engines to help keep them cool is also cheaper than the more efficient gold mesh they could have used.

    The plane is still very expensive to operate and is pretty much a one trick pony with speed as its main feature... it would probably be cheaper to buy a Mig-31E which would have better armament and performance... but that wouldn't be cheap either.

    To be honest rather than beating around the bush... I would approach MIG and just look at a Mig-29M2 with reasonable equipment fitted and look at getting the best weapon options I could afford for the mean time... knowing that in the near future there is an AESA in development that could be fitted in 5-10 years time to improve performance if it was needed.

    Failing that a new version of the Yak-130 with a nose mounted radar is interesting too... 3 ton payload is useful as well.
    In relation to the MiG-25 comment, it's a layer of silver (gold in some variants), rather than a mesh. Its high reflectivity keeps the structure cold (and the engine hot).


    Last edited by Morpheus Eberhardt on Tue Oct 15, 2013 10:51 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Spelling.)

    Rpg type 7v
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 406
    Points : 270
    Join date : 2011-05-01

    Re: MIG-21, MIG-25, MIG-29SMT. Your views

    Post  Rpg type 7v on Tue Oct 15, 2013 2:20 pm

    mig-21 was great for its time, mig-25 specialised but also very good overall. and mig-29 not so much , the design of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_Ye-8 was better, but it wasnt ment to be.
    avatar
    d_taddei2
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 781
    Points : 941
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    reply

    Post  d_taddei2 on Wed Oct 16, 2013 1:05 am

    GarryB wrote:
    The MIG-29SMT is this aircraft any good compared to other modern aircraft??? is the SMT upgrade worth it? and should countries who have MIG-29 aircraft upgrade them to SMT?
    Yes, the Mig-29SMT is a good aircraft... pretty much capable of doing almost anything western equivalents are able to do for less cost.

    Should other countries that have Mig-29s upgrade them to SMT standard? Yes as soon as possible... the upgrade not only makes them multi role and improves performance in all areas including air to air but also transforms it in air to ground... it also reduces operational costs by over 40%.

    The reason most countries who do operate Mig-29s are not upgrading them is either political... eastern europe countries really want to use worn out old F-16s from western countries or have dreams of F-35 or Gripen or some such thing in the long term to get away from using Russian equipment.

    For other users the main problem is that for slightly more money they can get Su-30 Flankers which offer a further step up in performance without being too much more expensive.

    For India they are upgrading their remaining Mig-29s.

    Regarding the Mig-21 it was a great little fighter in its day, but the cost of upgrading it to make it comparable to a modern fighter... it seems to work out cheaper buying a Mig-29 or Flanker.

    The Mig-25 is a lesson in reduced cost... it is mostly made of steel which is cheap but also heavy... the silver mesh around the engines to help keep them cool is also cheaper than the more efficient gold mesh they could have used.

    The plane is still very expensive to operate and is pretty much a one trick pony with speed as its main feature... it would probably be cheaper to buy a Mig-31E which would have better armament and performance... but that wouldn't be cheap either.

    To be honest rather than beating around the bush... I would approach MIG and just look at a Mig-29M2 with reasonable equipment fitted and look at getting the best weapon options I could afford for the mean time... knowing that in the near future there is an AESA in development that could be fitted in 5-10 years time to improve performance if it was needed.

    Failing that a new version of the Yak-130 with a nose mounted radar is interesting too... 3 ton payload is useful as well.
    The Mig 29SMT i think your right in what you say, that most countries should upgrade it makes perfect sense, to have multi-role fighters and at a cheaper cost to buying completely new aircraft especially countries on a tight budget, i think its ideal or even for countries who are looking a for decent aircraft which covers a variety of roles and thats cheaper than other similar aircraft.

    On the topic of the YAK 130, i think this aircraft would be ideal for defence forces, countries on a tight budget or poorer countries which cant afford the more high end equipment but still need to fufill airforce roles. Its cheap to buy and maintain, it can be used in all the roles a defence force would need, trainer, light attack, recce, anti air, anti ship/sub, aswell as being able to operate from unpaved and grass strips, and ideal for some of the remote locations some countries have. This is the aircraft i personally think an independent Scotland should go for. Its such a versatile low cost aircraft, for small armies etc, of course it will never be on par with MIG-29SMT/SU-34/MIG-31 but none the less a good all rounder for the money.
    avatar
    d_taddei2
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 781
    Points : 941
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    reply

    Post  d_taddei2 on Wed Oct 16, 2013 1:21 am

    Rpg type 7v wrote:mig-21 was great for its time, mig-25 specialised but also very good overall. and mig-29 not so much , the design of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_Ye-8 was better, but it wasnt ment to be.

    I read some where that the MIG-21, upgraded to MIG-21-93 were capable aircraft and that MIG-21-97 upgrade made them same or better than F-16's, so for some countries to have these upgraded could still find themselves with good aircraft at least intil 2018-2020, and they could still have a use after that as trainers or recce ops, and support for ground troops.

    As for the MIG-25 i agree its expensive to maintain and run. Its a shame to see such aircraft be stored away, i suppose recce ops are slowly being replaced by UAV's.
    avatar
    Deep Throat
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 97
    Points : 127
    Join date : 2013-05-22

    Re: MIG-21, MIG-25, MIG-29SMT. Your views

    Post  Deep Throat on Mon Nov 04, 2013 1:04 pm

    GarryB wrote:Yes, the Mig-29SMT is a good aircraft... pretty much capable of doing almost anything western equivalents are able to do for less cost
    While the MIG 29 is undoubtedly a great fighter , I am trying to figure out why did MIG go for that big fuel storage hump ?

    The big fuel storage hump on the back of the new MiG-29 affects the aerodynamic performance of the air frame to a large extent .

    However it's also possible that the almost airfoil like shape it gives to the center of the aircraft acts like one big air foil and improves the lifting area, thereby balancing the extra weight .

    Jury's out .
    avatar
    Deep Throat
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 97
    Points : 127
    Join date : 2013-05-22

    Re: MIG-21, MIG-25, MIG-29SMT. Your views

    Post  Deep Throat on Wed Nov 06, 2013 6:42 am

    GarryB wrote:It is not all fuel, a lot of it is extra electronics which they had to fit in somewhere.
    What type of extra electronics ? And why create a hump to store it ?

    For example , The MIG 35 when it is operated as a single seat aircraft uses the rear seat to store electronic equipments ( apart from extra oxygen) .
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16010
    Points : 16665
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: MIG-21, MIG-25, MIG-29SMT. Your views

    Post  GarryB on Wed Nov 06, 2013 9:42 pm

    S-M-T

    S = C in english, which added a lot of electronic improvement.

    M = M in english, which had a further upgrade of systems and equipment to improve existing Migs to near Mig-29M level.

    T = T in english and meant Toplivo... fuel.

    to quote wiki:

    In the 1980s, Mikoyan developed the improved MiG-29S to use longer range R-27E and R-77 air-to-air missiles. It added a dorsal 'hump' to the upper fuselage to house a jamming system and some additional fuel capacity.
    The Mig-29S, and Mig-29SM already had a dorsal hump... the SMT upgrade just made it bigger and it included electronics  closer to the centre of gravity of the aircraft where the extra weight would not effect performance as much as if it was at the front or rear.

    For example , The MIG 35 when it is operated as a single seat aircraft uses the rear seat to store electronic equipments ( apart from extra oxygen) .
    Not really. The single seat Mig-35 stores mostly fuel in the rear seat area... in the two seat model... which has the same capabilities... where would you put those electronics? Especially when you need an extra complete set of instruments for the other pilot. The single seat model doesn't have any electronics the two seater doesn't have.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    d_taddei2
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 781
    Points : 941
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    MiG-29M2/SMT vs Su-30MKI

    Post  d_taddei2 on Sat May 31, 2014 7:24 pm

    Hi all,

    I am wondering what peoples views are on the the MIG 29M2/SMT Vs the SU 30 MKI. They seem to be both being pushed/sold to various countries especially to ones who dont have the biggest budget or are replacing MIG 21 and want a multi role fighter, Serbia being one of them. Does anyone know the rough unit price of each of the aircraft cant find a price any where( i do understand price vary on  lot of circumstances).
    avatar
    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5728
    Points : 5768
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: MIG-21, MIG-25, MIG-29SMT. Your views

    Post  TR1 on Sun Jun 01, 2014 12:39 am

    Smt and m2 are very different airframes. Former is legacy Fulcrum airframe with some modifications...some of which are pretty significant. M, M2, 35, etc etc are all the 2nd gen aiframe.
    avatar
    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3130
    Points : 3222
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: MIG-21, MIG-25, MIG-29SMT. Your views

    Post  medo on Sun Jun 01, 2014 9:01 am

    Su-30SM is bigger and more powerfull fighter with longer range, than Mig-29K or Mig-35 will ever be. Both are multirole, but Su-30 have more powerfull radar and more powerful ESM equipment and with that more powerfull armament as Su-30 could use long range armament while Migs could not.

    With export plane a lot depend on customer, what equipment he wish to have in plane. Many Suhois have foreign equipment build inside, mostly Israeli or French. Export Mig-29M could also get foreign equipment on customer wish.
    avatar
    d_taddei2
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 781
    Points : 941
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    MIG-21 is it any good?

    Post  d_taddei2 on Fri Nov 07, 2014 12:22 pm

    Hi all and thanks for taking the time to read this thread.

    The MIG-21 is still in service with at least 18 countries (not including the chinese made J-7/F-7) and in fairly large numbers, despite production starting 55yrs ago and ending 29yrs ago (1985), and being the most produced supersonic jet in the world (nearly 11,500), over this time and to the present day its had various upgrades offered by various countries which brought the fighter upto more modern standards.
    Some countries plan to keep the aircraft in service for upto another 10yrs (indian air force).

    But my question is in its upgraded form, is the aircraft any good on todays battlefield? in both roles ground attack and interceptor role?
    any views would be great.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16010
    Points : 16665
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: MIG-21, MIG-25, MIG-29SMT. Your views

    Post  GarryB on Sat Nov 08, 2014 8:56 am

    When it first appeared the MiG-21s main trick was mach 2 speed, which was exciting at the time.

    It wasn't a long range aircraft and it could not carry a heavy payload but it was a quick and easy way for third world countries to get supersonic, and for the nation that created it it was a relatively cheap and simple interceptor that could easily be mass produced and keeping it operational did not break the bank.

    In many ways a modern MiG-21 would be ideal, but most of those that try fail because they are too ambitious.

    Keeping it small and not too expensive, yet capable is a balancing act few seem able to maintain.

    The Gripen is probably too expensive to buy, but would be cheap enough to operate and capable.

    Something like a slightly smaller single engined MiG-29SMT would be ideal with 8 underwing pylons and one centreline pylon. A powerful cannon, plus two underwing fuel tanks and 6 potent air to air missiles, plus a centreline fuel tank would be good enough for interception missions. For strike missions replace four of the AAMs with Kh-38 missiles or guided bombs.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3130
    Points : 3222
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: MIG-21, MIG-25, MIG-29SMT. Your views

    Post  medo on Sat Nov 08, 2014 11:00 am

    To be honest, Gripen is more expensive than Su-30. Gripen cost more than 100 million $ per plane, so with the difference in price you could still pay a lot of flying hours and maintenance, so I don't think Gripen is really a cheaper option comparing to Su-30.

    MiG-21 is now worn out and it is time for retirement. Even the newest ones are more than 30 years old. Spare parts are slowly running out. It is the second gen. fighter so it doesn't have a lot of chances in today battlefield. Planes with similar idea of small and simple could be JF-17, Indian Tejas and South Korean FA-50. They are small, but I'm not sure if they are also simple and cheap, although FA-50 is made from T-50 trainer.
    avatar
    d_taddei2
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 781
    Points : 941
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    reply

    Post  d_taddei2 on Sat Nov 08, 2014 2:19 pm

    hi and thanks for replying, i garry had the right idea the Mig-29SMT would be a better replacement, and the mention of tejas and t-50 is another good option its a pity the Yak-130 didnt have a faster speed bringing it up to t-50 level. the SU-30 is good but more expensive than the Mig-29SMT.
    it amazes me how many older soviet aircraft that is still operational, the Mig-25, Mig-23/27, SU-22, SU-24, SU-25, although i believe the SU-25 is still in production?(anyone confirm this) but this a very different aircraft and i wonder if their will ever be a replacement (USA is thinking of removing its A-10's). The Mig-29 and SU-27 of course are older aircraft but have had some serious upgrades and various variants produced as well as still being in production. You also have the Mig-31 which is getting old and plans are to replace this in 2028, it will be interesting to see what they will replace it with.
    avatar
    Giulio
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 163
    Points : 186
    Join date : 2013-10-29
    Location : Italy

    Re: MIG-21, MIG-25, MIG-29SMT. Your views

    Post  Giulio on Sat Nov 08, 2014 2:34 pm

    Hello. well, afaik the Mig-21 was an excellent short range, ground-guided interceptor. Very good in climb performance and speed. It was the counterpart of the F-104 and the EE Lightning: very fast climbers. The F-104 in scramble duty in Italy was able to reach 20.000 feet three minutes after the alarm. The Mig-21 was the Soviet F-104, performances "F-16-like", but 20 years before ...
    Deficiencies of all those aircrafts (AFAIK): range and beyond-visual-range capacity, but because it was not required in their early specifications.
    Today I don't know. In Italy the F-104S ASA (weapons system upgrade) was retired in 2004 and the Italy had to rent old F-16A until the arrival of the EFA Typhoon. An upgraded Mig-21 today maybe similar to an F-16 or slightly less: it should see in what system the Mig-21 should operate. Actually, I think that today what matters are the computers and weapons, rather than the Aircraft itself.
    avatar
    RTN
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 188
    Points : 173
    Join date : 2014-03-24
    Location : Fairfield , CT

    Re: MIG-21, MIG-25, MIG-29SMT. Your views

    Post  RTN on Sun Nov 09, 2014 7:56 am

    GarryB wrote:6 potent air to air missiles, plus a centreline fuel tank would be good enough for interception missions. For strike missions replace four of the AAMs with Kh-38 missiles or guided bombs.

    Hey Garry, any idea what is the substrate material (IR transparent) in a heat-seeking missile's ( R-73 etc) optical modulation disk?
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16010
    Points : 16665
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    MIG-21 is it any good?

    Post  GarryB on Sun Nov 09, 2014 9:00 am

    You need to view the fighter plane as a delivery system for either a bomb or a missile or a cannon shell.

    A fighter is a very versatile aircraft/weapons platform that today, with modern electronics and weapons can perform a range of missions quite efficiently.

    The MiG-29SMT with anything from a fairly basic radar right up to high performance AESA potentially available in the near future, plus IRST, and modern missiles of a fairly wide variety for a wide variety of missions. Add in a targeting pod like SAPSAN or Damocles and you can perform all sorts of strike missions too.

    In the 1960s you had a range of different aircraft with different capabilities in the field of fighter, point interceptor, light bomber, short range strike, recon, jammer... etc etc.

    So fighter might be the MiG-17, the interceptor could be the MiG-21, light bomber could be the Il-28, short range strike would be the Su-7 Fitter, with the Yak-27 and variants for recon and jammer roles.

    Today you could use the MiG-29SMT for all those roles and more and it would perform rather better than any of those dedicated aircraft did...

    You could start by buying some cheap MiG-29s, though ideally you would buy MiG-29M2s with basic equipment fitted and gradually add systems from the MiG-35 to further improve performance as it became affordable.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    d_taddei2
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 781
    Points : 941
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    reply

    Post  d_taddei2 on Thu Oct 29, 2015 12:00 am

    hey i was wanting to know peoples views on the Mig-25 as a strike aircraft the MiG-25RB had the capability but was it ever used as such and was it any good at it?

    sheytanelkebir
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 490
    Points : 507
    Join date : 2013-09-16

    Re: MIG-21, MIG-25, MIG-29SMT. Your views

    Post  sheytanelkebir on Thu Oct 29, 2015 1:34 pm

    d_taddei2 wrote:hey i was wanting to know peoples views on the Mig-25 as a strike aircraft the MiG-25RB had the capability but was it ever used as such and was it any good at it?

    Iraqis used it for bombing Iran quite regularly from about 1985-88. I am guessing a couple thousand sorties in total. This was mostly after the TU-22 were deemed too vulnerable to fly into Tehran airspace when the Iranians improved their high altitude air defences around there.

    In terms of "effect"... well I'd say it was a cheaper way of area bombardment than the upgraded SCUD missiles at least. They were never accurate though and simply used in a tit-for-tat intimidation between the warring parties since Iraqi cities were much closer to Iran's border and were thus easier for the Iranians to bomb. Iraqis had to resort to using more "exotic" assets like TU-22B and MiG25RB to "match" the Iranian city bombardments.

    One thing going for it though... is that despite Iranian efforts to defend Tehran from politically damaging aerial bombardment (HQ2 SAM, RAPIER, I-HAWK as well as F4E and F14A to defend Tehran) they only managed to shoot down 1 or 2 of the MiG25RB during bombing missions spanning almost 4 years of bombardment.

    The aircraft flew in singles all the way to Tehran and back without escort or ESM and beyond Iraq's GCI control. Which was a testament to the capability and survivability of the aircraft.

    No wonder that Iraqis were interested in replacing the MiG25 with MiG31E in 1990... but then the gulf war happened.
    avatar
    Giulio
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 163
    Points : 186
    Join date : 2013-10-29
    Location : Italy

    Re: MIG-21, MIG-25, MIG-29SMT. Your views

    Post  Giulio on Thu Oct 29, 2015 4:42 pm

    d_taddei2 wrote:hey i was wanting to know peoples views on the Mig-25 as a strike aircraft the MiG-25RB had the capability but was it ever used as such and was it any good at it?

    Drop a nuclear bomb at very high altitude and speed: you can launch the bomb at 50 km from the target and turn back.
    Obviously no one launched nuclear bombs (I think), so the Iraqis used Mig-25RB with conventional ordnance: AFAIK also (European) Mk-84, until arrived FAB250 e FAB500T. An Iraqi attack about that I read was that on the Iranian military flight school at Teheran Farahabad, in Doshan-Tappeh. Very low altitude entrance, supersonic climb, acceleration up to maximum altitude and speed and bomb launch at about 21.000 m, at 40 Km from the target. The system was built for nuclear attack, so from long distance it wasn't very accurate, so bombs hit also a civil district.
    avatar
    d_taddei2
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 781
    Points : 941
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    reply

    Post  d_taddei2 on Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:11 pm

    this pretty remarkable out of the top 10 most fighter aircraft in service in the world the Mig-21 ranked sixth with 551 operational aircraft.

    source

    http://sputniknews.com/russia/20151223/1032208907/russia-warplanes-report.html

    avatar
    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 818
    Points : 1321
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Re: MIG-21, MIG-25, MIG-29SMT. Your views

    Post  nemrod on Sun Apr 10, 2016 1:20 pm

    d_taddei2 wrote:
    Looking for people views on the following:

    The MIG-21 being the most produced supersonic jetaircraft in the world, and having an extremely long production run, theres still many of the aircraft in service with various countries around the world and with the many upgrades available, my thoughts are does this aircraft still have a future or use with the armies that still field it or should it be taken out of service??????
    In my view, the Mig-21 is an extraordinary successful engineering for this last 60 decades. With a fair upgrade the Mig-21 -do not laugh , and do not mock please-it is still effective and extremely redoubtable until now.

    The great question is on all our minds :
    In dogfight, Is the Mig-21 effective against F-16 -A, C, ....- fighting falcon, or viper, or block -50 etc....- ?
    These past years I find myself pondering by this question. In fact we must to see in the past and definitely forget western version about the Mig-21. We must forget all propaganda whatever it is.
    During Vietnam war the Mig-21 was highly effective against all US fighters. 60 Mig-21 downed by F-4 , against at least 130 F-4 Phantom II destroyed by Mig-21. This incredible ratio could be explained by the bad conception of US aircrafts F-4,  Crusader, Corsair A7, F-100, F-105 etc...
    A heavy, fat muti-role fighter bomber that must do all, and anything,  designed around a cumbersome  most of the time pointless radar, relying on its ineffective air-air missiles -ratio of success contrary to the western hype never exceed in the best case 5% -, against an agile, mono-role, light fighter designed only for interception, and dogfighting, especially relying on its effective cannon.
    The success of the Mig-21 was confirmed during october 1973 war, where egyptian, syrian, algerian, iraqi Mig-21 crushed israeli, US fighters like Mirage III -the rare israeli's asset very effective, with its Mystere-, and F-4 Phantom. During this conflict, the despair urgency of the situation is such that, US and Israel threatened to use nuclear weapons. Again the Mig-21 prove a real effectiveness in design, conception, and philosophy of the combat.

    Soviet upgraded their very effective Mig-21 with a new engine, and avionics, the name was Mig-21 Bis.





    The fear of US was high, they developed F-15, F-16, F-18 against the Mig-21's threat. Now, what about against the new generation of US fighters ? Are they really effective ? The only data we have was the battle of the Bekaa occurred in Lebanon in 1982. It is useful too, to ignore propaganda of US, Israel, Syria, and Soviet Union. And let's focus on what's happened on the ground. Indeed, what's happened exactly ? Far of the israeli's supid fantasies about their so-called success -they claimed 100 syrians aircrafts downed against 0 losses, nevertheless the ground witnessed the contrary-, that turned to be completely false, as a whole fighters of Syria AF annihilated 42 aircraft of Israeli AF (including, as minimum, 5 F-15A and 6 F-16A) and one remote piloted aircraft in the course of dogfights from the 6th to the 12th of June (that day cease-fire has been signed). At the same time Syria AF lost 47 aircraft ( 4 Мig-23МS, 6 Мig-23МF, 26 Mig-21 bis and 11 Mig-21 MF). 7 SU-22М fighter-bombers and few Мig-23 BN were downed too.

    As you can see at least 6 F-16 were downed during this battle.



    As you can realize the heavy number of 26 effective Mig-21 Bis, why ? dunno
    The question now what were exactly the syrian Mig-21 Bis' soviet export ? Here is the response :

    Here are different Mig-21 Bis, those for soviet air force, and those for export:


    Let's zoom on export, and especially those for syrian air force :


    It is in fact syrian's Mig-21 are a downgraded Mig-21 Bis, they are different from those intended for soviet air force without air air missiles, and certainly without fair avionics like effective MAWS, and downgraded radar too.
    If you add the facts that Israeli ground forces were equipped with sam, and...the effective anti-aircraft gun M-61 Vulcan.


    Mounted on israeli's M-113

    There were several syrian fighter bombers downed by the israeli ground M-61 Vulcan. Notice that Israel lost beside their F-15, F-16, and F-4 E Phantom II, an E-2C Hawkeye.


    After the loses -never admitted by israel for obvious geopolical raisons.- Israel asked to Syria cease fire. June 12, 1982, immediately after the downed E-2 C the cease fire was applied. Notice Israel has a politic to systematically deny any losses whatever it is.

    If you remove the number of fighters downed by the ground, and fighter dedicated as slight bombers and not fighters, and you compare the with the real duals that occurred, I won't be surprised to see syrian air force having a slight advantage. In fact, if we remove the Mig-21 Bis intended to be as slight bomber, and you leave only the pure fighters, you can easily realized, that neither the F-16, nor the F-15  provided to Israel a real superiority.
    Concerning the F-16 the doubt raised again during Desert Storm in 1991, this supposed dogfighter did not succeed to down any Iraqi aircraft. Even the A-10 succeeded by downing a Mil-8, but not the F-16. During the Balkan's war, the F-16 indeed down few serbian aircrafts, but, US coalition outnumbered -as it was during Desert Storm- serbian malfunctioning fighters -where serbian could barely deploy less than 30 fighters, meanwhile US coaltion built up 900-.

    My conviction.
    The Mig-21, 60 years after, with a fair avionic upgrade is still more than never a redoubtable fighter able to match any US fighter, including the F-35. Meanwhile, the F-16 was a total faillure. In each exercise the Mig-21 demonstrated that it could really be a game changer, even against the F-15 C -see Cope India 2004-.
    avatar
    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 818
    Points : 1321
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    The Mig-21 is still redoubtable

    Post  nemrod on Sun Apr 10, 2016 10:38 pm

    The Mig-21 93 is comparable to all F-16 -C, D- version and the Mig-21 97 is above all, in term of dogfight at least. Russians added the Klimov RD-33 with its 9.000 KN thrust, hence it could outclass any US aircraft at least in dogfight-except the F-22 ? have not enough clues. I don't know what the F-22 worth exactly-. The air-air missiles no use to talk more, a good pilot is able to dodge any air-air, or sam launched against him. Moreover with powerful jam, any air air missile is useless. Russians demonstrated this assertion above syrian sky.




    The dual between

     
    and

    could turn -if a skill pilot is inside the Mig- to the Mig-21's advantage and at the expense of F-16.
    But US air force in the case of war never come 1 vs 1, they always come at at least 5 vs 1, if not 10 vs 1. But with the raise of Russia, and China this time is over.
    There were several exercises between US F-16, and NATO allies' Migs. Iam sure the result were not in favour for US, and the overcomes are as usually classified. For example, there were recently exercises between US F-16 and romanian Mig-21 Lancer -the romanian pilots are very competent pilots too-, if someone among you have more reliable news -if it is not propaganda, and false informations-, please post!

    Sponsored content

    Re: MIG-21, MIG-25, MIG-29SMT. Your views

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri May 26, 2017 4:58 pm