The legendary MiG-21

This amazing manoeuvre was done during the 1973 war, a Mig-21 vs Mirage III. It suggests that, untill now, more than never, the Mig-21 inside a skilled pilot is very very effective. I think that Mig-21 is better than even the F-16 C that was designed only for dogfights-you can notice the very few score made by F-16 in all conflicts. The only sources we have nowadays, are from US DOD, and Israeli defense minister, in other word, the centre of lies-. I ask you that if someones among you have more clues -other than Israelis, and US sources- about combats between F-16 and Mig-21.



I suspect too, that during the Gulf War in 1991, and Serbia 1999, the US losses in dogfights were more important. With a fair update of its avionics, the Mig-21 nowadays is still effective against either F-16, or F-35, Typhoon, Rafale, and even F-22.

George1 wrote:.... Lightweight Fighter program that concluded to F-16.

if indeed the empty weight around 8.500 kg but, loaded weight around 12,000 kg, with a Max takeoff weight: around 19.000 kg, and average takeoff, 14-15.000 kg, with a Powerplant: 1 × F110-GE-100 afterburning turbofan Dry thrust 76.3 kN, thrust with afterburner 127 kN. This features proves that F-16 is not a lightweight fighter. Whereas the Mig-21 we have Gross weight around 9.000 kg, powered by Powerplant 1 × Tumansky R25-300 40.21 kN thrust dry, 69.62 kN with afterburner each. Moreover, during Desert Storm in 1991 around 30 F-16 were lost du to....."accident". In fact they were simply downed, and I suspect some iraqi Mig-21 were engaged.

George1 wrote:However today most air-fights are being developed in BVR situation

A situation with a doubfull results. Most of the Mig could dodge any AMRAAM missiles. I suspect Mig-21 downed several F-15, and F-16, and untill now, with a fair upgrade of its avionics, and new engines, the Mig-21 could be still now, a redoutable fighter.

F-16 shits on the MiG-21 across the board.

Senseless comparison, to stay polite.

Also what is so amazing about that manuver?

Do you think an Immelman is also incredible?

TR1 wrote:F-16 shits on the MiG-21 across the board.

Iam afraid it is the opposite, ....to stay polite.

nemrod wrote:

TR1 wrote:F-16 shits on the MiG-21 across the board.  

Iam afraid it is the opposite, ....to stay polite.

No.

I see little meaning in comparing these crafts, because MiG-21 and F-16 belong to different generation.

F-16 is a Ye-8 with a computer, no canard, and a degenerated air inhale.

So... yeah, F-16 belongs to a newer, younger generation than MiG-21. It is not surprising if F-16 defeat MiG-21 in a fight.

George1 wrote:i know that in Vietnam war MiG-21 proved more capable in dogfights against the more heavy F-4 Phantom and this was a reason for Lightweight Fighter program that concluded to F-16.
However today most air-fights are being developed in BVR situation

Yeah, you got a point here. MiG-21 was born in the time when FBV and computer pilot is not matured yet. Therefore dogfight still plays a considerable role and MiG-21 keep some of the dogfight characteristic. It has both gun for close combat and IR guided missiles for longer range. It is also light and fast to gain a great advantage in dogfight.

Meanwhile, F-4 made a severe mistake when it hurriedly abandon dogfight too soon, and trust everything to FBV system which were not matured yet. And compared with MiG-21, F-4 is much much less maneuverable.

In Vietnam War, Vietnamese MiGs was much much much fewer than F-xx. In a fight, the ratio was usually 3 Fs and 1 MiGs. But Vietnam still won. Thanks to the bravery and brilliance of the Vietnamese pilot, and the superior quality of MiGs.

But then, in late 196x and 197x and so on, FBV was matured and well developed. Fighter evolved into 4th generation follow the concept set by MiG-25 and Ye-8. That's why MiG-21 became outdated.

TR1 wrote:Senseless comparison, to stay polite.

I prefer "meaningless comparison", though.

Both aircraft were designed at very different times using different technologies for different purposes.

The MiG-21 was primarily a mach 2 fighter designed to shoot down bomber aircraft as its primary role.

Compared with the MiG-23 that came after it it lacked range and payload and its electronics were sufficient for the job but not amazing.

The MiG-21 is a cheap relatively simple aircraft that has limitations and features that can be exploited by its user or its enemy.

The F-16 on the other hand was a knee jerk reaction to the realisation that the US had lost its way and was designing heavy powerful missile carriers at a time when missiles were not that effective.

The F-16 was a rethink that tried to go back to simple with high manouverablility, and a highly capable radar and an excellent range of weapons of all types... probably really the first aircraft that could genuinely be called an effective multirole.... in the sense that with drop tanks and a couple of laser guided bombs and a few AAMs could fly in, hit a few point targets accurately and then loiter and engage any enemy aircraft that try to interfere.

With a decent radar upgrade and modern AAMs the MiG-21 is still a very capable aircraft, though its legs are still short and it will never have a huge payload... A Saudi Pilot in an F-16 could easily get his arse kicked by an Israeli who is familiar with both aircraft in a MiG-21BIS.

@Garry:

I still do not understand why the US chose a ram inlet in F-16, not a more complex one like Ye-8, or at least conical air inlet like J-10B ?

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!

MiG-21-93 and Bison (a close version purchased by India) never had the engine replaced, it would be extremely expensive, if not impossible, to make a RD-33 fit in a MiG-21. Anyway, it is still a very decent light fight, with its PESA Kopyo radar and R-73 and R-77 missiles.

hey thanks for the good reply and information. I also remember the article about the Mig-21 kicking F-15 and F-16 ass but can't find it.
please see below some pretty amazing info regarding the Mig-21.

"The agility of MiG-21 cannot be matched by any of the present day fighters," IAF chief NAK Browne said"
source http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/MiG-21-Indias-first-supersonic-fighter-flies-into-history/articleshow/27230270.cms

Draft copy of the exercise Cope India report says:
While the superb performances of IAF Sukhoi-30s were somewhat anticipated, the performance of MiG-21Bison came as a major “unpleasant surprise” to the USAF officials. It also validates the claim of the Russian officials that they are capable of successfully converting “second generation” late-model MiG-21bis fighters to “fourth generation combat platforms”. Inherently the significant positive attributes enjoyed by MiG-21s were their dog fighting ability in WVR (Within Visual Range) combat. Even the earlier models had a low corner velocity of 556 kilometers per hour and at Mach 0.5 had an instantaneous turn rate of 11.1 degrees per second. The MiG-21Bison with more powerful R-25 engines not only considerably bettered this performance but it may also be credited with “jackrabbit” acceleration, a very critical attribute in WVR combat.

Among many fourth generations attributes added to the IAF MiG-21Bison design, the incorporation of HMS (Helmet Mounted Sight) and high-off-boresight R-73RDM2 NBVR/WVR (Near Beyond Visual Range/Within Visual Range) AAMs (Air-to-Air Missiles) have turned it into a “Great Equalizer” in the WVR combat scenario. Conceptually a small number of MiG-21Bisons maintaining “radar silence” can be guided towards their aerial target by a couple of Sukhoi-30s by secure data links in accordance with MFFC (Mixed Fighter Force Concept). Upon entering into an WVR combat envelope the MiG-21Bisons armed with HMS and deadly NBVR/WVR missiles had the capability of destroying even fifth-generation fighters alike F/A-22 Raptor as assessed by high-profile Fighter Analyst Ben Lambeth of RAND Corporation. According to Lambeth “in visual combat everybody dies at the same rate.” F/A-22 also has to slow down if forced into a WVR combat scenario and loses the advantage of its super-cruise attributes. The situation further complicates if the IAF Sukhoi-30s have acquired the capability of providing target illumination for RVV-AE (AA-12 Adder) BVR missiles being launched from IAF MiG-21Bisons at extended ranges.

and from an exercise in 2008, involving India and USA. Source http://theboresight.blogspot.co.uk/2009/07/swirl-of-controversy-cope-india-and-red.html

interesting read heres is a few comments made in relation to the Mig-21 Bison

"The Indians flew a number of different fighters, including the French-made Mirage 2000 and the Russian-made MiG-27 and MiG-29, but the two most formidable IAF aircraft proved to be the MIG-21 Bison, an upgraded version of the Russian-made baseline MiG-21, and the Su-30MK Flanker, also made in Russia."

"Indian Air Force flying the MiG-21 'Bison' gave USAF F-15 drivers - a very bad day. "Low-tech" aircraft fitted with the right equipment, and properly trained crews - should never be underestimated. It appears the IAF knows exactly what they are doing"

"the U.S. pilots admitted that they did have problems with the simulated active missile threat and don't normally train against launch-and-leave threats. They also admit they underestimated the training and tactics of the Indian pilots."

and a little interesting clip mentioning the F-35 and Mig-21 from Pierre Sprey co desinger of the F-16 and helped with the design of the A-10

The upgraded MiG-21s were never intended to be alternatives to modern state of the art fighter bombers and would never be comparable to the F-16 in range or payload capacity.

What they were was very cheap and simple to operate and maintain and with all the old electronics removed and new modern stuff fitted they should remain relatively cheap to operate...

With modern AAMs and a modern radar they should be effective enough and with good training they are small and relatively agile and with HMS and high off boresight missiles they will be very potent in close combat and with R-77s a real threat in BVR combat too.

GarryB wrote:The upgraded MiG-21s were never intended to be alternatives to modern state of the art fighter bombers and would never be comparable to the F-16 in range or payload capacity.

I never said this Garry, I said only that Mig-21 Bis is not inferior than the F-16, and on contrary the effectiveness of the US aircraft in term of dogfight is dubious.

d_taddei2 wrote:

"The Indians flew a number of different fighters, including the French-made Mirage 2000 and the Russian-made MiG-27 and MiG-29, but the two most formidable IAF aircraft proved to be the MIG-21 Bison, an upgraded version of the Russian-made baseline MiG-21, and the Su-30MK Flanker, also made in Russia."


"the U.S. pilots admitted that they did have problems with the simulated active missile threat and don't normally train against launch-and-leave threats. They also admit they underestimated the training and tactics of the Indian pilots."

I share obviously this point view, even though the Mig-29 is a real fantastic aircraft. And as the Mig-29 was the successor of the Mig-21, he is necessary better than the Mig-21.

At first I must add some precisions about the previous post about Lebanon War in 1982. Indeed the Mig-21 Bis was armed with AAM.



But even if their most role was to escort -dedicated mostly for the Mig-21 MF- the Mig-23 BN, and the cumbersome SU-22, they much participated too -Mig-21 Bis - in air raid against israeli armoured divisions.
For more informations about the Lebanon war in 1982 see, this link, it is one of the best western website, and I encourage you to read the Tom Cooper's books, he is very objective about what's happenned.
http://www.acig.info/CMS/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=207&Itemid=47

The question is why the Mig-21 Bis was used as fighter-bombers's role against israeli ground forces.

When they launched their campaign Israel had ambitious plans against palestinians, and chiefly syrian army. They wanted to expel, and totally destroy syrian army in Lebanon. For this purpose israeli ground forces were 3 times more than syrian army. The next we know, Israel failed, and could not even reach the highway Beyruth-Damascus, because of fierce syrian army resistance, and mostly due to the effectiveness of soviet technology.
For that reason the losses of Mig-21 Bis were high, because the casualities of israeli army -air, and ground- were high. Here is Tom Cooper's excerpt  

How fierce and bitter the fighting on the ground was shows the fact that - according to contemporary reports in Israeli press - in the fierce fighting of this day a single Israeli Brigade suffered a loss of 18 KIA - including its commander, Col. Avigdor Shriper - 87 injured, and 22 tanks destroyed.

22 Tanks acknoaldged by the press, the reality, U can count at least 50. And the other casualties, no need to tell more.

Here is a syrian Mig-21 Bis, in 1982

Although the Israelis claimed possession of air superiority over Lebanon since afternoon of 9 June 1982, the SyAAF continued dispatching ever larger formations of fighter-bombers to attack advancing Israeli units. MiG-21s mainly acted as close escort for MiG-23BN and Su-20/22 fighter-bombers, but were several times also deployed in air-to-ground role - like on the morning of 11 June, when two straffed the trapped elements of the 362 Tank Battalion IDF. (Artwork by Tom Cooper)

If we back to the subject, and about these 26 Mig-21 downed, or lost by syrians, how much could we remove these losses of the real dogfights ? 10 -downed by sam, or israeli anti aircraft guns- ? Because we are all interrested by dogfights here. The tactics of F-16, and F-15, with their E-2 C were like snipers. The purpose was to avoid as long as it is possible any dogfight. It could work against fighter bomber, or light bomber that is blinded, no ECM, no IFF, no MAWS, etc...And as we've seen exported Mig-21 Bis were often downgraded regarding their avionic. Nevertheless the Mig-21 Bis could dodge any air air missile.

Example of Israeli ugly methods

This photo shows a supposed egyptian Mig-21 downed somewhere above the Sinai around october 1973.

In fact it was an israeli F-4 Phantom II downed by a syrian Mig-21 above the Golan Heights. But ugly western propaganda still claims that this aircraft is a Mig-21. For that reason, I have no trust on western medias at all.


The appraisal
If the syrian army had more casualities than israelis regarding aircrafts, it is an evidence, nevertheless the results are more mixed than we were told. If indeed syrian army lost too much Mig-21 Bis, many of them were downed from the ground, because the syrian pilots took the maximum of risks, and few were downed by missiles because the Mig-21 is very agile, and could easily dodge any air-air missile launched against him.
The E-2C, F-16, and F-15 tactics contrary to what US asserted, their results were mitigated, if at the beginning of the battle syrian army lost many aircrafts, at the end they lost sparsely. On the contrary the ambush of syrian air force allowed them to down the heart of israeli structure, they downed an E-2C. Forcing Israel to sign immediatly the cease fire. It prove, in the best case, F-16, and F-15's effectiveness is mitigate, on the other hand, in term of dogfights the Mig-21 is still a formidable asset. It is hard to consider Mig-21 as second generation, but rather as fourth generation, especially regarding the Mig-21 MF, and Mig-21 Bis. As I've said before, in term of pure dogfights, Syrian Air Force must be at least slightly ahead.
Dr.J.Chorba, President of Washington Centre of Internatinal Safety, who visited Israel on a commission from American Government shortly after the end of military operations in Lebanon, told that Israelis refused to give him any concrete informations concerning use of "new American weapon" in the military operations.
The main purpose of the US-Israeli propaganda, and their filthy lies, was to discredit USSR, and after Russia' technology. They successfully debunk soviet, and russian know how.

Ref:
http://www.amazon.com/MiG-19-MiG-21-Units-Combat-Aircraft/dp/1841766550/ref=sr_1_22?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1460460302&sr=1-22
Tom Cooper's website ACIG.info.

d_taddei2 wrote: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

What it amazed me is : "US F-16 Fighting Falcon fighter jet was ranked first with 2.264, and  1,047 F-18 sold". In my view it is a pitiable accident in the history. The F-16 was sold, because of USSR's collapse. In the dark 90's era Russia near completely collapsed too. In this link,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-produced_aircraft
U can see the logical ranking of US hardware. Whatever it is helicopters, jets, WWW II's fighters, machine guns, grenade, etc... soviet hardware were among the first. Why ? Because there are among the best, as engineers, designers were absolutely exceptional. The ranking of the F-18, and the F-16 -many problems for the dubbed Fighting Falcon , its supposed success in Lebanon was doubtful if not false, its setbacks during Desert Storm are countless and well known, and during Serbia's war its results did not be shinning,... as expected - are not normal. Normally the first, the best are Mig-29/35, SU-30/35, Rafale, EAF Typhoons, and only after maybe the F-15 -F-15 success was due to the US air war's doctrine. They outnumbered their enemy. Most of the time you have the following situation : 5 F-15, 10 F-16 against two other malfunctioning fighters. U can see a rain of ineffective AAM, but among 15 missiles fired, at least, at least one could reach its target. It is enough for US to claim that their F-15 is the best. Really ? -.
Next  russian, chinese, french, british's hardwares will back in their normal ranking. Because the US's domination is reaching its terminal phase.

I know Tom from a few years back... he is ex US Navy and hot for all things F-14... so of course that means unlike the vast majority of American military people he is not seriously anti Iran.

He is however very anti MiG-29 and views all models to be MiG-29A models at best and therefore inferior.

Needless to say we didn't agree on an enormous number of things except we both opposed US government treatment of Iran.

GarryB wrote:I know Tom from a few years back... he is ex US Navy and hot for all things F-14... so of course that means unlike the vast majority of American military people he is not seriously anti Iran.

He is however very anti MiG-29 and views all models to be MiG-29A models at best and therefore inferior.

Needless to say we didn't agree on an enormous number of things except we both opposed US government treatment of Iran.

Thx Garry for this precious information.
I do not say that Tom Cooper is right on all. He is not the truth too, he could do mistakes as any human, beginning by me. I could do huge mistakes too, and human history is very complex, meanwhile the life learn us to be modest about all. I quoted several sources, beginning by the conclusions of Vladimir ilyin -about the F-16, i think he is right-, to be honnest, I had to add some westerners pov. The more objective possible, and I found T. Cooper, maybe there are others -if you know others interresting sources, please post them-. It is not because an american says something that he is the truth, and it is not because we have a non american's POV says something that he is necessary right.
The Concord, Midland, Salamander, and Osprey, etc...publishing in many respect are near all anti-soviet, pro israel, hence lack of objectivities. But sometimes there are few interresting views. I don't like the soviet propaganda too, I am only interrested by the truth. For that reason I try to equilibrate, it is not an easy task. If you know other westerners sources, or ref. please post them!

Mig-21 MF in few words. Give me any F-16, we will laugh!
For that reason, any claim about F-16 success is dubious.

DIMENSIONS, EXTERNAL (MiG-21 MF):
Wing span 7.15 m (23 ft 5 1/2 in)
Length, incl pitot boom 15.76 m (51 ft 8 1/2 in)
Fuselage length, intake lip to jetpipe nozzle 12.30 m (40 ft 4 1/4 in)
Height overall 4.10 m (13 ft 5 1/2 in)
Tailplane span 3.70 m (12 ft 8 in)
Wheel track 2.69 m (8 ft 10 in)
Wheelbase 4.81 m (15 ft 9V2 in)
Wings, gross area 23.0 m2 (247.0 sq ft)

WEIGHTS AND LOADINGS (MiG-21 MF):
Weight empty 5,843 kg (12,882Ibs)
Take-off weight:
with four K-13A missiles 8,200 kg (18,078Ibs)
with two K-13A missiles and two 490 liter tanks 8,950 kg (19,730 lbs)
with two K-13As and three drop tanks 9,400 kg (20,725 lbs)
MaxT-O weight 9,800 kg (21,605Ibs)
Max wing loading 426.0 kg/m2 (87.5 lbs/sq ft)
Max power loading 151.4 kg/kN (1.48Ibs/lb st)

Performance:
Max level speed: above 11,000 m (36,000 ft) .M2.05 (1,175 kt; 2,175 km/h; 1,353 mph)
at low altitude M1.06 (701 kt; 1,300 km/h; 807 mph)
Landing speed 146 kt (270 km/h; 168 mph)
Design ceiling 18,000 m (59,050 ft)
Practical ceiling about 15,250 m (50,000 ft)
Take-off run at normal AUW 800 m (2,625 ft)
Landing run 550 m (1,805 ft)
Combat radius (hi-Io-hi):
with four 250 kg bombs, internal fuel 200 n miles (370 km; 230
miles)
with two 250 kg bombs and drop tanks 400 n miles (740 km; 460
miles)
Range, internal fuel only 593 n miles (1,100 km; 683
miles)
Ferry range, with three external tanks 971 n miles (1,800 km; 1,118
miles)

Performance (MiG-21 US, clean):
Max level speed above 12,200 m (40,000 ft) .M2.02 (1,159 kt; 2,150 km/h; 1,335 mph)
at sea level M1.06 (701 kt; 1,300 km/h; 807 mph)
Max rate of climb at sea level 6,400 m (21,000 ft)/min
Rate of climb at 11,000 ill (36,000 ft) 3,050 m (10,000 ft)/min
Time to 1,500 m (4,920 ft) 20 s

Turn rate at 4,575 m (15,000 ft):
instantaneous (MO.5) 11.1 °/s
instantaneous (MO.9) 13.4 °/s
sustained(MO.9) 7.5°/s
Take-off run 700 m (2,297 ft)

Legend of the Sky: This is Russia's Most Reliable Fighter Jet:

The third-generation Soviet supersonic tactical fighter MiG-21 is one of the world’s most reliable military aircraft ever produced, according to military analyst Robert Farley

http://sputniknews.com/military/20160528/1040425871/russian-legendary-fighter.html

d_taddei2 wrote:...according to military analyst Robert Farley...

During years, and years I used to rely of these so-called pundits, but they are only a mere liars. Their purpose are not to tell truth, but to push for more credits in military industrial complex.
As I said before the Mig-21 with a fair upgrades, its engine -vector thrust-, avionics -new radar, new IRST, or OLS- it still could be a redoubtable fighter today. This fighter is again able to challenge every US fighters, including F-18, F-16, F-15, and F-35.

I was looking at the earlier editions of military balance from 1985 and it gives about 500 mig21 divided roughly between Interceptor units and tactical strike unit
I was wondering what unit mig 21bis mig 21MF or the mig-21 smt were assigned to?
As far as I know these three versions all of them were multirole and we're capable of intercepting and ground attacks missions
Is that accurate?
What determines which versions of mig 21 ended up in strike versus interception units

nemrod wrote:
Mig-21 MF in few words. Give me any F-16, we will laugh!

From what I've read, the MIG-21MF wasn't as good a dogfighter as the MIG-21F-13. Cooper's view was that the latter, with its 30mm gun, was more potent than the MF with its 23mm, and was also solely designed as an interceptor whereas MIG-21MFs in Egyptian service also flew attack missions.