Vietnam Era MiG-21 top sea level speed?

[GalmOne 1]

Hey gents, I found this document concerning virtually every performance characteristic estimation of the MiG-21bis. Anyone have any ideas as to how valid it is? I think it's based on a sim, but I don't know which. It's quite in-depth, and when comparing it with the slatted F-4E P_s graphs that are readily available, turns out that the MiG-21bis has a slight advantage in ITR but is a tad worse in STR (from sea level - 15 000 ft) . It's a little slower at most altitudes compared to a non-slatted a.k.a. hard-wing F-4E.

 

What I figure is that the planes are so closely matched it really will take a better pilot.... or a quick, working AIM-7 shot.

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/72843164/Natops-Flight-Manual-Mig-21bis

[+Gepard 11,323]

I would be carefull with this document. But i will show it to former MiG-21 pilots, then we will know more.

[jeanba 1,920]

 

I wouldn't call the MiG-21 pilots "experienced", as they mostly engaged under GCI-orders.

The MiG-17 pilots propably were better in actual dogfights.

 

Conducting a proper interception needs a lot of experience, both from the GCI and the pilot side, and in this domain, the Mig-21 were propably the most battle hardened interceptor pilots of their time.

And according to "Clash" they were more dangerous than their Mig-17 pilots comrades.

[Toryu 156]

Yes, because they came out of ground-clutter at M>1, squeezed off two Atolls and then disappeard into ground-clutter again.

 

Engagement-time: 2-3 seconds.

Experience required: follow vectors, get switchology right, shoot

 

There was no way of countering those attacks. Even if they missed, they mostly scored a mission-kill, because they may lead to a break-up of ECM-formations or somebody jettisons his ordnance.

That leads to a pretty good kill-ratio, yet it won't give any account of how those pilots/ airplanes were during a 1 v 1 fight.

Close-in, the MiG-21s usually weren't that good.

In contrast, the MiG-17 pilots were mostly pretty good dogfighters that knew how to handle their aircraft well.

[+Gepard 11,323]

Toryu, you descripe the MiG-21 standard tactic in Vietnam. The Indian Air Force used the MiG-21 in an other way and was very satisfied with it. Also the Egyptians fought well with the MiG-21 after they had learned the lesson how to use it in dogfight.

[GalmOne 1]

Thanks, Gepard. I look forward to what these MiG pilots reveal.

 

Toryu, that tactic sounds very interesting, and I think I remember reading about it. With that kind of tactic, chances of being spotted were minimal even if for the Doppler radar-equipped F-4J since the MiGs would probably attack from behind to give their Atolls more of a chance. However, the probability of a hit would be low, I believe.

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

 

Yep, that's how you win air wars. Chennaul'ts P-40s couldn't "dogfight" with the Japs, but using the extensive Chinese GCI pioneered by the Soviets in the 1930s against the Japanese, climbed and dived on the Jap bomber formations, leaving the Jap "dogfight" escorts powerless.

 

Total engagement time: 2-3 seconds.

 

Actually, total engagement time for GCI intercept missions is from takeoff to firing, and it does take trained and motivated pilots to fly these missions successfully. Even more so when GCI is either not always reliable or not available.

[Toryu 156]

Well, you don't even need to hit to score a (partial) success. The interceptors win if the bombers have to jettison their ordnance.

And as war is not about newsreel-reports of fighterpilots shooting down another plane once-a-time, but about succeeding in your mission and preventing the enemy from doing in his, the Migs won that day.

 

 

The MiG's "success" in India was partially due to Pakistan's F-104-fleet being short on spares and it's pilots being out of training-hours.

Had they been able to do their required training-hours (as was the case when the US was still supplying direct military aid), the relative success of the Indians would propably not have been all that shiny. After all, both aircraft (MiG-21FL and F-104A) wee ill-equipped for an actual large-scale war, as they had virtually no secondary A-G capabilities at all.

 

 

The Egyptians have never made a lasting impression with me - popably a matter of which sources one believes. Compared to the multirole Mirages, the MiGs were "also-rans".

 

Actually, total engagement time for GCI intercept missions is from takeoff to firing, and it does take trained and motivated pilots to fly these missions successfully. Even more so when GCI is either not always reliable or not available.

 

That's true for "normal" GCI.

In Vietnam, however, the strike-packages conveniently used the same routes, the same callsigns all-over, and - as a courtesy - elected to attack at pretty much fixed times.

The NVAF could also have deployed a giant fly-swatter...

Edited October 3, 2012 by Toryu

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

Toryu::

The NVAF could also have deployed a giant fly-swatter...

 

Fishing net lol. I read the 4181 on this stamp as the NV claimed downings of US planes.

 

~> http://forums.airforce.ru/holodnaya-voina/3590-v-etnam-4/

 

Edited October 3, 2012 by Lexx_Luthor

[+Gepard 11,323]

After the egyptian break with the USSR Egypt became a close ally of the USA. So egyptian MiG-21 pilots were invited to Red Flag and proofed as very capable fighter pilots with very capable planes.

In the success of the Israeli pilots is also a lot of propaganda, i think. If you compare the kill scores of israeli F-4E in Yom Kippur War when used the AIM-7 Sparrow, with the kill score of the american pilots at the same time over Vietnam with the same weapon, so you find that the israelis killed more MiG's with Sparrows than the US boys. Either it means, that the israelis were so much better than the americans, or something is wrong with the israeli scores.

[GalmOne 1]

After the egyptian break with the USSR Egypt became a close ally of the USA. So egyptian MiG-21 pilots were invited to Red Flag and proofed as very capable fighter pilots with very capable planes.

In the success of the Israeli pilots is also a lot of propaganda, i think. If you compare the kill scores of israeli F-4E in Yom Kippur War when used the AIM-7 Sparrow, with the kill score of the american pilots at the same time over Vietnam with the same weapon, so you find that the israelis killed more MiG's with Sparrows than the US boys. Either it means, that the israelis were so much better than the americans, or something is wrong with the israeli scores.

 

Or perhaps the physical environment helped? Perhaps there are odd claims, I wouldn't be surprised.

 

Here is the claim tally for Israel in October 1973: http://www.acig.org/...ticle_268.shtml

and here it is from 67 to September 1973. http://www.acig.info...d=200&Itemid=47

 

Almost all of the confirmed kills are either listed as AIM-9 or 20mm kills on this site. Cross referencing with other texts have lead me to believe that this database is fairly accurate.

 

 

 

Well, you don't even need to hit to score a (partial) success. The interceptors win if the bombers have to jettison their ordnance.

And as war is not about newsreel-reports of fighterpilots shooting down another plane once-a-time, but about succeeding in your mission and preventing the enemy from doing in his, the Migs won that day.

 

 

The MiG's "success" in India was partially due to Pakistan's F-104-fleet being short on spares and it's pilots being out of training-hours.

Had they been able to do their required training-hours (as was the case when the US was still supplying direct military aid), the relative success of the Indians would propably not have been all that shiny. After all, both aircraft (MiG-21FL and F-104A) wee ill-equipped for an actual large-scale war, as they had virtually no secondary A-G capabilities at all.

 

 

The Egyptians have never made a lasting impression with me - popably a matter of which sources one believes. Compared to the multirole Mirages, the MiGs were "also-rans".

 

 

 

That's true for "normal" GCI.

In Vietnam, however, the strike-packages conveniently used the same routes, the same callsigns all-over, and - as a courtesy - elected to attack at pretty much fixed times.

The NVAF could also have deployed a giant fly-swatter...

 

Wow, it's really an understatement to say that the USAF changed tactics since then. Desert Storm must have been a world away from Vietnam both geographically and from a tactics perspective.

 

If the US was capable of making a look-down shoot-down radar, why did the USAF not just get one too? I can only assume it's because radars back then didn't give sufficient situational awareness, regardless of being pulse-doppler or CW.

 

Did the USAF APQ's have at the very least a slight look-down capability or did targets simply get completely lost in the clutter every single time?

Edited October 3, 2012 by GalmOne

[+Gepard 11,323]

It was worlds away. The major difference was AWACS. With it the us fighter pilots got the complete situation awerness while the detruction of the iraqi GCI structure made the iraqi planes more or less blind.

[Toryu 156]

After the egyptian break with the USSR Egypt became a close ally of the USA. So egyptian MiG-21 pilots were invited to Red Flag and proofed as very capable fighter pilots with very capable planes.

 

There were no egyptian MiGs at Red Flag - you'e propably meaning the Bright Star exercises that were held in Egypt. If an airplane is capable, or not is a matter of tactics used. The MiGs were very capable in Vitnam - as they were used perfectly within their design-range, whereas the american fighter-bombers weren't.

 

The egyptian pilots also propably used western tactics.

 

In the success of the Israeli pilots is also a lot of propaganda, i think. If you compare the kill scores of israeli F-4E in Yom Kippur War when used the AIM-7 Sparrow, with the kill score of the american pilots at the same time over Vietnam with the same weapon, so you find that the israelis killed more MiG's with Sparrows than the US boys.

 

The Israelis thought the Sparrow was a POS and mainly relied on Sidewinder (the Navy-models, of course!) and 20mm.

 

The Israelis also actually were much better in ACM than the Americans. Why?

They trained harder, more frequently and were less restrained by training-rules. They also had a much tighter selection-programme for pilots.

 

Wow, it's really an understatement to say that the USAF changed tactics since then. Desert Storm must have been a world away from Vietnam both geographically and from a tactics perspective.

 

One could say that! That's manly caused by the issue that the young 2nd ans 1st Lieutenants that flew missions over NV later became staff-officers during the 80s and preceeding years to Desert Storm.

You may read that one:

http://www.amazon.com/Every-Man-Tiger-Campaign-Commander/dp/0425219135

It's about Gen. Chuck Horner and his career, leading up to being the AF-commander during DS.

 

The USAF mainly concentrated on bombing stuff and thus didn't need a look-don radar. The Navy, in contrast, also had to defend their sinkable-airfileds from low-flying airplanes/ cruise-missiles.

Thus, they had the Look-Down-Shoot-Down capability built into the F-4J relatively early.

The Air Force propably relied too much on Red Crown and Disco for fighter-warnings.

 

In "Tripple Sticks" (book about a VA-34 pilot, flying A-4Cs in VN), there's an anecdote of a tanker-Scooter flying a couple of miles off the Red-Crown destroyer, noting two MiGs lazyly rambling along. He calls RC to shoot them down - however, they're busy doing something else, claiming there are no bandits. He swears and curses, drops his tanks and split-s-es out of the situation.

Later that day, two F-4s were blown out of the sky in the very same area, propably by the same MiGs that learned they could stroll around unpunished...

[MigBuster 2,884]

I'm pretty sure they hacked the Transponder system that the GCI used at one point making the MiGs very easy to find.

 

 

On the subject of the Middle East - have a claim from an exiled Iraqi pilot that states the R-13 spin scan radar in the MiG-21PF had to be switched off over M1.2 to stop it overheating - because it was air cooled, the supply diminished when the shock cone slid forward.

[MigBuster 2,884]

In the success of the Israeli pilots is also a lot of propaganda, i think. If you compare the kill scores of israeli F-4E in Yom Kippur War when used the AIM-7 Sparrow, with the kill score of the american pilots at the same time over Vietnam with the same weapon, so you find that the israelis killed more MiG's with Sparrows than the US boys. Either it means, that the israelis were so much better than the americans, or something is wrong with the israeli scores.

 

Ospreys Isreali F-4 Aces only lists 4 known AIM-7 kills for the Yom Kippur War

 

Thats a rather simplistic way of looking at things - there is no meaningful comparison there regarding US and Isreali pilots.

[GalmOne 1]

I'm pretty sure they hacked the Transponder system that the GCI used at one point making the MiGs very easy to find.

 

 

On the subject of the Middle East - have a claim from an exiled Iraqi pilot that states the R-13 spin scan radar in the MiG-21PF had to be switched off over M1.2 to stop it overheating - because it was air cooled, the supply diminished when the shock cone slid forward.

 

Well that completely removes the issue of look-down shoot-down for the F-4. I heard that because there were problems with the development of a shoot-down capability for the APQ-120 caused the radar to enter service late and have no shoot-down capability anyway. With some adjusting, could the WSO at least distinguish some planes from the ground clutter? I.e. what if there was a MiG-21 about 1000' above SL and an F-4 is say, 2000' above it and say, 0.5 miles behind it. Could the WSO not adjust the gain of the antenna so as to only look around that range and avoid the ground clutter, or is there absolutely no way that an F-4D/E ever see a target below it?

Edited October 3, 2012 by GalmOne

[Toryu 156]

I don't think this is possible.

Ground-reflections are mostly too dense to spot a "feature" just slightly above it. It's similar to watching a flea crawling (not jumping!) over a rug.

[+Gepard 11,323]

Some pilots told the story that they had had WSO's which were able to detect targets were others saw only milksoupe on the radar screen.

 

The minimum detection altitude with RP-21 of MiG-21 was 500 meters if i remember correctly. Even if the MiG-21 was flying lower than 500 meters and looked above it had some difficults to detect a target. It was tried to raise the antenna in such circumstances or to reduce the power of radar output to reduce the ground reflections, but the result was not really satisfying.

 

The story of the iraqi radar problem over Mach 1.2 i have read too. But i cant remember that such things were reported in the east german air force LSK. The slots in the cone forced other problems in central europe, when flying through rain you got water in the Radar, and a short circut which switched off the radar. The LSK solved the problem by closing the cooling slots with silicon. And there were never overheating problems.

Maybe, that the radar systems for Export B contries like Iraq were from worser quality or that the hot climate of Iraq caused the overheating.

[Toryu 156]

Where did the cooling-air come from?

 

If it came from ambient air in the inlet-area, then there might be the source of the trouble: shock-induced temperature-increase is a function of the flow-deflection-angle and the Mach-number.

Maybe the slightly higher (depending on altitude) SAT made the difference between *enough cooling*, *barely enough cooling* and *insufficient cooling*.

 

Sand and dust can also be game-enders.

[+Gepard 11,323]

Where did the cooling-air come from?

 

The cooling air for the radar came from slots in the conus of air intake. If i remember right the slots were on the basic of the cone.

[MigBuster 2,884]

Well that completely removes the issue of look-down shoot-down for the F-4.

 

hmm well should say it made it easier for the controllers in EC-121s etc to find them and provide vectors - the Fighters still had to find them as normal - and the VPAF soon realised what was going on and changed methods anyway.