vanir

Not that I'd know much about it Cali but I could guess that you're exactly right. I understand Eagles are being used as Flanker aggressors, I wonder if they have any actual modifications or are just handled by their pilots so as to act as close as possible to Flanker performance. Those Aggressor pilots must be seriously skilled fellers, not flying to win but flying to match the aircraft characteristics they're meant to represent as closely as possible, that takes art.

That was a nice read, thanks for posting. Been hard trying to guestimate a current 2010 listing of current in service fighters with the reorganised RuAF. I had no idea the Fulcrums had languished quite that much, although I understand the figures are speculative. In the early 90s there were certainly more Fulcrums than Flankers due to the higher production rate for Frontal Aviation as opposed to PVO-strany for whom the Flankers were primarily produced (only something like two Frontal IAP plus a Long Range Aviation mixed IAP had Flankers and a whole lot were lost to Ukraine), considering at the time of 1989 twice as many Fulcrums had been delivered as Flankers from production figures, then Fulcrums were the first to get any attention with upgrades with the shift to 9-13 and conversion kits for existing 9-12 (many were retained unmodified in service alongside though for second echelon and training as Floggers were completely retired so it's a safe bet eg. quite a few Krasnodar Fulcrums are 9-12 with little modification), still the new planar array from the earlier model's cassegrain antenna is a big step up and not an insignificant upgrade to the Fulcrum fleet continuing through the 90s. Certainly development projects had in this time concentrated on the Flanker proposals but as mentioned none were adopted into Russian service, no upgrade was made to the Flanker fleet until the 2000s despite all the development prototyping, they were mostly for the export market for which Fulcrums are generally unsuitable. And now as the SM upgrades are in final stage the SMT upgrade is underway for the 9-13 in service that still have some airframe life (I actually thought these were going to be new build and older types would be retired in equivalent numbers). So I naturally assumed Fulcrum numbers still outweighed Flanker ones until Su35 deliveries were complete, then approximately concordant.

The laser rangefinder isn't integral to schlem operation of the Archers (uses the uncaged seekers) but I haven't read that it was switched off. At any rate it's backed up by radar flashing to range targets, the laser is only used within a few km and whenever it's not operating, is refracted or is out of range the radar pulses instead. It's just that laser ranging is more precise at close range but the functionality of the EOS isn't really affected if the laser is out of action. After speaking with a mechanical fitter who worked on Fulcrums with the Romanian air force I learned describing the Luftwaffe's RD-33/141 modification as a "derating" is a little bit deceptive. It was actually a complete rebuild of the hot area section to German engineering standards, which the standard engine simply doesn't stand up to as delivered. The standard engine is unreliable, has a short lifespan and really should only be using the afterburner as a limited emergency system during wartime. That afterburner is where the Fulcrum gets all its power from (dry the engines are average F404 class), but it does it violently with combustion in both the core and bypass ducting. TBO is less than 800hrs with conservative afterburner use. Breakdowns are common, frequent engine replacement is mandatory, crashes on one engine is almost unavoidable (most Romanian accidents are from this). The engines have plagued the Fulcrum exports, they were entirely designed for Soviet use by Frontal Aviation using the numbers versus quality doctrine, to match F-16 performance in western Europe as cheaply as possible and where possible to meet them 2 for 1 in any conflict. The Romanians and several other operators have retired their Fulcrums by the way, though keep their modified MiG-21s flying at far less expense and trouble. India wanted the uprated engine developments of the MiG-29K with improved reliability before it would even think about buying, they didn't want the higher output SMT but those features on the more reliable K version mostly with carrier gear deleted (reserving the possibility of carrier operation for a small batch of the order). The main reason for this is the engines. The German kit replaces the entire hot section, although I don't have specific details from what I understand it involves different alloys, slight redesign and improved cooling. The derating was inherent but part throttle operation is unaffected whilst overall reliability is increased and TBO improved by 50% (the colliqual is that "the engines last three times longer" in operational service). Full afterburner thrust is restricted but otherwise the engines remain F404 class dry and are still extremely powerful in afterburner. According to the Romanian you hardly notice it but pilot confidence in the aircraft is much improved. At the end of the day he described it as an improvement of the Soviet delivered 9-12, not a devolution. The Poles went ahead and had the German modifications made to all their existing Fulcrums when they took delivery of the ex-German ones and I believe MAPO has now offered a similar hot section kit for export Fulcrum operators. This is mostly heresay with a little speculation though since I don't have any engineering qualification and ultimately don't really know. A lot of Asia-Pacific air forces use Russian spec Fulcrums though and the common complaint is the engines.

I remember reading something similar, from the commander of JG73 iirc who said the Fulcrum was g-restricted with the centreline tank only if it had fuel in it, unrestricted if it was empty. It was the weight distribution but otherwise it was a conformal tank. It was also modified so that it didn't interfere with gun case ejection like other 9-12 centreline tanks (the 9-13 corrected this). The context he was discussing this was to say that the Viper (and Eagle or Hornet) was g-restricted even if it was carrying empty external tanks and had to jettison them for 9g manoeuvring. The Fulcrum could keep an empty centreline (conformal) tank if it was empty and use its maximum limit (but it was still speed restricted). So it was actually a bonus that a Fulcrum could keep its centreline tank after it was empty and it didn't interfere with manoeuvre performance, so you didn't have to keep replacing tanks back at base because they really needed to carry some external tankage due to very thirsty engines (they have a pretty insane afterburner setup, ergo the derating kit replacing the hot section with something stronger). I think you're right about the Alpha limit however with the centreline tank, but the Fulcrum safety system has an alpha limit within its specification anyway, you have to switch it off to do 30-degrees (which you can do safely flying clean because of its inherent stability). In any case the digital-FBW control system of the Viper has a more restrictive alpha limit than the Fulcrum in any configuration, you can't switch it off and just have to fight the stick. But there were a few other points to add. The Luftwaffe found the Fulcrums cracked around the base of the fins from sustaining 9g manoeuvres with Vipers and this was an unrealistic limit (despite MAPO claims of an 11g absolute limit). According to the Germans the max Fulcrum limit is 8g under 0.8 Mach and 7g above that speed, where the Viper limit is 9g at any speed and Eagles have seen 12g before. The conclusion of dissimilar flight training with the German MiGs was that at low altitude the Fulcrum simply cannot stick with the best American models in high stress turns (Block 30 and 50/52 Viper or Eagle), and Vipers were much quicker on the deck without afterburners. At medium and high altitude however, only a Block 50/52 Viper is capable of bringing its nose around as quickly. The advisory was in close combat for Eagle pilots to draw Fulcrums to the deck and crush them with sheer airframe strength and avoid turn fights at altitude, or otherwise stick to BVR. A Block 50/52 Viper is considered worthy of dealing with a Fulcrum at any height but needs to look out for those Archers. The Germans also rated the Fulcrum as unsuitable for any NATO combat operations and only really good for dissimilar flight training, but it does have its strengths. This is very relevant to the Flanker. Nominal advisory is 7g with 9g allowed from what I've read. But that's without the long range internal tanks filled, when it has about the same internal fuel load as an Eagle (about 6 tons) with similar performance capability. With the "special long range tanks" filled which aren't normally for regular counter-air missions it carries over 9 tons of fuel and is restricted to about 5g. But Eagles almost always have external tankage so are restricted to 4-5g unless jettisoned, whilst Flankers with a full AA loadout (about 2 tons) I believe enjoys the nominal 7g rating if the long range tanks are left empty. The guage redline in the cockpit starts from 8g and goes to 9g iirc but this would undoubtedly be the relatively clean and light configuration (nominally 4-6 Archers and long range tanks empty). I don't think the Fulcrum guage has a redline marking but MAPO claims it has a 9g nominal rating with 11g absolute, nobody else agrees with them though and the Luftwaffe has evidence it's an exaggeration. Like you say though it isn't really indicative of actual manoeuvre performance, from what I've gathered there is a turn chart used to determine best corner speed and turn rates of various fighter types which is far more associative. On one of these charts aircraft like Phantoms are well below the turn capabilities by airspeed of modern fighters like Fulcrums and Eagles. An F-15 really can sustain 8g turns in the region of 0.75 Mach with phenomenal rates it takes something like a Fulcrum or a Flanker to beat which they do with a tighter circle and slightly less corner speed/loading, something like a Phantom is going be doing a couple of hundred miles an hour slower to even try to match the circle and won't get anywhere near the rates, whilst trying on an instantaneous 7g is just going to dump all your energy to keep the fight going if you miss the shot, if you can even get a shot.

Yeah this makes sense I don't really know much about it myself. I only go by what I can figure out as a layman and what vets and the like say. I did go back over some documentary footage I've got featuring some Vietnam vet Phantom pilots and two statements stood out. Firstly that under certain conditions a Phantom was capable of pulling 6.5g but also that statement I reiterated earlier, with a slight correction that in the same kind of turn that a Hornet can do 7.5g the Phantom can manage to do 2 to 2.5g (I incorrectly remembered it as 3g), the pilot here was trying to place in context the handling of the Phantom compared to modern fighters like the Hornet, Eagle and the like. Essentially he's saying it's a whole different kettle of fish and doesn't handle anything like a modern composite/honeycomb supersonic turbofan. Another vet (Robin Olds I think) said you don't get in a fight with a MiG-21 at altitude in a Phantom, you're going to lose. He was describing an encounter where he decided to bug out from a high altitude fight with two Fishbeds, and tackle them another time under more favourable circumstances. Yet in an F-15 you can easily, very easily out turn and out power any MiG-21 at any altitude, there's a nice description of some IAF Eagles tackling 5 or 6 Fishbeds and absolutely dominating them in close combat manoeuvres every which way from sunday. One simply must infer that no way a Phantom could keep up either. Certainly I appreciate that new models will have conservative restrictions. Thus I don't challenge Gepard's relation in any way, but I can't help becoming very curious about the specific context involved and details. It's interesting.

That is very interesting. What I've read and heard from USAF/MC pilots substitutes speed performance in that rendition for g-tolerances. In fact according to some Vietnam vets in the same kind of transonic manoeuvres where a Hornet can sustain 7g a Phantom can only manage 3g. Meanwhile the low altitude g-tolerances of the Eagle are infamous and it's widely celebrated as pretty much the strongest fighter airframe there is in this realm, the conclusion of dissimilar flight training against the West German MiGs through the 90s was that the Eagle should always dive to low altitude with them in close combat because it can far exceed the Fulcrum's airframe tolerances, where at medium and high altitude the Fulcrum is capable of bringing its nose around quicker. There is no way a Phantom would match a Fulcrum or a Viper down on the deck I should think, but an Eagle can and easily. By contrast the Phantom has terrific speed performance at low altitude, a lot of the American fighters of that period do, for example the century fighters can all manage a good 1.2 Mach or so on the deck which few modern fighters can do, actually only models like the F-111, F-15 or a MiG-31 can do those sort of speeds in thick air (aircraft like the Mirage series are all subsonic at sea level). But the Phantom drops off on supersonic performance as altitudes rise compared to lighter or more modern types, specially prepared record attempts aside. Models like the MiG-21 have superior altitude performance and modern fighters like the Eagle far exceed those. Are you sure those West German pilots were talking about high stress manoeuvres rather than low altitude speed related characteristics? The Phantom has some real low altitude interceptor benefits, a lot of the dedicated strike aircraft like the Jaguar or MiG-27 and Su-24 have poor altitude performance but fantastic low altitude speed performance exceeding 1.12 Mach dash for strike missions, being optimised for this realm. Point interceptors like the Mirage can't catch them, but a Phantom can. Plus I've never heard of a stress limitation less than 9g for an Eagle that wasn't directly related to the tracking ability of its sidewinder models. Some of them can't track targets during high g manoeuvres, the Vietnam era Sidewinder was restricted to 3g or it would go ballistic (MiG-17s soon found they could just stick to circle tactics against Phantoms in close combat to prevent Sidewinder locks and bring guns on anyone foolish enough to try attacking them without extending, more than one Phantom was shot down this way). Also a MiG will only manage 7g on a good day and whilst the Phantom could far outdo one in the vertical, it was no match in a turn fight at any speed short of the transonic realm and even then only because the MiG lacked boosted controls. I'm kinda doubting sustained 7g capabilities of a Phantom on the deck, I think it's more like about 4-5g which is pretty reflective of its structure and era. Foxbats are constructed almost identically and have that rating, and as I mentioned US Vietnam vets say the limit was 3g in a complex CWC manoeuvre if you expected to keep the fight going. I don't really know myself, do we have any sources to work with?

Thank you, I enjoyed reading the interview. I think you are right about the Su15, it certainly wouldn't make the better forward deployment/fast turnaround fighter than the MiG, the same way of why the USAF uses both F-15 and F-16 so they have a different model that can be used from forward strips for frequent missions. I did specify for its era it is more like an F4 than the MiG, which is more like an F5. But I was not thinking at all about operating from unpaved/grass strips which obviously the MiG can do which is a good point and a further bonus. The Soviet air forces would have to have been very much like the USAF to have operated the Su15 as the main front line type like the F4, restricted to the same kind of fields that the USAF uses (large paved ones with complex ground support services and close supply). I think they only would have done this if they were just a foreign version of American air forces instead of a completely different doctrine, and for these differences the MiG-21 and Su7BM were perfect choices. Those early BVR radar sets were very big and heavy, around half a ton sitting in the nose. That alone generally means an airframe design that isn't going to have the best inherent field manners in a second gen supersonic. The MiG-23ML serie had two benefits over its predecessors being the much lightened radar/fire-control and I think it first received AoA sensor for inlet bypass doors, both things improving low speed handling and I guess making operation from grass strips more reliable (better approach speeds, more effective flare and go-around capability), although I thought Czech MF serie operated from grass. Similar to you guys the only good reports I've read of the MiG-17 is with the F engine in the Middle East but by then it was up against the Mirage III which was of course quite superior (better than twice its initial climb rate for a start). The Yak-25 and 28 certainly don't look like models which would get a "seat of the pants" fighter pilot very excited. The -25 has a massive early radar and two low-power engines, from what I've read it seems to be an early attempt to deal with the long range northern defence district, protecting the arctic approach from bombers. I guess it's really along the Tu-28 line of development, it has a very good range for its time but nothing like the performance of small light fighters, much heavier and underpowered. The -28 is much faster with afterburning but 50% heavier again and initially developed for the multirole direction with an interceptor variant. By this time however the Tu-28 was in development for the northern district region and long range intercept role and had much better range and equipment for the long patrols needed. When the Tu-28 started entering service the Yak-25 was completely phased out at the same time, but it is remarkable some Yak-28 remained in service until the 1980s. Reportedly it had quite good low altitude characteristics. It's important to note I think the very different roles for a PVO pilot to be assigned to the arctic patrol than it is point defence of the Moscow district. Totally different aircraft design requirements are necessary. I don't think you can fairly compare a MiG-15/17 with a Yak-25/28 or a MiG-25 with a Tu-28 for that matter. The PVO requests that multi-crew aircraft are used for these long range patrols because they believe there is a psychological element to patrolling the vast arctic wastes which is much better served by multi-crew interceptors, they believe morale is a problem for single seat solitary patrols and the pilots go a bit crazy after a while. True story, there is a bit of superstition about long range arctic patrols, the Inuit and Siberians have entire mythologies based on the psychological effects of "being alone among the ice expanse" for extended periods, believing such people become ghostlike demons that haunt the wastelands. I suppose on a pragmatic level these airfields are already relatively isolated, cut off for parts of the year and then their pilots going out for 3-4hr solitary patrols on rotating shifts and drinking vodka on down time aren't the best pastimes for their mental health. There is a lot to consider in design requirements for the Northern or Eastern District arctic patrollers and point interceptors. They must operate in a low maintenance environment, carry a lot of survival equipment, must be all-weather and suited to cold operations, and the patrol-interceptors should be multi-engine and multi-crew for reliably sustained operations with long flight endurance. Nominal range should exceed 3000km although this wasn't a requirement for the point interceptors protecting major ports like Murmansk. Supersonic capability is of course preferred, point interceptors need good transonic acceleration but mostly the patrol-interceptors just need good range with a good dash capability when given a target direction. But the point defence interceptors of PVO are meant for a dual role of defending major installations from nearby stations and a support role in counter-air during major conflicts where they will assist Frontal Aviation as necessary (the priorities in this case go defending high value Army sites near the conflict independently, then supporting Frontal Aviation, then finally defending Army troop concentrations). So the point interceptors of PVO need mostly climb rate and transonic acceleration capabilities, and good offensive armament and characteristics against both enemy bombers and tactical aircraft like escort fighters or strike models, a nominal range of only 1500km is typical. Say for example you're going to compare a MiG-17 with a Yak-25, the MiG has a great climb, excellent counter-air performance, a high ceiling. It doesn't have anything like the all-weather capabilities of the Yak and would run dry halfway through one of its patrols, which are rated as more effective and sustainable in the two-crew configuration. The strategic threat at this time for the Yak to counter was the slow Convair B-36 whilst the MiG would be tasked probably against the B-47 Stratojet along western approaches across continental Europe and the Mediterranean, or against Vladivostok from Alaska. It was a much more dangerous type for its high speed (very difficult to intercept) but its short range meant it had to face the Soviet defence in depth strategy to attack targets, only the Convair could get across the arctic with a significant nuclear payload in the early 50s and Yaks could handle them. In a sense the Yak is really built more like a long range escort fighter than a traditional interceptor, which the MiG is much more like.

Oh I totally agree. I only meant if the VVS was more like the USAF this might've been the road taken. This is kind of an example that superior avionics development for the most part resting with the USAF was largely by choices involving doctrinal approach rather than any inherent incapability on the part of the Russians. The MiG-21 and Su-7BM were almost perfect choices for Frontal Aviation. Certainly the Su-15 existed in a rudimentary era for radar/fire-control systems, the <10% success ratio of missiles in Vietnam can attest to their poor reliability even for the USAF. Solid state electronics were only just beginning to be developed and radar sets used valves, had virtually no data handling capacity and required dedicated operator workloads. The radar set in US single seat interceptors (F-102/106) had its own joystick and required the pilot to bury his face in a HDD shroud and that was pretty advanced, during this interception phase the aircraft was piloted remotely by a ground station (you wouldn't want enemy EW aircraft/ships in the vicinity). All the fighters back then, especially considering poor ECCM, newly discovered phenomenae involving signal interpretation, unreliable IFF within ECM environments, installing a radar for regular counter-air work was virtually token anyway, it was almost only usable against high flying large bombers. The Israelis virtually never used theirs (in Mirages and F4s) relying instead on SA outside the cockpit and CWC (guns, heatseekers), in fact the IAF prided gun kills above all other kinds right up until receiving Eagles and even then didn't consider the AIM-7F very reliable. As it turned out one of the best features of the F4 in its era was having a second crew member not for operating the radar but for improved SA in close fighting, since typically all aircraft of the period had poor pilot cockpit view. The Su15 is an exception to this rule with quite good pilot view from its bubble type canopy. It had blown flaps introduced during production so its handling during take off/landing cycle was exceptional for the time, and it was perfectly capable of operating from the smaller, low maintenance fields typifying forward deployment models. This was necessary because of its poor range, but an F4 doesn't do much better without external tankage and aerial refuelling in this regard either. Also the Su15 was later developed for a limited ground attack role at the request of the PVO (TM model produced alongside T 1970-76). One prototype was used to test a capability for operating on unpaved airstrips, another for in-flight refuelling and two others modified as buddy-tankers. Its role as an interceptor was one largely of fit, it was a fairly ubiquitous design. It was certainly more complex and expensive than a MiG-21 or an Su-7. It was less purpose built than a MiG-25 or a Tu-28. I don't see any reason you couldn't operate an Su15 from the same fields as a MiG-21 and you could certainly operate it from shorter ones or higher altitude ones. Some of its northern district fields around Murmansk, or eastern ones were pretty rough. The major difference would be ground support, the MiG has lower maintenance and higher turnaround (plus being much cheaper/easier to produce), which is better for a forward deployment model. But going back to the USAF comparisons that simply makes the Flagon more like an F4 than an F5, the MiG is like an F5 that flies like an F104 and that's the thing which makes it so impressive. Hence my remark that if the VVS was more like the USAF probably the Su15 would've been the main front line type in the role of the F4, while the MiG-21was a completely different kind of thing much more like the role of the F5.

Brilliant, gave me a good belly laugh this afternoon, thanks guys!

lol yeah I think a tongue in cheek bit of good humour posted by tinsoldier got taken a bit too seriously, I'm sure when we think about it most of us would agree with crazyhorse's well considered post. Historically speaking one of biggest hurdles among national militaries has been stubborn conservatism among doctrinal training. As a foreign national my impression of the US military, particularly with the forward deployment of troops is extremely progressive. One of the primary doctrinal approaches at the very top for example is an advertised "high survivability emphasis" and total force coordination, cooperation and mutual support functions, from special forces to mechanics. The common familiarity with domestic technologies readily adapted to the battlefield is a tremendous bonus, you've probably got just as many computer gaming nerds with rifles in their hands as you do rednecks these days and that's not a bad thing considering that kind of savvy was once reserved for special units. Certainly the nintendo generation can be pretentious but they're also competitive and quick thinking, and most of the old school stuff gets picked up with experience and guidence by anyone maintaining front line roles as they mature to the situation. I think at the end of the day any military can be proud and confident about having progressive leadership, god knows nobody needs aristocratic generals who approach problem solving by throwing numbers at it, and spend most of their approach to doctrinal training weeding out any independent questioning. A tremendous historical impact on American forces according to the books was the rearguard action of what were really just Luftwaffe security troops and light infantry up the Italian pensinsula in WW2. They were considered elite for their initiative and tenacity, but within the Wehrmacht they were definitely second echelon formations considered reserves, although the paratroops were given special equipment which made them deadly in a small force firefight until the battle scaled up. Still, for what they were it is amazing they weren't routed from day one, let alone put up a stubborn fight that actually had the Army thinking it might turn things around with a timely counterattack. That's progressive doctrinal approach for you, as compared to conservative old schooling.

The Su-7 is an interesting breed, most people are very surprised to find out just how high performing the later Su-17 is in the Russian version with AL21 engines, a lot of exports had the MiG-27 Soyuz-Kachaturov engine fitted which is low altitude optimised and made it a mud mover only. I think most western impressions its performance are from these exports. But people like Egypt and Syria used some early Su-20 exports with the Lyulka engines and claim casual top speeds of anything between 2.04 and 2.2 Mach, they actually used them as ad hoc interceptors their altitude performance was so good and it probably had the best engine in their fleets. According to the Sukhoi company the original Su-7 arose from a design team that was set up to copy the F-86 Sabrejet. They had some new ideas like all-moving tail and the variable nose intake, Arkhip Lyulka was using some very experimental technologies with his engine which produced a massive ~64kN dry (~88kN with afterburning) approved for service in 1954 (the contemporary J57 was rated for service at 44kN dry), and he was developing an advanced management control system probably a generation ahead of its time. It was a very complicated engine designed for supersonic flow into the first two compressor stages, with two sections for the afterburner and it impressed Stavka when the prototype cracked 2000km/h during initial testing. It entered a service evaluation phase after official testing from 1956-58 which involved 12 small production batches with various refinements so that 132 fighter airframes were manufactured and delivered between 1957-60 and they remained in front line service from 1959-65. What killed the project was really engine reliability within the parameters for the production of general fighters for Frontal Aviation. In 1958-59 the two directions taken for the engine were a revised afterburner section for carrying heavy stores as Frontal Aviation desperately needed ground attack sturmovik (Su-7BM and MK), and a more refined version was developed on the PVO budget for a redesign of the Su-9/11 series as the excellent Su-15 interceptor. As it was the MiG-21 was already being refined during limited production batches by 1959 and this aircraft series perfectly fit the bill for Frontal Aviation of a cheap, mass produced and extreme performing model usable for a wide series of adapted roles. My personal opinion is that if the USSR production philosophies and doctrines were more like the USA then probably the Su-15 would've been the main front line type in place of the MiG like the way the F-4 is really an expensive aircraft but wound up in huge numbers to push cheaper models like the F-104 and a mixed force composition into the background. The MiG-21 is a bit more like an F-104 with different fits for day fighter, forward deployment and all weather interceptor roles and was part of a philosophy which depended on a mixed force composition to satisfy the needs of Soviet combined air defence doctrine. I think the USA had it a bit easier in this regard, affording terrific expenditure on projects which never saw service but developed advanced technologies. Also worth considering is that although the USSR may have numbers in the region of 2000 contemporary Frontal Aviation general fighters on station in the late 60s say, its sheer size means that only about 350 serviceable are available in forward deployment at any given defence district the size of a large nation, at a given time. And the philosophy was that in extended conflict PVO would provide support with their more refined models and modifications, and infrastructure. Hence the need for a "buffer zone" of satellites so that defence in depth maybe employed against NATO.

It is said in fighter weapons training the F-5 is extremely similar to the MiG-21 at low altitude and makes a perfect Aggressor squadron model for this reason. And they do very well not only against the F-4 in its day, but against the F-15. Given that the purpose of fighter weapons training is not comparative performance of aircraft, but advanced pilot training which can be deceptive about comparative performance in dissimilar combat training. Nevertheless the F-5 is highly respected as a low alt dogfighter and similarly, the MiG-21 at any height. What is noteworthy about the MiG-21 is the workmanlike structure and rough finishing. It's cheaply produced and yet returns contemporary maximum performance. The Israelis noted with a little awe when the first F-13 was examined by western friendlies after defecting, that many of the panels didn't even fit flushly and it used ugly pop rivets in non-essential areas, but that these were on sections of the airframe in which it didn't adversely affect performance. Not to mention its rough field handling was superb for its time, it was low maintenance among contemporaries, it had short turnaround times and was easily and cheaply produced, with truly impressive figures including the world airspeed record. So it was and remains, a mass produced legend. Straight up though, an Su-15 is a much more refined version of the same thing and a lot nicer to fly. But these were intended only for the PVO who got a special budget and an entirely different doctrinal approach. No expense was spared, but for Frontal Aviation everything was about overwhelming the enemy with numbers without breaking the bank so if possible, having semi skilled labourers making everything from refrigerator and toaster factories...no exaggeration (the main Fulcrum production line was initially in a refrigerator factory which continued to produce refrigerators for example). So to me the comparison is a lot like the postwar evaluation at Wright-Patterson of the Fw-190D compared to the P-51D. The Dora was very roughly finished and in the words of the test pilot he was surprised it was airworthy, it was like a patchwork hotrod but despite scaring the pants off you it returned about the same performance as the Mustang, which was tremendously impressive. But on refinement, pilot confidence and overall airworthiness the Mustang won out, despite some experimental and highly advanced technologies buried in the Focke Wulf (like the aeromechanical screw, electrical everything and a rudimentary flight computer). That part is obviously different, the Soviets didn't really have anything on American contemporaries in avionics or equipment. In any case the conclusion was that for something which basically looked like it was thrown together in someone's backyard upon close inspection, its performance achievement as a late war contemporary was absolutely phenomenal, mind blowing as it were. That I think, is the kind of light the MiG-21 should be held up to. For a very roughly finished and extremely simple machine, it has some terrific qualities and simply amazing performance...with an examination of its structure and finishing detail in mind. And it achieved its design goals perfectly plus at one time was the most numerous jet fighter on the planet. It's like buying an F-5 that can beat F-4s on even ground at half the cost...and are generally speaking going to outnumber them 2 to 1 in any case. Something like an Eagle changes the game though, I think it's an unfair tendency we think of aircraft performance on those terms. No way a Phantom can match an Eagle either, you're talking 3g sustained turns as opposed to 9g with ease.

I read some fairly detailed evaluation of the F-16 against the MiG-29 by an ex Fighter Weapons School instructor qualified on F-15, F-16 and the MiG-29 at the F-16net website. According to him, prior to the Block 50/52 Vipers the Block 30 was easily the best dogfighter, but the Block 50/52 are better again despite being heavier. He said that some pilots did actually prefer the analogue FBW for its feel but there was actually better authority with the digital FBW and in the Block 50/52 the engine power is a huge leap compensating for increased weight. He compares the MiG-29A to the Block 30 however because he says when they were first on strength in central Europe that's the model that was conteporary. There was a bonus with the analogue FBW too in that the pilot could force it to exceed the maximum alpha limitation for short moments where the later digital FBW AoA limiter was a little too effective. This is a benefit combating the Fulcrum because in that aircraft the pilot can actually switch off the safety control system and its AoA limiter completely and the aircraft was still stable, so this is how Russians can run around doing 30-AoA in manoeuvres (normally limited to about 28-AoA iirc, Vipers are limited to something like 25-AoA iirc before the control system starts bringing the nose down automatically). Now the same feller gave a short evaluation of the Fulcrum-A against the F-15C while he was at it, so whilst being presumptuous I've inferred some characteristics between the vipers of the Block 30 and 50/52 versus the F-15C, as well as watching Eagles perform against Aggressor Vipers in Red Flag. His comments about the Eagle were related to going up against a Fulcrum however. One thing, according to him the Fulcrum and the Viper are actually very very well matched in close combat characteristics. Vipers can sustain a better turn, Fulcrums compensate with high off-boresight capability and the helmet designator though. Once they climb advantage starts to go to the Fulcrum but down low the Viper is actually quite a bit faster generally speaking, with less effort, and far more refinement, oodles more SA and a quantum leap in ease of flying. That said a Fulcrum can match it almost to a T, but only if it has a very good pilot who's working a whole lot harder to achieve the same performance standards. The Block 30 can use some instantaneous manoeuvres the later models can't, but the Block 50/52 is more stable and responsive and gives nothing away to the Fulcrum if altitudes rise so overall it's more dangerous. He thinks a Block 30 is a good match with some clear advantages going to each aircraft, but the Block 50/52 is clearly superior, in his opinion. If he was going to take an earlier model Viper though, it'd be a Block 30 since the interim were heavier without a substantial power increase to compensate and that little, all-out performance compromise is enough to put a Fulcrum on top in the hands of a good pilot. With the Eagle the altitude disadvantages in dogfight handling was more pronounced than the Block 30. Whilst the Eagle was faster than the Fulcrum at height it couldn't match its instantaneous turn or nose authority (I think I'm using the right terminology). The Fulcrum could bring itself around quicker. At low altitude however the Eagle is an immensely strong airframe the Fulcrum just can't keep up with and like with the best Vipers the Fulcrum just can't sustain the same kind of turns. An Eagle is actually at an advantage mixing it up near the deck against a Fulcrum, which is counter-intuitive for a much heavier warplane and the Fulcrum is only really more agile when they both get some air under the wings. But here the Eagle can extend and just has to avoid falling into the Fulcrum's kind of fight which is just a bit similar to mixing it up with other small, agile warplanes which USAF pilots are trained to do. Hope I'm remembering that part right. So from this I would infer that the Eagle is very close to a Viper all round if it's a Block 30, and the Block 50/52 is going to have a slight edge in instantaneous handling as altitudes start to rise, advantage to the Viper for that kind of CWC fight. Backing this up I've watched an F-15C mix it up move for move against a Block 52 (?) through some canyons at Red Flag and turn the tables on the Aggressor for a kill. It was a nice, straight one on one engagement there and they were really pulling out the stops, man that Eagle can boogie down low. I was thoroughly impressed by what seemed to me to be almost impossible manoeuvres. Also a couple of other points. Fully fuelled most fighters aren't at their best, the Eagle carries more than 6-tons internally to the Viper's approx 3-tons and the type of deployments Eagles are used for don't really wind you up in close combat with full tanks, you wouldn't want them. For a large fighter like an Eagle (or a Flanker) the ideal maximum would be 4-5 tons of internal fuel in a seat of the pants fight. Vipers are fine on max internal, but they're rarely without external tankage and these would be jettisoned. A Flanker carries about 9-tons max but it's severel limited while its long range (internal) tanks are full, they need to be empty to press it to the (approx) 8.5g limitation so again that's about 4-tons worth ideally. For most aerial combat sorties the Flankers is only going to be fuelled with about 4.5 tons anyway, for this reason, the extra long range (internal) tanks are only filled for special missions where they're really needed, which is when NATO models would be carrying external tanks anyway if you traded places. Also Eagle speed characteristics aren't really affected so much by a full air-to-air complement, they have a 1.78 Mach limitation anyway because of the engine control system (can be overridden by the pilot but only for authorised emergencies as the engines have to be fully torn down after landing, but it'll theoretically get up to somewhere around 2.5 Mach if the pilot overrides the control system), similarly a Flanker isn't really bothered by carrying 4 or 6 Archers or 4 Archers and a pair of R27. I haven't read conclusively if it has genuine limitations when carrying a full air-air complement of ten missiles, it's only around 2 tons of ordnance and a lot of its world records were set carrying that (specifically for that reason, to demonstrate theoretical performance fully armed for air-air although in actual fact the fire control system and other non-essential avionics were removed from the test vehicle). Still from what I understand the Flanker handbooks only mention a g-limitation if internal fuel exceeds 4 tons and it doesn't matter if it has a full air-air complement, but I should think it logical the extra drag of ten missiles would impact maximum speed performance...but that's only going to slow it down to maybe 1.8 Mach anyway which is still contemporary with NATO models and once it dumps off some missiles it gets much quicker. Vipers and Fulcrums are a different story though. A Fulcrum loses speed performance carrying more than a couple of Archers although again it's got a bit of superiority here to compensate, whilst Vipers lose a lot of speed with anything other than wingtip sidewinders and is really more like a 1.8 Mach fighter when armed for BVR or carrying extra sidewinders. Here is where the Hornet gets interesting because it's got a very effortless supercruise (armed for air to air, ie. sparrows/sidewinders it can cruise supersonic at 75% power demonstrated with RAAF Hornets). In outright seat of the pants manoeuvring it can't quite match the Viper but it has some very sophisticated avionics and control systems and is still very well armed without carrying anything under the wings on pylons, plus right off the deck it has a terrific initial climb that's hard to match with anything. Something like a Flanker has a better sustained climb though, but these two aircraft are rated as a very nice match up. So basically the ideal trim for close air combat varies between the different aircraft. A pair of wingtip sidewinders and 3 tons fuel for the Viper. Probably 4 Archers for the Fulcrum and 4.5 tons fuel. 5 tons internal fuel and full air-air load for the Eagle. 4 tons internal fuel and six missiles for the Flanker. 4 tons internal fuel and nominal air-air load (4 missiles) for the Hornet. These trims should return maximum performance specifications. Noteworthy is that by far the Hornet is going to have the best flying endurance and the Eagle is going to have the best weapons endurance. Meanwhile the Fulcrum is only going to be in the air for a matter of minutes on the burners.

Some interesting stuff (particularly about the Taiwanese Block 20). To largely summarise it would appear the Maverick capability of the Viper/Hornet are most related to when the databus, software and wiring is needed given that the base radar set data processor at that time supports the appropriate mode. Meaning pretty much all Hornets and the F-16 from Block 15OCU afaik. Of course with such questions it is always worthy, as inferred in the thread to review the development history from the manufacturer point of view, as well as the engineering requirement and finally military appraisal. Between the three you get the service variants and capabilities. For example, yes the F-16 was developed by the manufacturer essentially as a classical dayfighter, the ultimate technological evolution of the seat of the pants winged warrior. But that was't the LFX requirement. In the same way the Northrop YF-17 competition for the contract (which became the Hornet) was really as far as the company was concerned, a complete rebuild of the F-5 to reflect contemporary technological evolution. It is no coincidence the LFX requirement essentially mirrored that of the F-5E's role in USAF service (and to a lesser extent that of the F-105G license production in the export market).

sorry, wrong site for critical appraisal and speculation. No way going to get in a head to head with mods, that's just stupid. Not big on a starring role in kick the dog. Consider it dead.