""Hamilcar's reply ""

 

Thank you Herald , that makes it clear for the other posters ;-)

"you can fool people sometimes but you can 't fool people all of the time" (B. Marley)

And certainly not me .

 

""The Mig 21 scored a  coupler of hundred kills and was a piece of flying JUNK as was and is the Mirage.

 

 

Jack Broughton (the guy who wrote Thud Ridge among other books) flew F-106s before he went to F-105s, and he said the Six would've been deadly over North Vietnam, as it could out-turn an unslatted F-4.  It probably wouldn't be able to stay with a MiG-21 and definitely not with a MiG-17, and it would've been limited by its armament--the Falcon had been proven to be a poor missile.  To be fair, though, the Falcon was designed to attack bombers; its only real problem was the fact that the seeker head took something like five seconds to be cooled with liquid nitrogen.  It was never intended to be a dogfight missile like the Sidewinder, and the USAF shouldn't have tried using it as one. 

 

Still, with a Six-Shooter package, and perhaps some modifications to carry the Sidewinder internally or the Sparrow externally, the F-106 might have been a MiG killer par excellence.

 

To defend the MiG-21:  remember that it was intended as a point-defense interceptor with a comparatively low life expectancy.  The Soviets fully expected to lose most if not all of their initial forces in combat, based on their WWII experience, which is why maintenance was such a nightmare.  Good vision out of the cockpit and low-speed handling were not considered important because the MiG-21 was supposed to intercept bombers--the Russians uncharacteristically removed the gun from the MiG-21PF because they too believed that the era of the dogfight was over.  After North Vietnamese and Russian pilots who flew combat over Vietnam realized that the PF's paltry two-Atoll armament was limiting them, they demanded a gun pack, which they got on the PFM/MF versions (along with more missiles).  From what I understand, veteran Russian pilots also deplored the poor visibility from the MiG-21, but since individuals don't get listened to in a Communist society, it wasn't until after the utter disasters of Linebacker, Yom Kippur, and Bekaa Valley that Russian fighter designers finally started trying to improve cockpit visibility (as on the Su-27 and MiG-29).

 

I maintain that the MiG-21 was a good if not great fighter; the fact that it's persisted in air forces--even those that can afford new aircraft--and outlived its successor the MiG-23 says something for it.  What the biggest problem Soviet and Soviet-aligned air forces had was poor training.  But you know how it is...teach a Russian fighter jock initiative and he flies his Foxbat to Japan.

 

Very good post sentinel .

 

Cheers .

There is obviously a degree of subjectivity in the way I rated them ... somebody else may do it differently. My judgement was if a bleeding edge (for the time) design could do the job it was designed to do well, without any major design impediments to its ability to wartime operations, then it came into the pretty damn good catagory. Both the F-106 and the Draken came into that catagory To get into the top catagory it had to substanitally exceed expectations without any offsetting problems in the way that IMHO only the F-4 did.

 F-106 was that much better in the interception role. Both could get to the enemy fast under semi-automatic guidance from the ground and do a head on attack, so why is the F-106 that much better?

As for the Mig-21, the fact that it was the most successful Russian fighter of all times on those accounts simply shows us that Russian fighter design has been pretty mediocre over the years. It was nearly always on the end of negative kill ratios against types in its generation, had a lousy view out of the cockpit, far too short a range including a design flaw so that it couldn't use the last 1/5 of its fuel tanks without crashing, a poor turning circle at low level and poor manouverability at low level. Its speed, manouverability at higher altitude and price offset this enough to make it useful but nobody can say that it wasn't good.

 

Facts are. 

 

I don't deny the F-106 was a much better interceptor than the F-102 which was its progenitor, but it carried a lot of F-102 defects forward with it-prnciply the avionics .

 

The overrated Mirages were sold to a set of air forces that could not afford top of the line US or British fighters. These air forces made the best use of the junk they bought, (good pilots) and when finally given a choice, they did not repeat that purchase mistake AGAIN. History IS.      

 

Now I don't care what some defenders of the Mirage try to say or claim. The ACTUAL track record of SNECMA combat engines down to the M-88 shows a history of flame-outs, high angle of attack stalls and sudden losses of power at the most dangerous moments for the pilots flying the Dassault junk. This is not unique to that family of aircraft. Example: early Tomcats had the troublesome P&W TF-30. It, the Tomcat, was underpowered and it had its own compression stall issues, and  had to be re-engined with GE F-110s. Now then, the Americans had that option, as the Israelis also exercised, when they replaced their crap ATARS with GE J-79s for their better designed and built Kfirs. Just is the way it turned out.   

 

  

Precisely what British fighter are you talking about? The only one that I know of at that time was the Lightning, which while being the hottest dragster of the era was severely limited by its lack of range and was inferior to the Mirage in terms of  weapons fitout (no BVR - not too good for an interceptor) and a very ordinary radar. I don't think any Mirage users would be regretting their decision not to spend any more money to acquire Lightings.

 

As for American fighters you are right that the Mirage occupied the lower end of the market, with the F-4 dominating the upper end. The only reason why the Mirage didn't completely dominate the lower end is because the Americans spent so much in MAP and illegal bribes foisting the F-104 on unfortunate airforces. The only American types in that price bracket which were as good as the Mirage were the F-8, which didn't export well for some reason that I can't fathom, and the F-5 which was was good for the light tactical fighter that it was intended to be but couldn't provide the all weather interception capabilities of the Mirage.

 

-Good performance

-Good to fair range (depending on model)

-Fair manoeuvrability

-it was easy to operate and maintain, and could turn a high sortie rate

-cheap

-Had reasonable a2a armament including a BVR capability

-reasonable avionics

-reasonable view out of cockpit except in the rear quadrant

-it was multi-role

 

-It proved easy to upgrade.

 

By the standards of the day that is a good combination of characteristics. The only major flaw was that it had an unreliable donk which caused crashes, mainly during peacetime, but didn't undermine the overall effectiveness of the type.

 

To defend the MiG-21:  remember that it was intended as a point-defense interceptor with a comparatively low life expectancy.  The Soviets fully expected to lose most if not all of their initial forces in combat, based on their WWII experience, which is why maintenance was such a nightmare.  Good vision out of the cockpit and low-speed handling were not considered important because the MiG-21 was supposed to intercept bombers--the Russians uncharacteristically removed the gun from the MiG-21PF because they too believed that the era of the dogfight was over.  

After North Vietnamese and Russian pilots who flew combat over Vietnam realized that the PF's paltry two-Atoll armament was limiting them, they demanded a gun pack, which they got on the PFM/MF versions (along with more missiles).  From what I understand, veteran Russian pilots also deplored the poor visibility from the MiG-21, but since individuals don't get listened to in a Communist society, it wasn't until after the utter disasters of Linebacker, Yom Kippur, and Bekaa Valley that Russian fighter designers finally started trying to improve cockpit visibility (as on the Su-27 and MiG-29).

The Mig-21F was originally issued to the Soviet Air Force rather than the PVO (the homeland air defence force) meaning it was firstly intended to be a tactical fighter. They had other types for interception such as the Yak 25/28 and the Su-9/11 though the Mig-21PF was intended to be a homeland defence interceptor.

 

You are correct however that they did use the type as a point defence interceptor in the tactical role. The intention was that it would be guided onto target by the ground controller, fire, then run. Its a good strategy for defending against enemy bombers and worked pretty well for the North Vietnamese.

 

However, designing a fighter around a flawed tactical philosphy will lead to a flawed fighter design and this is one such case (the Lightning being another). It was a very short range fighter which couldn't manouver well at low level and which the pilot had a hard time seeing out of was severely limited in its flexibility of the type for any other sort of operation, such as offensive fighter sweeps and fighter escort, and put the pilot at an unacceptable risk of being bounced unawares and and being unable to manouver out of the situation.  Its inability to use all of its fuel without trim problems was just an engineering screw up for which there was no excuse.

 

 It is the combination of these factors that mean that I can't give the type any more than an ok. You couldn't consider it to be in the same class as the likes of the Mirage and the Crusader, which were still economical but could do a full range of operations well, but equally it was good enough at the job that it was designed to do to put it above the likes of the F-104 which couldn't compete with contemporary types.

 

 

 

Response 2. What BVR capability did the Mirage IIIC have? What radar and rockers? You realize that the Matra Magic  530 was a WVR mussile? The Cyrano radar was joke. 

 

As for, maneuverability, like most pure deltas in heavy air, it was pig with poor turn and angle of attack. Nopr was the Mirage all that longed ranged.

 

Most Israeli kills were with the GUN. 

 

In defense of the Lightning, the Feranti radar worked as did the missiles. You can't fault a target defense interceptor for being a target defense interceptor. 

 

As for the rest, the Mirages worked for the Israelis, the South Africans, and the Paks. Who else? Who else?

 

 

 

That's pretty much everyone who ever had a chance to put the Mirage III into combat, Hamlicar.  Brazil never had to put its Mirages to the test, and unless they saw action in Chad, neither did France.  Australia never used them in combat, and neither did the Swiss.  Matter of fact, the only country I know of that used Mirage IIIs in combat and did poorly with them was Argentina--and that was less a fault of the aircraft than it was how they were operated--at extreme limit of their range, against highly maneuverable fighters a generation ahead of the Mirage armed with all-aspect Sidewinders.

 

The R.530 proved to be a dog, but that was more the fault of the missile than the aircraft (let's face it, the Sparrow didn't do much better in the same time period).  Israelis got most of their kills with guns because the missiles were so unreliable: the AIM-9B Sidewinder was fair, but only rear-aspect; the R.530 was crap; the Shafrir 1 was horrid.  None of those are the fault of the aircraft. 

 

As far as the radar goes, I don't know enough about it to make a call.  I do know the Nesher didn't even have a radar, but it kicked some major ass thanks to an upgraded Atar 9 and great missiles, such as the AIM-9D/E and Shafrir 2.

 

I don't care where it was built but I'm buggered if I can work out how have concluded that those negative kill ratios constitute the type "proving itself in combat".

Pilots and training my friend. When the MiG 21 had well trained pilots it did very well. Don't look at the Arab-Israeli wars as a vindication for the planes negative kill ratio.

Hamilcar , you 've left the pseudo "Herald" behind but the man hasn 't changed .

 

Your hate and personal vendetta against Snecma or Thalès still leads you nowhere .

""The ACTUAL track record of SNECMA combat engines down to the M-88 shows a history of flame-outs, high angle of attack stalls and sudden losses of power at the most dangerous moments for the pilots flying the Dassault junk.""

 

Are you thinking that you talk to ... donkeys ? Everything you said in this sentence are a lot of bollocks .

To start with and because of your poor knowleadge , you left behind perfectly fine engines like (hold on) :

- Atar 08B : Etendard IVM/-P

- Atar 08C : Super Etendard IVM/-P

- Atar 08K-50 : Super Etendard (11 tons dry thrust)

- Atar 09K-10 : Mirage IVA/-P/-R (15 tons dry thrust)

-  Atar 09K-31 : Mirage F1A/B, Mirage F1C

At least but not last , the Mirage III had a 1200km radius range which was correct without being brilliant .

usajoe :