WI: American MIG-21 and Russian F-104

Khanzeer

Banned
It was in service with major air forces until the 80s. In second line or training roles. The MiG-21 was not considered a front line fighter by the Soviets by the end of the Vietnam war. Even in Vietnam, it only did as well as it did because of the ROEs American pilots were forced to operate under.
but so was the F-5E a secondary fighter by 80s
 

Khanzeer

Banned
The MiG 21bis was a competitive fighter until it had to face F16s, and was in service in large number in major AF until the 80s.
To be fair, the F16/F15 generation made all other fighters obsolete
F14/15 probably more than f16 in the 80s
 

Khanzeer

Banned
I don't know enough about military strategy to decide, but it seems very simplistic to assume the type of plane makes all the difference.
exactly, it will not
and that is the point the problems that plagued EAF had far more to do with their doctrine , training , politics , techincal expertise of their ground crew and strategy than just fishbeds and its missiles
 

SsgtC

Banned
but so was the F-5E a secondary fighter by 80s
The F-5 was a second line fighter the day it made it's maiden flight. It was specifically designed and built to be a low cost, lightweight fighter for countries that couldn't afford anything better
 

kernals12

Banned
exactly, it will not
and that is the point the problems that plagued EAF had far more to do with their doctrine , training , politics , techincal expertise of their ground crew and strategy than just fishbeds and its missiles
F-104s probably would've made it an 8 day war.
 
It was in service with major air forces until the 80s. In second line or training roles. The MiG-21 was not considered a front line fighter by the Soviets by the end of the Vietnam war. Even in Vietnam, it only did as well as it did because of the ROEs American pilots were forced to operate under.
The MiG21bis was only introduced into service in 1972 and the long development cycle of the MiG23 meant it was in front line service with the VVS until the 80s.
What you are stating about the MiG-21 is valid for the first generations, not for the bis, that had a more powerful and reliable engine, new radar and later R-60 AAMS that made it a much more lethal bird than the older variants.
 
The F-5 was a second line fighter the day it made it's maiden flight. It was specifically designed and built to be a low cost, lightweight fighter for countries that couldn't afford anything better
Iran, not exactly a por country, bought it and used in a high/low cost mix with its F-4s
 
View attachment 466452
View attachment 466453
I'm going to tell you the story of two fighter jets from the same time period for very similar roles that wound up with starkly different reputations.

The MIG-21 and Lockheed F-104 Starfighter were both billed as highly manueverable lightweight combat aircraft. The MIG would wind up being the greatest fighter of its era, lauded for its amazing combination of speed and agility.

The F-104 turned out to be more dangerous to its own pilots than any enemy aircraft and it was later revealed that the company that built it resorted to bribing politicians in several countries to get their air forces to buy it.

The 2 planes met for the first time in 1971 in the war between Pakistan, who had F-104s, and India, who had MIG-21s. The result was predictable.

So what if the planes had switched at birth, that is, a plane identical to OTL MIG-21 (with American-made engines of course) had been conceived by the Lockheed corporation and entered service as the F-104 while a plane identical to OTL F-104 had been conceived by the Mikoyan-Gurevich design bureau in the Soviet Union and entered service as the MiG-21?
F104 n 1971 were already second tier PAF aircraft. They were used in air defence and ground attack. Meetings with Fishbeds were rare.
 

Khanzeer

Banned
F104 n 1971 were already second tier PAF aircraft. They were used in air defence and ground attack. Meetings with Fishbeds were rare.
was it second tier in terms of performance? Or inventory ?
Very few of them were left by 1971 and PAF hoarded their mirages in 71
 
Last edited:
was it second tier in terms of performance? Or inventory ?
Very few of them were left by 1971 and PAF hoarded their mirages in 71
The F104 was designed for one thing only. Speed. Until the end it was a fast machine. What it couldn't do was turn. Since the only variant with BVR AAM was the Italian F104S, all other had the problem that they could catch opponents, but couldn't dogfight them, and were limited to early gen sidewinders. This made them useful only for interception of large, non manouvrable targets, like Tu-95s.
As a fighter (rather than an interceptor) it was useless.
Since it could fly fast and low, it was a decente tactical strike aircraft, but not a good CAS aircraft
 
Both aircraft were seriously flawed.
The F-104 could still prove useful today.
It had a very small frontal cross section design for maximum speed ,inadvertently shrinking its radar signature.
The best tactics for an F-104 in today's combat environment would be to go in at high speed fire it's missiles then try not to die.
The best tactics for a Mig-21 today is stay in touch with ground control and act as a flying missile battery and pray the enemy doesn't see you.
The fact that North Vietnam's leading ace Colonel Tomb preferred the MiG 17 over the Mig-21 says something about the aircraft.
 
James Ricker said:
The fact that North Vietnam's leading ace Colonel Tomb preferred the MiG 17 over the Mig-21 says something about the aircraft.
the models the North recieved didn't have cannon, but just Atoll IR missiles. I believe the early ones had a worse failure rate than the IR Falcons the US used.
Both -17 and -21 heavily relied on ground control to get close enough to where pilot skill mattered
 

Khanzeer

Banned
The best tactics for an F-104 in today's combat environment would be to go in at high speed fire it's missiles then try not to die.
The best tactics for a Mig-21 today is stay in touch with ground control and act as a flying missile battery and pray the enemy doesn't see you
How was this different in the 70s and 80s?
 

Khanzeer

Banned
Both aircraft were seriously flawed.
The F-104 could still prove useful today.
It had a very small frontal cross section design for maximum speed ,inadvertently shrinking its radar signature.
The best tactics for an F-104 in today's combat environment would be to go in at high speed fire it's missiles then try not to die.
The best tactics for a Mig-21 today is stay in touch with ground control and act as a flying missile battery and pray the enemy doesn't see you.
The fact that North Vietnam's leading ace Colonel Tomb preferred the MiG 17 over the Mig-21 says something about the aircraft.
Was colonel tomb real ? I've heard he was a creation of viet propaganda
Not sure how much of it is true
 
The early MiG-21, the 'C' was very short ranged and didn't have Radar worthy of being called that.
It made up on that with far better climb and turn, being two tons lighter than the F-104A.
Was also easy to fly. Not a Widowmaker. Helped that the ejection seat fired upwards, and not downward for when a fast exit from the aircraft was required.
 

Khanzeer

Banned
The early MiG-21, the 'C' was very short ranged and didn't have Radar worthy of being called that.
It made up on that with far better climb and turn, being two tons lighter than the F-104A.
Was also easy to fly. Not a Widowmaker. Helped that the ejection seat fired upwards, and not downward for when a fast exit from the aircraft was required.
You mean the PF version ?
I've heard the PF ,PFM were better aerodynamically than MF, SMT versions
Is that so ?
 
With upgrades the MiG-21 was certainly not obsolete after Vietnam. Take the J-7E, the Chinese model with double delta wings and slats. The Pakistani’s found it was at least as maneuverable as their F-16s and it had an Italian copy of the Israeli radar used on the Kfir. Range was the bane of the MiG-21, but it was one of the very few 2nd gen fighters that can match a 3rd gen in a dogfight.
 
Top