The other main thing is the propulsion and the Rolls Royce engine is most probably a “licence” produced R79 engine, but without the credit being given in public to the original designer and no royalty fee for license. They acquired the tech for peanuts in the early 90s like many other techs that came out of Russian bureaus.

Now that is most definitely büll$hit…

It is true. For comparison, out of 40 Mirage F1s, we lost 12 in accidents (including one due to enemy action) in 30 years of service, even with no dual seaters.

That’s quite a high figure, Have we any reason to believe that the F-104 fared any worse in Greek AF service?

The F-104 is certainly not a popular aircraft in Europe. It never was. The opinion in general is that Europe has had better alternatives at that time.

That’s a strange statement and seems to be contrary to the facts. Why would the plane be unpopular in Europe? The Italians, for a start must have liked it, they spent a lot of money on it with big upgrades, and didn’t retire them till 2004.

Interesting to look at why Australia reversed its position and ended up choosing the Mirage IIIO over the F-104G. This was in 1960, so the F-104G had only just started its flight tests.

[INDENT]- F-104 was “much more” expensive (25 to 33%)
– F-104 was unsuitable for most runways in the Far East (runway length requirements, excessive tire pressure, FOD ingestion risk)
– Dangerous stall & landing characteristics (“violent pitch up”, engine-off landings)
– Mirage III had “important operational advantages” (higher cruising & loiter altitudes, trouble-free gun firing, 10% longer ferry range)
– Reliability concerns (J79 engine, “bad accident record”)[/INDENT]

http://recordsearch.naa.gov.au/scripts/Imagine.asp?B=544956

There’s also a more detailed technical report in the Australian archives, which I should be able to post in a few weeks.

The RAAF seemed to have lost as many Mirages in accidents as the Luftwaffe lost Starfighters, maybe even more – almost 40%? (40 losses out of 116 Mirages delivered to the RAAF)

The Mirage saw longer service in our front line than any other fighter. Despite the original estimated design fatigue life of only 1500 hours, some Australian Mirages flew over 4000 hours. Over forty aircraft were lost in flying accidents, but those who flew it held the type in high regard. Although the ‘Miracle’ has left our skies, many examples remain on display at museums around Australia.

http://www.airforce.gov.au/raafmuseum/research/aircraft/series3/A3.htm

Actually, which aircraft design repeats the use of the ‘double delta’ wing of the Draken?

at least best in which specific areas at the peak of their service.. lets say by 1990

How do you expect anyone to answer a question like that?

And where is the F-104?

Simple fact it COULD turn and burn, I doubt very much that the Russians ignored how that helped in “Nam.

Are you saying they are lucky, not smart?

I’m not saying the MiG-21 design is not a smart design at all – it certainly is. I don’t think the MiG’s ‘turn ‘n’ burn’ was the key to any of it’s success in the Vietnam war, I’d say it was its speed and rate of climb were more important – how can you take on an F-4, F-105 or F-8 if you can’t even reach them in the first place?

R-60MK specifically is the high speed version. The glass degrades the seeker effectiveness with high speed flight and this version compensates by boosting the seeker sensitivity in the tight wavelengths it sees through. The MK has a peltier to quickly clear up the eye when the pilot is lining up to launch. I don’t think the window of opportunity is near the bottle-cooled approach, but it doesn’t require near the upkeep for the ground crew.

and Grizzly01

MiG-31 can fly with R-60s at Mach 2.35 2 minutes or less, at Mach 2.2 8min or less.

I thought I read on this forum, that the R-60 was limited to Mach 1-7+ – so I searched it up – I found this thread from 2005, Martinez seems to have cleared up the confusion:

This is not completely correct. In fact, if you were talking the old R-60 with uncooled Komar seeker, then you were right. There is one of few launch requirements where the aircraft speed should not exceed M1.8 at given altitude. Well, the first R-60 was supposed to be used for regular dogfights and they usually do not take place at M2 and altitude 20km. It`s no wonder that similar launch restrictions were known for other IR missiles as the R-3S and the R-13M. The improved R-60MK version cooled by a “peltier” device and the nitrogen cooled R-73 do not have such limitations, they can go past Mach 2 and surely can be launched as well. As I remember correctly the missiles R-23R/T have also been able to reach the M2.35, the max. speed of the Mig-23.
Frankly, I do not have any problems to see Mig-31 carrying the R-60MK for a high supersonic mission. If the R-60MK had those speed limits, they would not use it for the Mig-31!! What a madness is it to suppose that they are using unusable missiles on the Mig-31 when crusing high supersonic!! Not to mention that the Mig-31 might be using some special modified R-60MK with even more heat-resistant parts (fuse, etc…) to withstand the kinetic heating at those speeds.
I believe the Foxbat was able to sustain speeds between M2.35-2.5 with a load of four R-40. According to the Mig-25RB practical aerodynamic the Foxbat can sustain M2.35 with four bombs FAB-500M-62, but it could hold the speed only for 15 minutes due to heat-resistance of the bomb fuses. I`d suppose that the main weapon of the Foxbat the R-40 should had been designed to withstand the kinetic heating at M2.5. But anyway, a real Blackbird intercept would not last more than 10 minutes. Then why to be worried about such things????

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?51773-Sustainable-top-speed-with-air-to-air-load/page3