SchorschFor actual dogfighting… I think the MiG-17 was a great fighter. A true pilot’s airplane.
The USAF and USN conceded that they didn’t have an aircraft that could realistically simulate the performance of a MiG-17.
Another British aircraft should be the Sea Harrier, if for no other reason than its kills over the Falklands.
Those engagements were anything but dogfights. I wouldn’t consider the Harrier bad, but it isn’t exactly a very good dogfighter.
On that note, the A-4 Skyhawk should at least get an honorable mention in the dogfighting role.
Supported by the fact that the USN used in for “Top Gun”.
SchorschSchorsh, I dont think the F-104 really qualifies as a dogfighter?
The most it can be called is a zoom and boom plane.
Actually, I don’t think so, either.
I just wanted to express that the MiG-21 isn’t that great dogfighter, either.
The reason it appears on every list is that it was often used in such role, which was partly due to the circumstances of its use in countries outside the USSR.
The probability of entering a dogfight is far higher for conflicts of low intensity and low technology, good weather and limited ground defences.
The MiG-21 is a reasonable dogfighter because it has low wing loading, acceptable handling qualities and acceptable thrust-weight ratio.
In a time-wise realistic engagement F-104C (M61&AIM-9B) versus MiG-21F-13 (cannon&AA-2), the outcome largely depends on the tactics used. The MiG does not have automatically have an edge, which it would have if the Starfighter pilots get engaged in low speed turning combats.
SchorschI’m afraid you are totally wrong. Seeing them at airshows, from a first hand point of view, they would not have been far short of sticking with an F-16.
The RAF were delighted that it could dogfight resoneably, not the orginal plan, but due to the large excess power.
Great. How often does combat take place at 500ft and 200KIAS?
Sorry, your “first hand air show experience” isn’t worth a penny.
Schorsch Can you tell me how the lightning doesn’t compete with the F-104 and mig-21 in a dogfight?
I didn’t say t cannot compete, I said I doubt that performance was so much better aside the supersonic performance. the Lightning was an aircraft consequently designed for the supersonic arena, and as such equipped with turbojets and the correct intake.
Reason is that basic data and design do not differ that much, wing loading, thrust-to-weight and other features are 1950 standard.
To be honest: in case of the Lightning (or take Buccaneer, TSR.2 and some other British designs) I sometimes doubt the overly and excessively positive remarks made towards it, especially on these forums.
SchorschWhat about the F-20?
Sure, it did not enter service, but it was developped and ready to go.
It combines the proved flight characteristics of the F-5 with appropriate thrust.
Probably the only shortcomings are the suboptimal guns and limited cockpit visibility.
The F-16 came earlier and was better. Why bother with the F-20?
The reasons why the F-20 was attractive were not due to its pure flight performance.
SchorschAll of you are forgetting, or conveniently ignoring ;), the BAC English Electric Lightning. Apart from having acceleration,climb and top speed performance only bettered in SOME areas by su-27/mig-29/f-15/16/18 which are all really one generation ahead, but also it was capable of 9g AND in certain conditions to supercrusie.
The mig-21 falls at every single comparison with the beast, maybe cost is one objection.
Mirage series could carry more weapons, i think better range, but in a dogfight simply didnt have the power.
F-104, dogfight? Designed for a different purpose wasn’t it?
I ask any of you what cold war fighter, excluding the the very last few years series of 4th generation fighters, could match the performance of the lightning ?
The Lightning was as agile and maneuverable as a loaden truck. It lacked all aerodynamic premises to be a dogfighter, and the RAF never considered to be one. The Lightning might have had very good acceleration, climb and top speed, but it did not outperform contemporary designs like the F-104 or MiG-21 by a wide margin.
SchorschI would say aircraft design is always a compromise.
If you get a design which when flown well can match the opponents eqpt or outfight it even if it is not overwhelmingly superior, and which has flexibility to perform a range of missions, then its a good investment.
In IAF service, the MiG-21 has done it all, and it has been retained for a long time (way past it should have been though), and in actual war, it scored A2A kills, made some very precise attacks (against Pak airfield in EPak now Bangladesh, rocketed the Governors house etc) – and then with the Bis version became truly multirole and with good A2A Missiles (Magic).
So I think it was a good performer for its day. Not an uber fighter like the F-16 but very useful.
If the question was about the most effective aircraft design in terms of expenditure per capability, growth potential or adaptability to different operative environments, I would surely put the MiG-21 far up the list, and most likely at the top of all Soviet types.
But the question is about the “Best Cold War Dogfighter”, which is an odd question, but no matter how you put it, the MiG-21 never really gets the top rank.
Only if we ask for the best compromise between a Mach 2 fighter and a dogfighter in the late 1950ies/early 1960ies considering the limited technology available to Soviet designers.
If we limit our considerations to the Mach .85 and below (that’s where a dogfight actually happens):
Best dogfighters were then probably the afterburner engine equipped late MiG-17s. The USN and USAF demonstrated that with all contemporary aircraft in th elate 1960ies, check “Have Drill”.
But even those MiG-17 could hardly achieve a positive kill ratio versus the absolutely non-dogfighting F-105. That once again demonstrates how relevant the term “best dogfighter” is for the final outcome of a series of air combat engagements.
SchorschThe Cold War lasted a long time… :confused:
If you look at rough time periods, here’s my ranking:
1950s: Mig-19??? I’m not enough of an expert…
1960s: F-8 Crusader
Clearly more maneuverable than F-4, Mig-21, Mirage III, BAE Lightning, while still retaining good (only slightly inferior) acceleration/climb performance.1970s: Mirage F-1
The most maneuverable non-fly-by-wire supersonic fighter in the West (beat only by the Mig-29 in the East). Achieved this without sacrificing acceleration/climb performance and while incorporating a credible BVR capability, which allowed it to compete with “non-dogfighters” such as the F-4 & Mig-23.1980s: F-16 / Mirage 2000 (tie)
Both fighters were extremely maneuverable thanks to fly-by-wire. In particular, a delta wing dogfighter became possible for the first time. I would rate the Mig-29 & F-18 slightly below. The Mig-29 was simply too limited (fuel, electronics, service life) to justify its possibly marginally better dogfighting capability. The F-18 was competitive at low speeds but outclassed in many possible scenarios (initial merge, interception etc).
Sabre, Hunter and MiG-17 for the sub/transonic region.
MiG-21 surely good trade in the early 60ies, while F-4 and F-8 being not too far off. Mirage III comparable to MiG-21. None of the above was however particularly designed for dogfight, they got these more or less by chance.
From the early 70ies the slatted F-4E or F-4F and F-4J were the best.
Then F-15 and later F-16. MiG-29 and Suchoi 27 advanced to that level with some edges and some shortcomings (the American designs excel in supersonic turn performance f. e.).
There were always some designs that had their specialties.
SchorschThe MiG-21 therefore was agile and a dogfighter.
A dogfighter (before all-aspect missiles came into effect) is characterized by:
– emphasis on short range armament, especially a rapid firing gun
– good pilot vision to all directions
– agility (high roll acceleration f. e.)
– acceptable sustained turn characteristics (means: it doesn’t bleed energy excessively fast)
– good instantaneous turn characteristics (low wing loading, gentle stall characteristics)
– good handling (includes good buffet limits)
– robust engine
– small spot factor
– good sortie rate
– gentle degrading flight characteristics when flying at limit (meaning: no sudden departure at max AOA or excessive flat-spin tendency)
The MiG-21 has some but definitely not all of those. Some shortcomings are directly related to the design requirements and show the emphasis on high altitude interception.
Above requirements are to a comparable degree fulfilled by the F-104 or the F-5A.
The MiG-21s capabilities as dogfighter were rather a spin-off than a design goal.
SchorschThe IAF used their MiG-21s to good effect in 1971. Judging Russian aircraft by their performance in Arab hands is not particularly useful, since they never really deployed and developed their own doctrine and training and suffered. (’73 was a better performance than the disastrous ’67 though).
In IAF hands/training, a well flown MiG-21 w/ Magic-2s has been competitive against practically every a/c the IAF has. Latest victim being the Su-30 K’s.
Then we are back again at the conclusion that well flown and tactically correctly deployed aircraft make the difference, pretty much independently from the type of aircraft.
The MiG-21 is a useful aircraft, no doubt, but hailing it as a great design for a dogfighter totally misses the mark. Better say, it was less unsuitable for a dogfighter than most other supersonic aircraft of that time. It was the one-eyed between the blind.
SchorschI dont think its hugely debateable that, had the Cold War gone hot by the mid-80’s that the threat to those fixed bases would’ve very much materialised.
While the required resources to strike those bases with effect would actually limit the punch versus other targets. I guess those bases would be used somewhat as decoy to lure many enemy aircraft into the range of friendly air defense.
SchorschWhich brings us nearly back to one of the original points, namely the supposed IRBM threat to large fixed bases, which was one of the raison d’etres of the whole VTOL thing. I remember lots of talk in the sixties and seventies about how modern accurate IRBM’s made those huge fixed runways hopelessly vulnerable, and yet somehow the threat never seemed to materialise. So was it all just being talked-up by Hawker Siddeley and the RAF in an attempt to promote the Harrier?
The issue is that IRBMs have to be nuclear tipped to be of any use. That is, we are talking about a nuclear war from the beginning. While retaliation might have been a problem in the early 60ies, it was no problem in the late 1970ies and mid 80ies. If an opponent uses nuclear weapons in the initial stage, the response even by remaining assets would have seen his complete destruction. If he was bound to conventional weapons, IRBMs did not pose a real threat to an airfield which use far spaced facilities and hardened aircraft shelters (HAS). Such bases are even hard to put out of service using attack aircraft as a HAS normally needs a direct hit by a heavy bomb. Even if, the resources required to have a good effect on an airfield limited the number of targets for an attacker, at the same time exposed him to air defenses.
I mean, how many aircraft of a Suchoi 17 or MiG-23BN type are needed to successfully strike a medium/large NATO airbase like Wittmund or Ramstein?
Second thing is, that in the early 1970ies a real war between East and West (which was actually thinkable just 10 years earlier) became a rather theoretical option and especially the USAF looked for aircraft that were not optimized for such warfare conditions. Actually, the only aircraft the USAF ever procured for such conditions is the F-111.
SchorschRussian/Warsaw Pact
In the classical sense and meaning of ‘Dogfight’
I would have to say the MiG-21 ‘Fishbed’1/ It was the most highly produced fighter interceptor of the Cold War.
2/ Cheap to produce in great numbers.
3/ Easy to train on and fly.
4/ Excellent power-to-weight ratio.
5/ Built in gun/cannon
6/ Simple radar and avionics, matched by short-range dogfight weapons
7/ Small dimensions/size means that it is/was always hard to see with the Mk1 eyeball (history shows that the one with the first sight of his opponent achieves, more than often achieves the kill!)
8/ For the best part of the Cold War, the ‘Fishbed’ would be the basis, that Western aircraft designer and air forces compared and designed their aircraft to compete against.
9/ It would be the light-weight fighter design, which would force the Western World to re-evaluate its tactics, doctrines and design philosophy of its own fighters (= F-16 Fighting Falcon)
Thanks for your elaborate remarks, but I think the MiG-21 is highly overrated.
Let’s look at the facts:
– The MiG-21 was optimized for interception, not dogfighting. That it still was useful as such was due to its universal design.
– Weaponry was lousy and only useful for limited dogfight. The early Atoll missiles are infamous, but many MiG-21 versions actually had no internal cannon.
– The performance was on par with the Phantom in most areas, with the Phantom having advantages at higher speeds and the MiG at lower speeds.
– The MiG-21 was never the initiator of the F-16 concept, rather the simple fact that WP did have more aircraft (at least on paper) and American aircraft did become too expensive&heavy due to heavy avionics optimized for BVR. Actually, the MiG-23 was plagued by the same issue.
The MiG-21 was special as it mated a good airframe with the correct airframe and did gain from advances in engine and airframe design in each version. For many nations it was an affordable yet powerful aircraft.
It was, however, not competitive in flight performance versus a slatted F-4E. The MiG-21 never proved itself as dogfighter really. It shows that even a limited platform with limited weapon system can have noticeable effect when used with care and wisedom, as done in Vietnam (most of the times).
How severe it can fail if conditions are quickly changed is shown by limited operations like Operation Bolo (1967). The Arabians never used their MiG-21 to any really impressive effect.
SchorschBest Cold War Dog Fighter
The best one for the “knife-fight in the telefon-box” was the MiG-29 with HMS.
Only that it missed 35 of the 40 years of Cold War.
SchorschI always wondered if they could cram some of the systems from an ah-1w’s nose including the turret into the Harrier. Kind of an attack helicopter on steroids.
The point of an attack helicopter is its survivability and time on station. It can hide and observe the battlespace better. To make an aircraft survivable versus heavy AAA requires something like the A-10. A Harrier would be wasted if sent against tanks.
A thing about the forward bases:
The Falklands were probably not the region were the Harrier could perform best. In a Middle European environment the number of paved areas is much larger, and a paved strips of about 500m length are easy to find. Basically you can take every small autobahn strip and you are less constrained than conventional aircraft which need on average 2400m (or 8000ft) runway. In a medium sized city (think of the vity of Hannover area in Niedersachsen, Germany) you can improvise 3 different airfields within a few kilometers and regularly shift inbetween them.
Harriers can also operate from destroyed runways, as long as a few hundred meters a left intact.
SchorschI think the Harrier is currently the only operationally useful VTOL/STOL aircraft ever produced. Other designs were either prototypes or remained niche aircraft of limited use (Yak-38).
The design compromises limited performance. Like all optimised aircraft the Harrier was not very exciting outside its primary role, however, it could operate were other aircraft were unable to operate. What makes the Harrier remarkable and successful is that it still can be used with some effectiveness outside the pure VTOL/STOL role. Other VTOL aircraft would have been or were much more limited (VAK-191, VJ101, Yak-38).
Sign In
