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.

The MiG-21 is reasonable not the best dogfighter. It only has low wing loading in the earliest variants, but by the time it came with the 3rd and 4th generation, the wing loading cannot be considered anything but high. The thrust to weight ratio was only regarded as acceptable in the earliest—the MiG-19s still had superior thrust to weight ratio. The 3rd and 4th ones had better thrust to weight ratios however. Another problem is that by the time the MiG-21 gained a spinal back, visibility to the rear has been reduced.

The handling qualities of the MiG-21 is pretty good except when it comes to the edge of controllability, where it can snap into a vicious flat spin.

The F-104 is simply worst. The moment it starts tacking on things, the wing loading goes from not so good to worst. Like any aircraft that has too long a length relative to wingspan, it has a problem of losing stability at the yaw axis, like what happened to the Super Sabre. That problem was only resolved in most other designs by enlarging the tail surfaces or adding lower ventral fins.

The MiG-19 is a better dogfighter than the first two with a very good thrust to weight ratio and those twin cannons packs serious death up close. But it exacts a penalty. The plane is borderline unstable, making it a bitch to fly. The MiG-21 was a lot more pleasing to fly, and not to mention a lot more eAsier to maintain. The MiG-19 is a twin jet that is actually heavier and more complicated than the MiG-21. Yet its ability to dogfight against more modern jets has proven to be surprising.

My list of cheap, easy to maintain, easy to fly, yet supremely agile, dogfighter with real guns amounts to two aircraft.

The first is the MiG-17, a plane which collectos has called the “Porsche” of fighters and “God’s Gift to aviation.” The second is the F-5E a plane that I may call the best plane that is built around Jack Northrop’s concepts in aerodynamics.

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.

I won’t call the F-104 fulfilling a lot of the requirements mentioned above. Far from it.

Non Doppler radars have a difficulty in tracking targets flying close to the ground due to the reflection from the ground. Doppler radars solved this problem to a great deal, but nonetheless there was still a height limit (probably 500 feet), below which it was difficult to reliably detect/track targets.

Modern radars have vastly better signal processing capabilities, is the problem of ground clutter still a “problem” or it has ceased to be so?

It ceased to be so, and for quite a while already. Proof of that technology is when you get a speeding ticket from a police helicopter.

There is China’s pressure against those who would buy them, and besides, selling them amounts to eventually allowing the technology to be more vulnerable to observation via espionage.

The amount of arable land may actually be decreasing worldwide, thanks to desertification (increasing sizes of deserts like the Sahara, the Gobi Desert and the US West), as well as increasing saltification of land. Problem of using fertilizer is that we’re are increasing the salinity of the soil up to a point it will be gradually become toxic and yields will go down. When the soil cannot sustain plant life any longer, it will lead to a desert. Its already happening in Latin America and in the US (the Dust Bowl). Happening in China too. Erosion of top soil thanks to flooding (think Yangtze and the Mississippi) does not help. Worsening the situation is the real estate development over farm land, which is happening all over in the Asian countries.

This year, there was a “rice” crisis that happened in South East Asia where rice prices suddenly escalated. Many countries like Egypt, Vietnam and Thailand stopped exporting, causing a cringe on rice importing and eating countries. Already there is a proposal to create a “rice OPEC” between Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos.

Fundamentally, Jews and Moslems have coexisted, are doing so and can continue to coexist. The really hot point between Israel and Arabs is actually “lebensraum” between the Israelites and the Palestinians. So the real issue is about living room.

I think before you start exploiting the moon, we will start exploiting the rest of the planet that hasn’t been exploited yet. The oceans, the Artic and the Antartic. One of the most ignored developments in China in the last year or so, while we are focusing our eyes on new frigates, new submarines and the Varyag in dock, was the fact they completed a large first class research ship that was meant to explore the Artic. This ship is now in operation.

In the future “eco-wars”, we should consider the genuine threat of military force against tankers, pipe lines and even oil rigs. Consider for example, the economic impact if a submarine goes into the Gulf of Mexico and starts torpedoing at the oil rigs. What about the oil rigs in the North Sea? Those in the China seas? Those off shore in South America? The effect caused by a small airforce from a rogue nation that targeted the oil refinery and oil pipelines of its opponent in Latin America or Africa. Or asymmetrical forces, like speed boats against tankers or guerrillas against oil pipelines, or a terrorist attack against an oil well in a third world country.

In the future “eco-wars”, countries with competent navies will start using sea power to assert themselves over ocean “territory” like as if they’re on land, as well as on the Artic and Antartic. In Asia, this is already begun to show itself with disputes, though they’re currently very minor. That may escalate however, as land resources can grow thin. The US with Canada, European Union and Russia may find themselves in a three front competition for Artic resources, projecting power using nuclear submarines going under the ice cap. Likewise in the Antartic, powers like the UK and France will start claiming pieces of the continent, which will be fiercely disputed by Japan, India, Australia, Korea, Brazil, and China.

On land, Central Asia and Africa will become hotbeds, as powers compete for the remaining land resources in a multifront competition. Valuable capture points will include oil wells, pumping stations, pipelines, to rivers, highways and even railways, since transportation access is vital to the acquisition and distribution of resources. Our TVs will be filled with images of guerrillas with AK-47s guarding oil pipelines and wells, while tank columns guard railways and highways.

What if controlled fusion is mastered? Heavy hydrogen isotopes maybe found better at the bottom of the ocean than on top. Countries will start building underwater submarine bases or off shore rigs designed to drill minerals off the ocean floor, or pull deuterium from the heavy water at the sea floor.

It will be so Mahanian, with a dash of Seaquest.

There won’t be a Cold War.

Nor Religious Wars nor Ideological Wars. It won’t be Capitalism vs. Communism, Democracy vs. Autocracy, Christianity vs. Islam. Regardless of what is written and said, propagandized, commercialized, said over FOX or CNN.

The Future of War will more and more centered on the Resource Wars. The first aspect of it will be wars centered on Oil, then it goes on to other natural resources ranging from clean water to fishing grounds. We will be fighting for rights over the Artic, the Antartic and under the sea.

Regardless of what is said, or said to cover true intentions, no one will fight over ideas as ideas don’t put food on the plate. But resources do. Everything else is just an excuse.

Russia is actually capitalistic. So is China. So is India. So what is the problem? The problem is that capitalism hinges on growth to survive, jobs for people, so they can feed, house and cloth themselves. Capitalism hinges on the central core issue that growth must be infinite. However, growth consumes resources and resources are not infinite. So you will have a collision between the need to grow and limits of resources. You will reach to a point, that to continue to grow, it will be at the expense of someone else.

Russia understands this. That’s why it plays the energy card with China and Europe. Cross me and I hope you will enjoy the cold winter. Nice to see convenient pipelines running in South Ossetia. Like we’re not in North Korea but in Iraq because Iraq has the oil. China knows this, that’s why it has trade relations with Sudan and Venezuela. Everything are like chess pieces being moved over a board, seeking better positions here and there. It plays through a combination of hard power like the Russians rolling into Georgia, or soft power, like the way the Chinese moved into Sudan. This will be the New yet the Old and Original Geopolitik—the contention over resources.

Missiles won’t be going in the Ukraine. Wouldn’t blame them if they reopened their own ICBM production facilities though. Would be freakin’ hilarious if they started cranking out SS-18s and aimed them at Russia.

I kind of doubt they are able to produce them however. Much of the components for the ICBMs still had to come from Russia.

Don’t also underestimate what the general population of the Ukraine feels about Russians. Slavs are Slavs, especially if they’re both Russian language speakers. They’re not going to have a weapon of mass destruction aimed at fellow Slavic peoples.