What makes Military Systems competitive?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 มี.ค. 2020
- Many MWS are used over several decades. In some aspects and depending on the context, they might still be competitive. In other scenarios, they are not.
⚜ Guest ⚜
MHV's Main Channel: / @militaryhistoryvisual...
MHV's Second Channel: / militaryhistoryvlogs
⚜ Thumbnail picture ⚜
Thanks to Arianne Scharfi: / @ariannescharfi9366
⚜ Support The Channel ⚜
- Patreon: / milavhistory
- PayPal: www.paypal.me/BismarckYT
⚜ Find Me On Social Media ⚜
- Twitter: / milavhistory
- Instagram: / milaviationhistory
- Facebook: / militaryaviationhistory
#militaryaviationhistory #mig21 #competitive
*These videos only exist because of viewer support.* Support via *Patreon* www.patreon.com/join/Bismarck or *Channel Memberships.*
Apologies for the slight echo in this one.
Great videos. More Cold War aviation please.
Military Aviation History bizmark recently in India at Jammu and Kashmir Indian mig 21 defeated Pakistani f-16 in a dog fight it was all over the news please comment back
We don't, just more of you to listen too. =D
@@dimapez I always liked the F5. It's such a pretty jet and from what I've read, it was a match for the Mig 21. I wonder why it wasn't adopted by many countries. And what success the F20 version might have had if it wasn't canceled.
@@Cheka__ F-16 lobbying by Lockheed Martin killed the F20 and F5 exports....
I am not convinced that you are different people. Bismark's head is large enough to be Bernhard's head with a rubber prosthetic on.
oO
interesting observation :D
@@MilitaryAviationHistory I think they are different people - but definately related. Perhaps Bernhard's dad was a travelling business man? Brothers with a different mother kind of thing. Actually wasn't Cheiftain stationed in Germany ? - OMG!
My goodness, it all makes sense now! MAV and MHV are the children of theChieftain and MaiWaffenträger. And Drachinifel is the weird uncle?
@@Tepid24 He would be their slightly strange acquatic cousin - he is too short to be one of the Chief's, maybe his younger brother - Gun Jesus. Though Drach needs to work on the facial hair. My God - Bernhard - what is going on with this family ?
MIG-21 competitive? Well, it must be, because it's the main fighter plane of my country (Croatia). Sometimes it can lose few parts in the middle of flight, but still... 😀
...but still keeps flying lol
Hey, it's better than nothing at all *sad Austrian Eurofighter noises*
If parts fall off they weren't that important anyways!
In Poland they usually ended up in cabbage
fields, I mean that was a thing
My wife's cousin flew mig21's in Bulgaria up until 2-3 years ago and they were still competitive against NATO forces in training. If they were easy to get parts for they'd still be flying them.
This was less than 2 months ago, if I remember correctly, but it feels it was ages ago. Hopefully next time, I figure out how to not scratch my beard on the microphone ;)
I would instead suggest a "10 hours beard scratching + tank idling noise ASMR to relax/invade Poland to" video.
The only thing I think that wasn't really talked about is the potential for upgrades. The Mig-21 has proven to be a very upgradeable platform and that kept it fairly competitive even into the 90s. It's ruggedness is also a factor that has kept it in service this long for many air forces, even mute advanced ones.
The small radar is a limiting item.
Gas'n'go
@@gpasquet5327 India made the HAL Tejas to replace the Mig-21. It has intakes on the sides. I have never seen a Mig-21 with intakes on the sides.
@@GlenCychosz Doesn't PRC makes MiG-21 based clones with side intakes?
@@ArcturusOTE pakistan and china developed jf 17 thunder, that is like a child between a mig 21 an a f16
Loiter time and Firepower - the main reasons the A-10 is still around.
As long as the enemy has next to zero air defense
You forgot robustness. It has successfully RTB after taking battle damage. You can also see photos of one that had to "belly" land, but was flying again next day, because it was was designed to land wheels up in emergency.
@@neues3691 F-35 in CAS roll is exactly like using a Ferrari to deliver packages.
@@gpasquet5327 Which proves what is already well known, CAS does not need speed. Personally I think the OV-10 Bronco is better platform. Oh, did you know at one time the P-51 was considered before Tucano was?
@@pricelesshistory I didn't forget robustness. I stayed in context with the things mentioned in the video. :-)
~Mach 2.5 has been the speed limit for jets because if you go any faster regular aluminum based alloys will melt from the heat. A designer can come up with a Mach 3 jet tomorrow, but the cost of the materials needed to withstand the heat will make the price more expensive than air forces have decided it's worth. Plus, hardly any combat occurs at supersonic speeds anyway so Mach 2.5 is fast enough for the top end.
We already have Mach 3+ jet(s). SR-71 (YF-12), Space Shuttle, X-15, that funny flying doorstop (honestly forgot name of it). Yes on Alu melting at high speeds (due to air friction).
@@pricelesshistory Right, Mach 3 jets have been developed (also XB-70, Mig-25) but only in very small numbers. The cost just hasn't shown to be worth it.
@@pricelesshistory Just going to gloss over the fact of the Space Shuttle and X-15 being rocket powered(not jets)
@@Melanie16040 Yes, correct. The OP is about material limits (melting) and costs, not propulsive limits, so was replying more on the existence of 3+.
@@racinnut77 Yes, agree. Possible, but not useful/ expensive.
There's a tank fest in Poland, basically a "Warsaw Pact Meet up" with one of the T-55 as I remember named "Eternally Displeased". Low maintenence. High satisfaction.
And flying pencil rules!
i think when we're talking about aircraft being competitive military systems in the vein of the T55 being a gamechanger in low level civil conflicts, instead of jets, helicopters sound like they are easier to operate without the necessary infrastructure you need for jets.
I'm reminded of the Sierra Leone civil war in the 2000s where a very small number of Hind gunships(2 or 3 being rotated through ready status) often flown by a single crew(Neall Ellis and his crew) had a game changing impact on that civil war.
Helicopters run into most of the same problems as jets because you still need everything but runways, and with the widespread availability of ZSU-23-2 aa guns in most conflict zones they aren't as viable as one might think. In Sierra Leone they clearly had crews that knew how to operate Hinds and groundcrews that knew how to service them and not much AA to worry about. Add in enough of those ZSU-23-2s mounted on trucks and suddenly the Hind is not having a good day unless it's got a FLIR sight and it's nighttime.
“Speed above all else” became the predominant philosophy during the mid-50s. At the same time, the air-superiority fighter as a concept was superseded by the interceptor, intended to take off, gain altitude with a quickness, and engage nuclear armed strategic bombers before they could deliver their payloads.
Yes and no. MiG-21 was a pure-bred air-superiority fighter. Just that Soviet doctrine of air tactics relied on two things - altitude and speed. Control those two and you control the fight. At least that was the assumption, until they reached the aforementioned saturation point, where it was no longer practical to go even faster. That's when planes like F-5 and F-14 showed the new way forward - close in manoeuvrability and BVR.
@osp80 then came the f4
@@Aaron-wq3jz After they worked the bugs out of the AIM-7 that is.
@@josephahner3031 when did they work most of those bugs out
@@Aaron-wq3jz in 1969 with the introduction of the AIM-7E-2. Though to be fair to the weapon it would have worked fine in BVR engagements but the ROE in Vietnam forbade BVR engagements due to friendly fire concerns.
your videos are just 100% info. appreciate the learning you guys do in the background so you can keep up.
hope to see more modern vehicle videos. my country bought the F35 so i love to learn bout it.
The trinity for combat planes is Aerodynamic/Structure/Propulsion. The three, if working together, can give a result better than the sum of the parts. While, at least in principle, you can add systems to a good frame to make it lethal, good systems on a bad frame will turn out to be a poor contraption anyway.
Brilliant! Mig 21: Kalashnikov of the sky! Geoff Who has seldom seen a better summation!
Lol I literally just finished reading about MG21 modernization program on Quora and you uploaded this.
An old army ranger who used to be fairly popular in youtube posted an audio book set in a post collapse New England. In several of the scenes, lightly armored, or even unarmored machine gun platforms, like small helicopters, technicals, or Humvees, were presented as major threats when all you have are small arms.
I know its an old comment but whats the book? It sounds interesting
As always context is everything. A weapons system does not exist in a vacuum and will have its uses in any context. Wither it is suited for that context is another matter entirely.
Good video and explanations as always.
I see you everywhere on TH-cam. Do you comment on basically every video you watch?
@@lobsterbark Yes, it helps their videos gain traction with the TH-cam algorithm. Might as well help in that way and express my appreciation while I am at it.
"mg on wheels at tank museum"
Quite useful descriptions of videos for edition
Can't fool me with your modern CGI and voice modulation. Don't worry we understand you are humble and dont want the people to know you can run 3 channels and the CGI equipment. You are the man.
When I was like 15yrs old there was something about the MIG-21 that facinated me. It has a super sleek design with that round body, the nose cone cropping out of that round body, the delta wings and such. It just looked much cooler to me than the Tomcat, F16, Harrier or other planes. I used to have a tendency to draw scenes of the plane flying over desert or mountain environments. I still have dozens of models, matchbox toys and posters of it.
My wife's cousin flew mig21's in Bulgaria up until 2-3 years ago and they were extremely competitive in NATO exercises. They only stopped flying them because they could no longer get parts. He still wishes they kept them too.
Surprised they couldn't get parts from Israel, China, or the US. China still uses their Mig-21 clones and I think both Israel and the US have companies that offer upgrade packages for Mig-21s.
@@josephahner3031 there's parts available like you said but since joining NATO it made it harder and it was cheaper to upgrade to a new platform. They actually flew 21's for over 50 years, so they had a great run. Also last I heard they were mothballed and wouldn't take long to return to service if needed. But the last time I talked to him he said that they were finally adapting to the F16s.
Good episode.
Talk about the MIG21 still flying in some air forces spurred a thought. The F16 has been a front line fighter now for 40 years. In the first 40 years of flight, we went from propellers and 40mph (Wright Flyer) to jets and 560mph (Me262).
I LOVE watching you two dodgy Germans. So much knowledge, so much humility and so much professionalism from both of you. From an amateur historian who has been fed Western history for over 30 years I truly thank you both.
In aviation circles we have an adage:
"The most useless things you have is the sky above and fuel behind you", meaning altitude you can climb to and fuel you left on the ground.
Military add's one more, the ammo you did not bring.
So, I agree with the idea that its what you bring on an airplane is more important than speed, stealth, maneuver, and what not. Also goes with calling all vehicles today as "platforms".
In that regard, perhaps the MiG-21 is average? Dunno.
As for longevity, exactly as you eluded to, very low cost of parts and overall maintenance. It is a small plane too, like the F-5, which also keeps costs low.
I'm still trying to wrap my head around that adage.
🤔
@@1joshjosh1 I was a little off on my quote, should be "The most useless things you have is the sky above, the runway behind, and fuel left on the ground."
In flying you want
1. Altitude: you have time and distance to find a landing place
2. Turning around uses a lot of altitude, which is precious if low and slow.
3. You get better fuel mileage not carrying extra fuel, but want to have enough to get where you want to!
The A10 is a good example of staying competitive. They tried retiring it a couple of times and now they are puting in new wings and upgrading the electronics because it's nothing better for the close support role.
Romania still uses upgraded versions of the Mig 21 as fighters because anything newer is probably too expensive. They would never stand up to a F16 or the later Migs but for pretending to have an airforce it's perfect :).
Well, in the last two years we've been slowly retiring them and replacing them with Block 52 F16s, so...
A10 dont belong in modern battlefield , too costly for insurgency and too fragile for missiles.
@@polentusmax6100 And yet they haven't been replaced by anything better. Because nothing can loiter like them, nothing can operate from rough landing strips like them, and nothing is as effective in the close support role.
@@gusty9053 its expensive flying, a turboprop like super tucano can do the job stealthy without alerting the entire city with all that noise of those gigant jet engines.
@@polentusmax6100 I know there have been tests and in the future they might be the better option. But i haven't heard anything about being put into widespread service.
For the sake of comparing the MIG-21 as a fighter plane to something contemporary (like Typhoon, F-22 or modern Russian aircraft), both of you would have been better off comparing air combat back in the MIG-21's days to today.
In MIG-21's days, you had long range ground radar and a flight controller crew. An alarm would have been raised, the MIG-21 would get airborne and the flight controller would use the long range radar readings to direct the MIG-21 towards the target (bomber, fighter, whatever). When close enough, the pilot would use his short range on-board radar to acquire a lock on the enemy by maneuvering into position and getting into missile range, which was quite short at the time. The "weapon system" would have been a fighter unit with most of it's components actually sitting on the ground (tactical planning by the flight controllers, the radars, tracking, etc) and only the pilot, plane and missile as "flyable components". Comms was only voice radio and all direct weapons control systems where the on-board radar and the missile.
Today, this is entirely different. There are a lot more components in the air, planes in a squad have direct datalinks as well as datalinks towards a whole array of ground-stations. "radar" input can be sourced from ground, sea, air and even space-based systems. The pilot itself does not directly control his weapon systems, but can actually fire missiles from other planes. He can even take over control of a missile already fired (by another plane) and re-target it on the fly. Plane-based radar has much bigger range and integrates fluently with other radar sources to compile a very complete picture of the actual battle engagement. Today, a fighter plane is much less a solitary piece of equipment, heavily dependant on pilot skill, but more a piece of a very large, very complex and very effective integrated weapon system. The actual fireing-range of the weapon system is about 10 times higher, than that of the MIG-21 contemporaries.
These differences reflect, how the planes are actually constructed. Fighter planes today are much bigger and heavier, that those in the MIG-21 days. The dry-weight (no fuel) of a MIG-21 was about 6 tons, whereas the F-22 comes at 14 tons or the Typhoon at 11 tons. Today, they have to carry loads of equipment necessary for weapons systems integration/comms. They embed stealth and active protection systems to keep the aircraft operational in combat situations as long as possible to maximize the effectiveness of the entire weapons system. Which, by the way, is the key reason why almost all modern fighters have two engines.
Basically, the key parameters have not changed much: See first, shoot first, maximize hit&kill probability. But the means to fulfil these key parameters have radically changed over the last decades.
A MIG-21 today in air combat would have no chance of survival with about zero chance of hit&kill. Judging todays fighters by looking at the planes themselves is completely misleading.
What if you just added datalinks to Mig-21 and it's missiles that could use AWACS radar to lock and fire BVM missiles? Kinda like the drone wingman concept but with a person in the cockpit.
This video reminded me of a question I've had in mind for a while: what happened, in particular during the second world war, with older marks or variants of aircraft?
To take an arbitrary example, the Mk II spitfire was superseded by the Mk V, and so on and so forth. What happened to the, in that case? I'm sure some planes were upgraded, some lost to attrition and some sent to second line units, but what did they do with the bulk of them?
I love your tank "names" xD
A video comparing like for like might be interesting - in this context I'm thinking of the Mig 21, the E.E. Lightning, the Lockheed Starfighter and the early Mirage.
Kalashnikov of the sky? Perfect! Thanks for a good episode.
unrelated question but what is your opinion of the f5 freedom fighter and f20 tigershark
I was a kid when the F5 was a relatively new platform. I remember it as the 'Freedom Fighter.'
If you design and put in a state of the art radar , weapons system and avionics in a rebuilt airframe the Mig-21 is still a good aircraft , it is still good for countries with a limited amount of cash to spend .
The problem is that it's rather small, and lacks the cross section to install a big enough, modern, radar. Especially with the air intake in the nose, limiting you to the size of the nose cone. That's the hard upgrade limit on the platform.
8:20 Back then it wasn't about acquiring target per se. It was about moving the thermal sensor of the missile to the specific angel and that was it. Then the pilot had to enter the approximate distance to the target (using a 3-position switch) so the missile's computer will know where it is (roughly) and only then it was good to fire. Needless to say, it wasn't 100% reliable, though in CRC it was quite deadly.
That staged photo at 6.35 is pretty damn awesome!
What about the SU-7 and SU-17? How do they hold up as contenders to the Mig-21’s place as the “Kalashnikov of the sky?”
Excellent
Do you have discord server about this channel or about aviation Bismarck?
I remember reading an article in which a retired USAF fighter pilot said there were 4 things which mattered in modern air to air combat: ALTITUDE (aka Potential Energy), SPEED (aka Kinetic Energy), SENSORS and STEALTH.
Improved sensors have made speed comparatively less important and stealth comparatively more important. I think he was including radar, as it's the most important sensor.
I'd add a 5th, which would be "smart weapons" and in aerial combat refers primarily to self-guided missiles. These are getting faster and more manoeuvreable instead of fighter aircraft which are becoming payload carrying sensor platforms.
I understood that in terms of dogfighting (ie: fighter to fighter fighting) it was learned in the 6 Day War that acceleration and manoeuvrability was more important than outright speed. Hence the Soviet development of the Su-27 and MiG-29. This experience also spelt the end of the missile-only fighter.
As to "stealth", this would seem almost irrelevant to the interceptor role. (I could be wrong, of course.)
It may be useful in the bomber/strike fighter mode, but does it actually work? Can a plane be stealthy to a higher interceptor aircraft with look down capability, or in a situation where unconventional radar is in use?
perfomace - payload - survivability
that would be my trinity.
each pillar can be subdivided with priorities.
overall performance can be further analyzed where flatt out speed may be sacrificed to a surtain extent for maneuverability.
payload can be further analyzed where you look at fuel load vs weapon load.
survivability has always been a design aspect: armor plates, black boxes for jamming, self sealing fuel tanks, chaff/flares, radar warning receivers, light absorbent paint for ww2 night fighters, etc. - survivability adds weight, and reduces performance & payload.
8:44 Indian Air force has both MiG 29 and 21. Anyway nice and well researched analysis .
Well, at the time, the primary delivery system for both tactical and strategic ordnance (especially nuclear) was other aircraft. And be those aircraft high or low flying, the best chances of preventing them to complete their mission was to intercept them as far as possible from their targets. This is why flying fast and high was the basic requirement for the 50's and 60's AC designs. As missiles become more prevalent, especially stand off capable ones, that requirement slowly evaporated. Loiter times, sensors and on board weaponry became more important then raw performance.
As for helmet mounted targeting devices, the US had them even back in the late 70's and early 80's. In fact, they were used during the AIM-ACEVAL. However their effect was not deemed significant enough with the current tech IR missile tech (AIM-9L) so they were never operationally adopted. There was an initiative to develop a new more capable close range missile, however 2 things prevented it from ever materializing.
One, the major takeaway from the AIM-ACEVAL was that close quarters fighting with all aspect heat seeking missiles was becoming too risky, especially because low capability and cheaper planes could now be threats to highly expensive sophisticated modern fighters (F-14 and F-15). Thus it should be avoided as much as possible. The best way of doing at the time was to employ medium and long range fire and forget weapons (FOX3) like the Phoenix to stay out of the merge. So a decision was made, to develop one such weapon.
Two, budget limitations allowed for only one new missile project. This in combination with the above resulted in the advanced SRAM to be dropped in favor of the MRAM, which gave birth to the AMRAAM. The good thing, NATO came into the 90's with an advantage in long and medium range advanced missiles. The bad thing, they were at a disadvantage in the short range missile arena.
That was a T-62. Bore evacuater was in the middle of the gun tube. On a T-55 is was a retrofit and added to the very end of the gun tube.
One other aspect to consider is optimal turn rate. Jet fighters that do get into a close range dogfight are not fighting at their top speed but something much closer to their optimal corner rate, which tends to be well below supersonic. Having the extra speed is nice to intercept or disengage, but any close in knife fight with short range IR missiles and guns is going to more than likely be happening at subsonic. The speeds of the fighters also waned along with the need to intercept supersonic nuclear bombers.
MiG 21 is essentially being used as a manned first stage for a SAM system. It doesn't have the range to do much more (perhaps it could also act as the manned first stage in a high speed cruise missile system) but it could serve in this role indefinitely.
It's the second stage launch area for the missiles it carries haha
It seems to be cost effective in that role for small nations with limited budget where range is not an issue and the goal is not air supremacy but air defence
R kamakazi
@@ithehuman007 West German navy used to use the F104 in a maritime strike strike role. I imagine it was a similar mission profile to this - high speed, direct path run toward the target, launch your weapon and get the hell out as best you're able.
A MiG-21 with relatively modern avionics (think Romanian MiG-21 Lancer or Indian MiG-21 Bison) can still cause headaches to 4th generation fighters. I know that NATO 4th gen fighters did quite a bit of DACT (dissimilar air combat training) against RoAF Lancers and found that they were tricky opponents to handle, especially in close-in scenarios. The Lancer pilots could use the advanced Israeli designed helmet mounted sights to target fighters from angles that most other opponents could not engage from. This HMS is considerably more advanced and integrated into the avionics than the similar system mentioned in the video which was used in early MiG-29s.
That being said, one on one against a 5th generation fighter a MiG-21 is toast no matter how advanced the avionics are. Though, to be honest, the same is true even for most 4th gen fighters. Stealth is a game changer. It's hard to kill someone you won't see coming before it's too late. One of the things that has remained unchanged from the earliest days of air combat is that if you're able to get the drop on the other guy you're very likely to win the engagement. Often the pilot who got shot down never even got to see who it was that fired on him.
You guys are the best historians in history!!!!!
It's (MiG 21) main role, if I am not mistaken, is interceptor. Speed and quick response time combined with ruggedness and ability to be easily upgraded is why it is still in active service (still in use in my country). It can't really hold a candle to Gen4 and gen4+ jets tho :/ This is my opinion on the subject before watching the video ^^
The Douglas Skyraider, A-10, and of course, the B-52 come to mind.
MiG21 in latest versions is still very capable point defence fighter plane. This plane is similar to T-55 tanks. Those still can destroy anything on battlefield too...
I think the most important performances in a modern fighter would be (it's actually fighters, they are not supposed to exist in 1vs1 only): situational awareness/shared picture (sensors including passive E-collection, links, data fusion,...), stealthiness and defense, long range low emission weapons, aircraft range and permanence in the combat area (including number of weapons).
I think that is why old fighters are not (because it's not about asking if they would be, they just aren't) competitive in a modern engagement.
5:25
Just wanted to point out that modern tanks have a lot more than 300mm of armor, both effectively and in terms of volume.
Armor has been one of those things that has continually increased over the years (With some western second generation mbt's as exceptions), with the introduction of progressively better materials, armor layouts and reactive technologies.
Tank gun caliber would be a much better example of the point you were trying to make.
I like the discussion of speed vs loiter time. I'm disappointed that the A-10 and A-29 did not get a mention though. I would say an air force with a lot of Mig-21 could potentially threaten air space, but not realistically patrol air space. Analogous to the Italian Navy in WWII.
At this point air battle probably depends who have better radar and missile
The MiG-21 was very cost effective. It gave a decent weapons system to poorer nations. I'm reminded of the Mig-21MF "Bunny Fighter" of the DR Congo conflict with Angola, the Carrot War.
Flying Kalashnikov, tracked Kalashnikov... What's next, a rifle Kalashnikov?!
The ship Kalashnikov
@@dragonstormdipro1013 Though that would probably be the USN Fletcher class.
@@Tepid24 Nope..It'll be OSA missile class
@@dragonstormdipro1013 Those definitely aren't "ships".
I mean i would still argue that speed in BVR is one of the the most important factors. The higher the speed the more and harder need missiles need to correct their trajectory and thus faster lose energy thus giving you an advantage in BVR.
I mean for sure the mig-21 will just suffer as it can only lock up targets directly upfront it and so speed won't be the catch against any 4th gen+ radar system which can lock them at 70° Bank.
But i agree with Bernard as combat shifted towards asymmetrical warfare, BVR for sure is absolute not the keyfocus of the plane and thus doesn't need to have that. Though you could construct a similar argument for SEAD missions that high speed helps the defense against missiles.
I think a mig 21 act more as a support plane in a battle, with datalink radar coverage is less of a issue, and its always good have some cheap plane to be aimed at instead of a expensive f35
I think aircraft like lightning and f104 are also good examples of aircraft that perform similarly if not better in sheer performance than modern aircraft and yet are now obsolete
The MiG-21 is a missile bus. Put a modern sensor suite and missiles on it and it is still a system to be respected.
As long as the avionics have been updated and you have a decently trained pilot at the controls, it should be able to hold its own against a 4th gen fighter.
stealth in airplanes is more about BVR, trying to prevent planes from getting locked and fired on till they closer, hopefully get they in range to defeat the enemy radars before they get hit. it doesn't make planes invisible...
I am still convinced that Bernhard was the original model for the elite bandit skin in rainbow six siege.
What makes or breaks the fighter is how well the system works with the task that it have to preform. New capabillities in the armed forces, new technology, tactics, sustainability, mobillity etc, may render a design not suitable for the tasks it have to preform in conjunction with the other armed branches. What demands are put on the design? Can it cope with the new demands?
A very, very important issue is that "jets" are not all just "jets" - because the technology of the first "jets" was very inefficient, being pure *turbojet engines,* versus the much more efficient, but much more complicated, *turbofan engines.*
Despite the general population calling both turbojets and turbofans "jet" engines, the differences are actually very big.
The early jets, from the Me262 to the MIG21 were the simpler turbojet designs, but the more modern "jets", from the F4 through to the "teens" (F14, F15, F16, F18), and later, used the much more efficient, and more complex, turbofan engines.
And the higher efficiency played out at subsonic speeds. During take off, landing and dogfighting, the newer turbofans vastly outperform the older pure turbojets.
Basically, turbojets piss away fuel during take off, landing and dogfighting, but turbofans are in their element, developing more thrust at lower speeds than turbojets.
At higher speeds there isn't much difference in performance, but at those speeds its the on-board weapons that do the real work, not the airframe.
And it is also extremely important that the turbofan designs, when compared to the older turbojet designs, will stay airborne much longer due to the inherent efficiency advantage of their turbofans. This is the "dwell" time that turbojets can't achieve.
An exaggerated emphasis on speed very often led to a significant loss of maneuverability; the F-104 Starfighter (essentially missile with a man in it) being a notable example. Additionally, many of the design characteristics used to achieve higher mach numbers (deltas & heavily swept wings) have very poor handling at lower speeds which complicate take-off and make landing difficult. Also, even if you could manuever at those high speeds the g-forces that would be generated wouldn't be survivable (at least not until inertial dampeners become a thing). Higher mach capability is mostly only useful for a quick ingress/egress and of course rapid interception of bombers (the driving factor behind much of the quest for such high speed - & the whole U.S. fixation on higher, further, faster - capabilities during the cold war), which is no longer a high priority. That's my understanding at least.
Simply put: Smart, networked, autonomy, open architecture, modular, upgradeable, sustainable.
Good concept to look at would be the South African border/Bush war. How a conventional airforce with outdated aircraft fought against a primitive insurgency that evolved into a modern Soviet backed enemy. Like the mirage 3 and cheetah project
As former fixed wing and helicopter mech, that last point of discussion was very important.
In a short war, f22, f35 , su57 and whatever next gen variant will rule the skies. But as the war goes on and infrastructures are damaged. Replacement parts become scarce the MiG 21 could very well end up ruling the sky.
I was told by a Russian Jet Mech, that he could keep any Russian aircraft flying with the tools found in a Sears. I can tell you for a fact that is not the case when comes to a AV8B, F18. My ch46 maybe.
What if they are actually the same person but are just really fast?
What's this background? Is that some piece of Raubkunst!!!
Bernhard's take on modern art
@@MilitaryAviationHistory Looks pretty nice actually! Like a classic painting of a night sky over a burning city.
You MiGsed them up...^^
Last time I looked at india, the MIG21 killed a F16.
MiG21 is fast enough that it has to be respected, especially in a situation where there's no AWACS providing long range detection. It can get into a firing position quickly enough that there's very little time to react.
@@paulfrantizek102 That's basically what it do in modern warfare (Rightly said).
@@sciencetechfreakers3777 I'd say 'modern warfare' with one huge caveat: If someone tried to use a MiG21 like that in an AWACS setting where the thing would be tracked from gear-up, it would be a suicide run.
But against an adversary like Pakistan, it has its place.
@@paulfrantizek102 That's true too, but Pakistan does use Mig 21 too the Chinese version of it which is said to be better than the Bis, they also field a greater number of AWACS than India.
No f16 was shot down by any air craft belonging to the iaf let alone a mig 21.
Count was done by us officials and confirmed no f16 was shot down.
Its purely Indian propaganda to try and account for their 2 jets being shot down on that day.
Stealth kind of hits on the change, but it's also about radar, infrared, flares, chaff, jamming, encryption, code breaking. Summarized as situational awareness. The military that has SA wins. THAT is the game changer. It's as true with tanks as it is with aircraft.
Problem with MIG21 is the very basic avionics, the radar is unable to scan down, can't scan more than 15-20º side to side, and suffers badly from ground and weather interference.
The Mig21 basically is limited to GCI, Ground Controled Intercept, as it's unable to scan for itself reliably, it depends on ground or. Airborne detection radars to guide it to the target, then it locks from within 15- 20km (very close for modern context) and launches all its missiles within 7kms for Hot aspects, or 4km for cold aspects.
Then keeps going fast away from the target, as it should not dogfight, unless necessary to survive.
Meanwhile an F14, can lock and launch from 100kms away, on a hot, non maneuvering target, or within 40kms on a hot aspect fighter, and reliably scan alot of the sky.
Mig21 radar is like looking through a straw, with max 15km range, while it's nato contemporaries are more akin to having an eyepatch on one of your eyes...
In aircraft, modernization and upgrades are more important than anything else. A mid-70s Mig-21 against a modern, mid-2000s F-16? No chance. But a modernized Mig-21, with totally different avionics, cockpit, modern radar and weapons? That's a totally different game. In essence, an air fighter is 100% dependent on it's systems, sensor and weapons capabilities, doubly so in a modern BVR environment.
A MiG-21 with a decent datalink and well supported by an AEW&C platform should be quite adequate. Weapons systems can be considered from the point of view of a smallish fighter unit, like a squadron, or a large organic force package, supported by AEW&C/AWACS and tactical jammers. See the Bekaa Valley Air Battle of 1982 as an example. There was almost no need to have such advanced aircraft against the Syrians because Israel dominated the electronic battlespace. They could have used just about anything that could fly, carry a datalink and fire a missile.
Imo, for planes the trinity always was speed (+climb/acceleration), maneuverabilty and range/loiter time. Range and loiter time are for certain roles not as important as speed and maneuverability, which are almost always important. In WWII, armament was only really important for anti-bomber roles, while it didn't change much in fighter-vs-fighter combat.
With modern technology, sensors and missiles became important as well and very recently, stealth. BVR combat has limited the importance of maneuverabilty, sensors/missiles and speed became more relevant instead.
A-G potential is a nice thing, but again limited to certain roles and if all you need is A-A, you don't need that.
But then, there are two kinds of "competitive".
One is: "Would someone buy my plane?"
The other is: "Is my old plane still useful?"
For the former, the answer would be only "Yes" for actually up-to-date aircraft. If a country wants to buy new jets, your product needs to be at least as good as the competition (which is usually state-of-the-art technology).
For the latter, the answer would be "Yes", even for older aircraft. They need to stand a chance against modern aircraft, but it is sufficient if this chance is relatively small. Imagine an F-4 with AMRAAMs. If you fly an F-15/F-16 against it, you'll probably win. BUT it is still a real threat and if you make mistakes (as everyone does), it can kill you.
The MiG-21 definitely still has competitive speed.
Maneuverabilty? Not so much. In a 1v1 BFM scenario against an F-16, it will stand absolutely no chance. But when surprising an enemy or in dogfights involving many aircraft (the real world), you can still get kills, even in an inferior plane.
Missiles? The original MiG-21 doesn't have very modern missiles, BUT India has retrofitted their MiG-21 with HMD and Archers, so at least their short-range missiles can be upgraded to modern standards. But even though it might be possible to strap BVR missiles to a Fishbed and even to install the electronics required to launch them, it's radar simply doesn't have the range to put them to good use. And installing a radar with sufficient range is probably not possible due to the limited space in the inlet cone. This worked with the F-5 (F-20), but it probably won't work with the MiG.
If you actually get kills against modern AC with a MiG-21, you need to get close and this only works if your opponent makes REALLY big mistakes.
T55 is a great gun platform. 100-105 mm is the golden middle for lobbing HE, and the crew if hit by hand held AT has a reasonable chance to survive. Western tanks would be a an overkill for most of those scenarios, stronger frontal armor and more penetration doesn't help in taking out a MG nest.
There is a definitive saturation point for tanks, a higher caliber gun would make a lot of sense for head on tank on tank engagements. But it would lead to a very poor everything else platform, as it would add weight, frontal length (bad for cities) and less ammo for other duties.
Yugoslavia had a decision point between the Mig 21 and F5 and the pilots actually preferred the F5, but it was a political decision to go with the MiG 21.
Guys, can you improve an audio quality when you do videos together? It feems like speaking in a barn.
Never saw such different twins... :)
What exactly is now the answer, do I missed something?
The MiG-21 is the Kalashnikov of the sky. The comment summed it up perfectly.
I like his beard.
Is it just trinity? _Sensors_ are a very critical aspect too; ultra-destructive firepower won't be helpful if one can't even properly sense the enemy out there.
I had heard that a majority of airworthy MiG-21s in the US are Czech-built
Probably true
The flying coffin lol
Imo if you only have bow and arrows, they are de facto competitive :) You adapt your tactics. Finland was the sole country to obtain the domestic version of the Soviet Union instead of the export variant. If I remember correctly the Soviets offered a better deal than Sweden. Older generation aitrcrafts can be useful in contingent situations like battle manangement communication failures. Command and control are primary targets during the engagement phase in conflicts. It's like having the choice between a laser and a rifle. One wants both.
The MIG-21 was the Russian English Electric Lightning, or vice versa
In modern air to air combat, it's whoever can id the enemy and pull the trigger first wins. So your trinity would be, stealth/ECM, radar, and range/loiter time.
stealth/ECM stops the enemy from locking on, Your radar is what lets you lock on, and range/loiter time because even if your plane is invincible if it's not up in the air it's useless.
All your other stats are things that are nice to have but so long as they are not total trash you will be fine. e.g. if your max gee force is 2 gees you are in trouble but anything beyond 5 or so really won't do anything for you. To dodge a missile you need 30+ gees, not possible with a human-controlled plane, and dogfighting is not really a thing anymore as even short-range missiles have a range of 20+ miles now. With long-range missiles like the AMRAAM and Meteor can hit at over 100 miles.
Tornado ADV is a interceptor no fighter. Most important for effective range is supercruise, which F-35 has been reported to be struggling with. Launching a BVR missile at high speed at high altitude will increase the missiles energy and therefore it's effectiveness. While the US has been involved in lower intensity warfare the reasons why the F-22 programm should not have been cancelled become rather obvious now.
You never mentioned pilot training and you lightly touched on tactics. Both play a role in a dogfight. Add in tactical control of airspace and a older less capable aircraft would make a worthy opponent.
I agree.
But this discussion seemed to be focused on the hardware alone.
Mig 21 is still great for Air policing, it's fast, reliable and super cheap to operate buuuuut it's fricking old :)
Maybe some private companies might make an newer equivalent for AP purpose only and maybe limeted COIN(?)
It's much more cost effective for an Mig 21 type of aircraft to intercept stray passenger planes than for example Eurofighter, just look at it's flight hour cost!
In short Mig 21 = Love :D
Just because a weapon is obsolete doesn't mean it is useless. There was a solder in WWII who fought AND survived WWII with a sword and a bow and arrow.
Can you image, you are in WWII with your high tech German weapon and you feel a sharp stabbing pain and you look down and see an arrow sticking out of you, and judging from the blood, it has killed you as well.
And don't forget the A-1 "Sandy" that was used by the Americans in Vietnam.
Cool
India? You realize that China still operates a bunch and the last ones were made in 2013, going to Bangladesh!
As a modern fighter it has little value, but if going against poor countries, it's perfectly good IMO. Plus, they would make for good dogfight aggressors! The Chinese ones at least with the double deltas.
I think the speed is the most misunderstood element of combat aircraft. I would like to give my 2 cent backed up by some real life element as a combat aircraft mechanic.
-Speed is meaningless. Pretty much all top speeds are performed with aircraft in clean configuration (no weapon payload/fuel tanks/pods of any kind) at very high altitude. Even if peace time, combat aircraft pretty much always have something hanging under their wings or fuselage. Put actual combat payload under your MiG-21 and you can forget the Mach 2 thing. And this is true with pretty much all aircraft (maybe with the exeception of F-22/35 with their internal bays).
-Mach 2 with the MiG-21 (also true for many other aircraft) needs full afterburner for several minutes... With so little fuel inside the aircraft, you just run out of fuel before being able to really put your weight on the battlefield. There are many chances that you'll need this fuel to fight and go home. So, to go Mach 2, you need fuel. MiG-21 don't have fuel, except with external tanks, then with external tanks, you won't be able to reach Mach 2 because of the induced drag. So Mach 2 on paper mean nothing.
-Maintenance heavy. Keeping an engine full afterburner and at very high speeds for several minutes is not without consequences on the engine itself, specialy its lifespan. I won't go into details because each engine reacts differently than other in regards of fatigue. But a simple and good exemple is the MiG-25. Mach 3.2 seems amazing, but the reality is that when reaching a certain speed (around Mach 2.7 or 2.8 if I'm not wrong), the engines were disassembled and inspected. This take a freaking lot of time, manpower, logistic and money. The Foxbat could go for mach 3.2, but then the engines were simply decomissioned due to the damage caused to some of its elements. And guess what ? The MiG-25 successor was... Slower... because the Mach 3.2+ thing was just an useless heresy. Speaking about maintenance, Mirage 2000 can easily go mach 2+, but each time they do it, it's needed to inspect the engine, specialy the turbine section and ''flame holder rings'' because of the high sustained temperatures. And the computer in charge of fatigue measurement decrease the engine lifetime by a significant margin, despite the M-53P2 being a reliable engine. This does not only apply to Mirage 2000, but many other aircraft engine. And once again, guess what ? The Mirage 2000 successor... Is slower... but, even with combat payload under wing and fuselage, the Rafale is always faster than a combat equiped Mirage 2000 despite having a top speed of only mach 1.8 for the Rafale.
Another exemple related to maintenance : to be able to reach mach 2, many aircraft need to change their air intake geometry to reduce the speed of the air before reaching the fan blades. This is often done with hydraulic systems. Mirage 2000 uses the ''mouses'' (souris in french) to do this, just like the MiG-21 shock cone. On Mirage 2000D/N, which are special Air-ground variant, the mouses were immobilized just to allow the aircraft a top speed of around Mach 1.4. This allowed to remove all the hydraulical components dedicated to the actuation of the mouses, gain some weight and space and removed potential failures. The same thing was done on the F-14 late in their life. The intake ramps were immobilized to reach mach 1.8 (need to confirm this with actual sources however).
In short : the ''top speed'' thing is useless most of the time. Relevant for some aircraft with precise role, but for the majority of fighters, it's useless.
Yeah 'top speed' is mostly for show, more important is competitive combat speed.....
fact that the US airforce has been considering buying super tucanos and other airforces have been buying these slow close air support weapons platforms
The fighter mafia killed it. Looks like at most a few squadrons now, and JSOC is looking to carry on the project
Great discussion, good to see Bernhard, Mig-21 is a great Russian fighter, if it is still competitive, it's as you said it depends.
If you win by hitting the other without being hit yourself you or your system or both were competitive.
If you you use a Leopard like the turkish army did and make an offer to be hit than you can not complain after being hit about a not competitive enough system unless you adress that the crew caused the loss.
Yes, the MIG 21 is still competitive as a Target Drone !
And so is your comment
As a troll !