Based on overall success and domination of their competition, what is the greatest Fighter jet throughout the Cold war?
A-anon-kun, you can see my undercarriage~~!!
>Swedish JA 37 Viggen fighter pilots, using the predictable patterns of Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird routine flights over the Baltic Sea, managed to achieve missile lock-on with radar on the SR-71 on numerous occasions. Despite heavy jamming from the SR-71, target illumination was maintained by feeding target location from ground-based radars to the fire-control computer in the Viggen. The most common site for the lock-on to occur was the thin stretch of international airspace between Öland and Gotland that the SR-71 used on the return flight. The Viggen is the only aircraft to this day to get an acknowledged radar lock on the SR-71.
outta my way blackbird fucking shits
Vid and Pic very related.
I love that the Syrians turned their Mig-21s into light bombers.
>I love that the Syrians turned their Mig-21s into light bombers.
Any avionics upgrades to go with that? HUD? CCIP?
Or are they just taking the "gotta blow up something, doesn't matter what it is" approach?
>overall success throughout the cold war
A lot of them got shot down. And even though they were somewhat effective in Vietnam due to American over-dependence on missiles, they still got shot down a lot.
Arab -21s got shot down a lot by Israeli Mirages and F-4s as well.
Besides their huge production run, what makes them so great?
>Posting anything else than based Draken.
the mig-21 is fine but it has some flaws that hold it back
parachute landings, negative-g engine stalls, coolant limited radar use and a fairly small fuel tank+thirsty engine hold it back
the f-16 can out climb, out turn, out maneuver and can carry heavier arms
That depends on why you mean by "dogfight."
The F-15E has some extra weight on it that will hinder it, but it also has more powerful engines in comparison to the F-15C. I'm thinking that the F-15E would easily beat out the F-16 in most BVR engagements and it would still be able to hold its own during WVR engagements. The F-16's only advantage would be sustained turn rate.
agreed but its so much cheaper and easier to maintain. It's why the Norks have over 200
>Not posting glorious Mirage 2000
Many arab filled russian planes met their end to this mighty beast
The Mirage IV was a two-seat supersonic strategic bomber; basically an enlarged, two-engine Mirage III that was meant specifically for a nuclear strike. It was not exported and less than 100 were built.
You may be referring to the Mirage 5. That is basically a Mirage III with the all-weather electronics replaced with additional fuel cells. It was a cheaper, simpler version for export. That was also pretty successful.
The Mirage F1 was even more ssuccessful than the 5
>Mig 21 over F-4 Phantom
F-4 was objectively the better plane, literally had 2-3 times of Mig's K/D ratio
>F-14 ever being choosen for anything but being ''iconic''
>Mig-25, rocket of a plane...
>Not including Sabre
>Giving planes that has never seen combat in an actual war a place
>Shooting down Mig 21s and Mig 23s, F1s
>A big achivement for an Aircraft that entered service in 74...
for what it's worth, the Mirage F1 wasn't all that primitive. It's only a few years older than the F-14; it was delivered in the late 60s while the Tomcat was in research and development.
The F-86 was long held to have a 10:1 k/d ratio, though actual comparisons to OoB lists put the number more likely around 5.6:1. And this was all guns at near supersonic speeds. (supposedly the Sabre could go supersonic in a dive).
just got off a DCS multiplayer match
MIG-21bis vs M 2000
if the m 2000's managed to get in range more skilled pilots managed to get kills, but the migs were fairly consistently winning dogfights
...And MiG-25s. And 23s were like brand fucking new at that point. And Mirage F-1s were pretty goddamn good as well.
Not trying to start a tomcat apologist thread, but at the very least, the F-14 was better than everything that wasnt an F-15 during the 70s and 80s.
Define "out maneuver".
There are regimes of flight where the tomcat can turn inside basically everything that exists, namely at ~ 300kts and < 10k ft.
The unswept wings + tunnel give it crazy amounts of lift.
But thats really irrelevant, since dogfighting as you know it has been dead since about 1980. Once Limas came out you should be dead before the merge no matter what, and thats assuming you arent dead BVR.
>having a special snowflake situation to win does not make it a superior flyer
>the F-15 blew the fuck out of the tomcat in just about every way
F-15 > F-14 : Under 250kts at low alt; at 0.6 to 0.9 mach at all alt. Eagle had better thrust to weight. Eagle had amraam integration while tomcat did not ( though tomcat actually fired one before eagle ever did; but no monies) Eagle had a better sustained turn rate at most regimes.
F-14 > F-15 : Between ~250kts and mach 0.6, and massively superior at mach 1 + in terms of turn performance. Tomcat had a better instant turn rate in almost all regimes of flight. The F-14 could pull 7.5 G at mach 2 +, and there is NOTHING that could touch that back in the day. Honestly I would be surprised if a raptor could. Tomcat's radar was better in both generations. Tomcat can operate off a boat, eagle cannot operate off a boat.
One other thing to note is the benefit of having an extra set of eyes.
F-15E crews have reportedly talked about how helpful it is in exercises against Typhoons and the like to have two sets of eyes scanning for the enemy instead of one. Especially in an era where off-boresight sensors aren't so prevalent, a second crewman could be decisive.
The A models sent in 1950 had a lower rate of climb and slower turn rate at high speeds. Maneuverability was superior in the East model since it had hydraulics in the control surfaces. The F model further improved upon that by installing a more powerful engine that could almost match acceleration, rate of climb, and flight ceiling of the MiG.
The Sabers won out because you had veteran WWII pilots involved in fights against inexperienced North Koreans. But the MiG was pretty badass at the time.
>not posting that beast
>plebs: The thread
>posts a bomber
>calls other pleb
The Mirage IV is not a fighter. It is a strategic bomber. And since it was never deployed in combat (the recon version in the Gulf War doesn't count).
>105.5:0 kill record.
the other .5 went to this guy.
>Gulf War, January 1991
>gets a missile lock warning by Iraqi Mirage F1
>"let's lose this fucker"
>drop down to altitude lower than an ant's balls
>F1 retardedly chases a plane with terrain following radar, in a pitch black cloudy night
>F1 an heroes into an sand dune
>F-15C on FAC duty gets half a kill, EF-111 gets half a kill
>EF-111 has no weapons, just jamming equipment
>In fact, in Jan. 1991, the same plane piloted by Capt. Tim Bennet and WSO Capt. Dan Bakke, destroyed a flying Iraqi Mi-24 helicopter with a 2,000-lb GBU-10 Laser Guided Bomb in the only credited F-15E air-to-air kill recorded so far.
Right era, wrong aircraft.
>Was the Sabre THAT much better than the Fagot?
No, but it had much better gunsight and pilots.
Just another day in the office in 50's. That is what happens when there isn't conversion trainer and AF is expanding like hell so requirements for pilots gets lowered.
>Besides their huge production run, what makes them so great?
Brilliant performance, versatility, growth potential and price.