Greatest Fighter Jet of the Cold War

File: j29f_spencerwilmot.jpg (108KB, 950x633px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 950x633px

A-anon-kun, you can see my undercarriage~~!!

File: AJ-37-Viggen.jpg (498KB, 1600x1080px) Image search: [Google]

498KB, 1600x1080px

>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.[26][27][28] The Viggen is the only aircraft to this day to get an acknowledged radar lock on the SR-71.[29]

outta my way blackbird fucking shits

>>28485235
>F-15 under F-16 and MiG-21

lolno

>>28485318
Technically superior as it is, the F-15 doesn't enjoy the production success and versatility of the F-16.

File: RoosterCogburn.jpg (74KB, 386x557px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 386x557px

>>28485235
>MiG-21 over any 4th gen fighter

>>28485432
>throughout the cold war

It's not going to beat any 4th gen, but the thread is about overall success throughout the cold war as opposed to which one was the most advanced

>>28485235

The MiG-21 and the F-4 Phantom will always be the definitive cold war jet fighters for east and west respectively.

>>28485432
Shut up John, you're drunk.

File: mig 21.jpg (53KB, 700x444px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 700x444px

Mig-21

Vid and Pic very related.

I love that the Syrians turned their Mig-21s into light bombers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DI5BNRZ-ujI

File: F-4_17.jpg (151KB, 800x601px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 800x601px

>>28485547
Fill your hand you sonuvabitch!

>>28485686
>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?

>>28486022
This looks familiar, but I'm not sure where I saw it before.

That's not the San Diego Air and Space museum, is it?

File: IDF.jpg (439KB, 1152x864px) Image search: [Google]

439KB, 1152x864px

>>28485465
>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?

>>28485307
> Still outruns any missile you fire

>>28486060
Strap on 4 bombs and aim with your jet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RRthm3uoqA

>putting the f-14 on a greatest fighter jet list that isn't only about carrier fighters
congratulations, you played yourself

>>28486060
the MiG-21 has some basic a2g capabilities. Can drop bombs and fire rockets with a basic gyroscopic sight that uses the radar as a rangefinder.

>>28485374
>versatility of the F-16
Name one thing a F-16 can do that a strike eagle can't.

>>28486495
dogfight.

different aircraft man. The F-15E is a two-seater for strike missions. The F-16 is a single-seat single-engined multirole that's deadly in a knife fight.

File: Draken_01.jpg (166KB, 1118x1109px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 1118x1109px

>>28486495
>Posting anything else than based Draken.

>>28486538
>implying a dedicated air superiority fighter with cft's strapped on can't dog fight
Nice try.

File: Capture.jpg (273KB, 2200x1216px) Image search: [Google]

273KB, 2200x1216px

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

>>28486538

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.

File: MIG_21..jpg (56KB, 606x413px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 606x413px

>>28486630
agreed but its so much cheaper and easier to maintain. It's why the Norks have over 200

File: Mirage_2000C_in-flight_2_(cropped).jpg (758KB, 1248x936px) Image search: [Google]

758KB, 1248x936px

>>28485235
>Not posting glorious Mirage 2000

Many arab filled russian planes met their end to this mighty beast

>domination of competition

F-4
F-15
F-86
MiG-21
MiG-15
Hawker Hunter
SAAB Draken
SAAB Viggen
Hawker Harrier
EE Lightning

>>28486835
They have 200 airframes.

Saying that like they could actually get more than a dozen off the ground or arm them is questionable

>>28486834
Rate kills, Anon.

>>28486883
I get why everyone is bitching about the Rafale's sales when I see the sucess this one and the III/IV had overseas.

File: DF-ST-84-06982.jpg (1MB, 2840x1890px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2840x1890px

>>28487591
>IV

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

>>28487999
Yeah, my bad, I guess my thing for supersonic bombers got the best of me.

I indeed meant the 3/5 family.

>>28485235

>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

>>28488206
F-14 absolutely shat on everything Iraq had during the 8 year Iran-Iraq war.

>>28488206
>>28486987

Was the Sabre THAT much better than the Fagot?

>>28485258
>99 pilots were killed during military practice flights in Sweden.

Fuck you and your plane

File: 541254.png (9KB, 271x288px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 271x288px

>>28488228

>Shooting down Mig 21s and Mig 23s, F1s
>A big achivement for an Aircraft that entered service in 74...

>>28488339
And the MiG-29 which entered Iraqi service at the end.

File: IMAG0497.jpg (2MB, 2688x1520px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2688x1520px

>>28486073
It is. Went there a couple months ago.

File: Mirage_F1 3.jpg (92KB, 1024x681px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 1024x681px

>>28488339
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.

>>28485374
The F-16 doesn't have a k/d ratio of 105-0.

>>28488286
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).

>>28486883
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

>>28485307
impressive i guess, but its pointless to shoot at it

>>28488339
...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.

>>28486373
Holy living fuck.

>>28490270
The Tomcat couldn't out maneuver anything in 4th gen.

>>28491036
Actually it turned surprisingly well. Granted, it wasn't as agile as something like the F-16, but it reportedly turned better than the F-15 thanks to those spiffy swing-wings.

>>28491036
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.

>>28491337
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

>>28491726
>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.

QED
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJV_bo6oJrM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTsKANmFLDE

>>28491992
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.

>>28488286
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.

>>28486835
That must be the coolest job in Best Korea.

They probably just watch the Edited version of Top gun all day with chink voiceover and squinty eyed Tom Cruise

>>28494590
>GOUUUUUUUUSSHE!

>>28488228
the only advantage of F-14 was the powerful radar

>>28485235
>F-16 above MiG-21
Mig-21 is the AK-47 of planes

F-16 is the M-16

>>28485235
It should be

>F-4
>F-15
>F-14
>Mig 21

>>28488698
>F-15 has k/d ratio of 105-0.
i too can win a boxing match against elementary school kids but that does not make me a good boxer

File: 6299112864_e551350e55_b.jpg (299KB, 1024x691px) Image search: [Google]

299KB, 1024x691px

>not posting that beast
>plebs: The thread

>>28486495
SEAD

>>28495789
not a fighter but it was the best interceptor ever.

>>28495024
>the only advantage of F-14 was the powerful radar
>...and mach 2.4 speed
>...and acceleration better than an f-18
>...and a 500nm + combat radius

>>28492030
After the first TopGun crews went back and spread knowledge amongst the fleet fighter squadrons, it was noted that most of the MIGs downed were first spotted by the RIOs.

>>28495441

>fighter thread
>posts a bomber
>calls other pleb

see>>28487999

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).

>>28495924
I wouldn't exactly go that far as to say the MIG 25 was the best, but it was definitely on the short list.

>>28495804
F-15 can use HARM and is getting MALD just like everything else.

File: Mig-31.jpg (25KB, 640x426px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 640x426px

>>28496489
>25
wrong

Pic related

>>28496519
I didn't notice the canopy and landing gear in that shot. From that angle they look pretty much alike.

File: F-86_MiG-15.jpg (127KB, 1152x864px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 1152x864px

these two should be on or towards the top

>>28486373
Thats...kinda scary. Now imagine being targeted by jdams and laser guided munitions.

>>28485235
105.5:0 kill record.

Nothing beat the F-15, and there's nothing else close.

File: F-111_9.jpg (1MB, 3765x2507px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3765x2507px

>>28499737
>105.5:0 kill record.
> .5

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

File: F-4B_VF-111_dropping_bombs_on_Vietnam.jpg (736KB, 1924x1424px) Image search: [Google]

736KB, 1924x1424px

LEAD SLED BITCHES

>>28500062
http://theaviationist.com/2012/02/10/f-15e-10000/
>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.

File: F-105.jpg (162KB, 1234x921px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 1234x921px

>>28500100
>LEAD SLED

Right era, wrong aircraft.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_F-105_Thunderchief#Flight_characteristics

>>28485235

Mirage III
F-16
MiG-21

>>28488286
>Was the Sabre THAT much better than the Fagot?

No, but it had much better gunsight and pilots.

>>28488327

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.

>>28486075
>Besides their huge production run, what makes them so great?

Brilliant performance, versatility, growth potential and price.