I know /k/ hates Slav Planes, but can we agree that the MIG-21 is

>>34364876
Garbage?
Yes, wecan agree on that

>the MIG-21 is

Actually, it's well known that the Mig-21 was a hoax by a group of Hungarian filmmakers attempting to stir up interest in indie flicks about the air war in Vietnam.

>>34364876
It was the best 3rd generation fighter, full stop.

File: 1391450927653.jpg (107KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 1200x800px

That poor MiG jockey got bounced before he could even finish his sentence.

It's a metal tube with some fins

File: 1498420085135m.jpg (138KB, 1024x791px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 1024x791px

>>34364876
Sidewinder magnets.

>>34364876
a e s t h e t i c

File: file.png (377KB, 586x364px) Image search: [Google]

377KB, 586x364px

>tfw BTFOing the USA above korea

>>34365250
They conveniently omitted the Su-27, which is not only best girl, but at 6-0 undefeated in the air.

>>34365317

>graph about migs
>why is there no su-27

>>34365317
>thinking the Su-27 can hold a candle to the F-15

>>34365335
It's funny because if it included the Mig-15 and 17 it would be even worse

>>34365335
No where does the graph claim to specifically be about migs. The source website maintains statistics for all major jet airraft types.

>>34365337
Early models it could. Newer ones are the contemporary of the Su-30/35 anyway.

>>34365367
>No where does the graph claim to specifically be about migs
The fact that the pictured faces are Artem Mikoyan and (I think?) John Boyd.

>>34365418
Mikoyan is just the memeface of russian aviation, much like boyd for US.

>>34365462
the memeface you say... very interesting, will have to recompute some things

>>34364980
That poor, slow F-4 pilot got shot down by a smaller, faster, more maneuverable opponent - one that actually had a cannon.

Early F-4s had no cannons, and AA missiles with a less than 15% probability of Kill (less than 10% for the longer range AIM-7s. Considering they usually had to be in visual range to confirm their target before engaging, and considering US AA missiles were designed to take down slow moving bombers rather than fast moving, maneuverable fighters, its no wonder the F-4 was initially so ineffective against the MiG-21. Soviet AA missiles may not have been much better, but at least they had a cannon in their aircraft.

>>34365250
The kill to death ratios often depend on the period.

There were times when the F-4 was 1:1 with the MiG-21 - very poor performance for highly trained US pilots vs. average Vietnamese pilots.

>>34365590
So much fuddlore in a single post. Delectable!

>>34365605
You could attempt to debate the points in my post, providing evidence, or you could educate yourself.
Read the part about the air war:
https://etd.auburn.edu/bitstream/handle/10415/595/MICHEL_III_55.pdf

>>34365602
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-4_Phantom_II#Variants
Note that the cannon wasn't introduced until the E version - late in the Vietnam war, and the Navy version never had cannons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-7_Sparrow#Vietnam_War_.281965.E2.80.931973.29_records
>Of the 612 AIM-7D/E/E-2 missiles fired, 97 (or 15.8%) hit their targets, resulting in 56 (or 9.2%) kills. Two kills were obtained beyond visual range

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-9_Sidewinder#Vietnam_War_service_1965.E2.80.931973
>In total 452 Sidewinders were fired during the Vietnam War, resulting in a kill probability of 0.18

>>34365677
This one is for you my friend
>>34365605

File: F-8 Crusader.jpg (69KB, 1394x786px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 1394x786px

>>34365590
You want guns? Okay.

>>34365729
>Despite the "last gunfighter" moniker, the F-8s achieved only four victories with their cannon; the remainder were accomplished with AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles.

>Only shot down 4 MiG-21s in the entire war

>>34364876
>>34364935
*cough* *cough* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Rimon_20

File: F-8s over CV-59.jpg (183KB, 937x715px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 937x715px

>>34365787
>The Crusader would claim the best kill ratio of any American type in the Vietnam War, 19:3
You wanted more maneuverable and having guns.

>>34365817
Eh it wasn't that maneuverable compared to a MiG-21. It performed well against the 1950s designed MiG-17, but that isn't really saying much.

On a side note, what's the best way to compare relative maneuverability of aircraft? something to do with wing loading, thrust and roll rate?

>>34365846
I'd say climb rate, turn rate at a speed where control compression isn't hindering the ability to turn, and roll rate. Things that allow a pilot to get onto the tail of their opponent.
Though maneuverability is not all there is to aerial combat. Just look at the IJNAS.

>>34365878
Even 'turn rate' can be hard to work out. It also depends on how long you turn for - the aircraft will bleed speed, so your engines power will be a factor. Also depends on the speed of the aircraft.

For example the MiG-21 was much more maneuverable at lower speeds than the phantom, but at higher speeds the gap closes.

>>34365590
The F4's early failures in Vietnam had relatively little to do with its armament. The plane itself was fine. The problem was almost entirely the doctrine and training of the time, especially in the USAF. These deficiencies in training and doctrine were most notably addressed by the USN in the form of Topgun. Revised tactics practiced in Topgun by naval aviators resulted in a significant turn around in performance, and the kill ratio for navy pilots skyrocketed.

>>34365602
>There were times when the F-4 was 1:1 with the MiG-21 - very poor performance for highly trained US pilots vs. average Vietnamese pilots.
Hard to say for sure, claims are pretty broadly disputed from Vietnam. And even if accurate, it's not exactly a fair comparison, considering every other Phantom was burdened with bombs and ALL of them were burdened with fuel to get back to Thailand, Da Nang or Yankee Station (as opposed to MiG-21s, which were used exclusively as interceptors with two Atolls and six ounces of fuel).

>>34365944
>it's not exactly a fair comparison,
Its just the way it was for a specific period of time. Not a comparison, simply what happened.

Its taken from this PDF:
>>34365623

>>34365914
The Early F-4's failures were largely to do with the armament - the AIM-9 was pretty poor and the climate exacerbated the problems.

Pilots literally describe firing 4 missiles and none of them do shit
>Fire an AIM-9 - doesn't even come off the rail
>Fire another AIM-9, comes off but doesn't ignite and falls to the ground
>Fire another AIM-9, comes off the rail, ignites and then doesn't track the target
>Fire another AIM-9, comes off the rail, ignites and then doesn't track the target
And then you're out of missiles. The doctrine and training didn't help, but the lack of cannons combined with the poor performance of AA missiles of the period was a big problem.

Truly the teething period for air to air missiles. Soviet missiles weren't any better, being mostly exact copies of US missiles.

>>34365250
Actually if you take a look at iraq iran war, mig-23 were more than capable of downing a f-14 which happened quite a bit same for mig-21 and f-4.
Considering the fact that both sides were sandniggers.

File: images(72).jpg (30KB, 625x491px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 625x491px

>When you have the home field advantage

BBBBRRRRRTTTTT huhu BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRTTTTTT
BRRTTT
BRRTT
Fushoooh
BRRRRRRRRTTTT

>>34366167
Certainly home field advantage helped a lot in Vietnam - atrocious loss of US aircraft, mostly to SAM and ground fire.

>>34365971
>USMC F-4 phantom in Vietnam
>107 MiG kills total
>15 from guns
>86 from missiles

>>34364876
I like Slav planes.

>>34365817

Unsurprisingly, an aircraft used in an air superiority role, with pilots trained in air combat got a higher kill ratio than an aircraft heavily used for ground attack, with pilots trained for ground attack.

>>34365299

lol wut. F-86s were 10 to 1 against the Norks and chinks MIGs, friend. And Hanchos , at best, were 1:1 vs US pilots. And there were hardly any Hanchos. The MIG guns were absolute trash, with terrible ballistics. Get your MIG15 tractor horse shit out of here.

>MUH service ceiling
>MUH turn rate

MIG15 dove like shit and they are slower than the F-86. And once the F-86F was introduced, it was lights out once and for all.

>>34365590

F-4 had a much superior vertical. Once they shed the dogshit 50's and 60's tactics, and went back to real dogfighting, F-4 pilots forced MIGs pilots into the vertical and just got on top of them. Once on top they used the alt adv to cut their turn rate down, rendering moot any flat turn advantage the MIG17/19/21s had.

>>34364876
Zimbabwe tier.

That's why Romania will gladly have the second hand Vipers instead, and Croatia literally burned money updating theirs.

File: 1496317868923.jpg (45KB, 720x480px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 720x480px

>>34366278
The 8:1 statistic was bullshit, just as the commies 4:1 statistic was. In reality it was probably about 2:1 in favor of the sabre, due entirely to superior tactics and pilot training. The nork monkeys didn't even speak the language of their instructors.

The mig is generally regarded as the superior plane by both test pilots, aircraft simulation enthusiasts, and defense analysts
The mig could climb faster, and turn better. All the sabre could do was dive. It was also much more durable when considering the enemies armament. When the mig hit a sabre, that pilot was not going home, when a sabre hit a mig, It often made it back to the air strip if the pilot wasn't killed

>>34366278
And it was 4mph faster, while accelerating slower at high altitudes

File: MiG-21 performance in Vietnam.png (23KB, 940x288px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 940x288px

MiG-21 certainly performed pretty well in Vietnam

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-21#MiG-21_aerial_combat_victories_in_the_Vietnam_War_1966.E2.80.931972

>>34366278
When the MiG-15 appeared, the entire west freaked out. Early F-86's were inferior. Later versions were about even.
So for the majority of the war the MiG-15 was superior to the F-86
Thrust to weight and climb rate were still always in the MiG-15's favor.

File: B-29 wreck Korea.jpg (72KB, 783x490px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 783x490px

>>34366278
>The MIG guns were absolute trash
16 B-29 aircrews beg to differ.
>1951+66
>Forgetting that the strategic relevance of air combat revolves almost entirely around bombing, intercepting bombers and protecting bombers

>>34366336
>In reality it was probably about 2:1 in favor of the sabre, due entirely to superior tactics and pilot training.
Not to mention a far superior gunsight.

>>34365602
>highly trained US pilots
This was not remotely the case for the era you're describing, and was the reason for the poor ratio.

>>34366398
Weren't they pretty well trained compared to the Vietnamese pilots?
After the Top Gun program started in the 1969, they got even better.

>>34365590
F4 has a higher maximum speed though

>>34365250
>Leaves out Su-27

>>34365250
>F-14
>43:1
Kek no, Iran Iraq war proved they where as bad a F-4.

>>34366452
>SU-27

> 3:1

Hahaha best Slavshit plane is literally F4 phantom tier, you can't make this up.

>>34366466
Check the image source vatnik

>>34366492
KEK, still bad. Nice shitposting autist, don't you have anything better to do, like get a life. LOL

>>34366492
>3:1


It's actually 6-0

File: North American MiG parts distributor.jpg (26KB, 800x400px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 800x400px

>>34366505
>>34366492
>>34366452
>>34365335
>>34365317

>The SU27 has never shot down a Western designed aircraft

Shooting down slavshit with slavshit that isn't as bad.

May as well say it has never seen combat.

>>34366396
Probably helped to have 6 fast-firing 50's instead of 2 x23mm and a fucking 37mm lobbing a shell every now and then.

The Mig loadout would wreck anything it hit, but was more optimized against slow, big bombers than against nimble fighters.

>>34364896
This, I really don't understand why it's not common knowledge at this point after all the documentaries about it.

>>34365317
Hasn't all of its kills come from MiG-29s?

>>34365971
You're confusing AIM-9 with AIM-7

>>34365971
>early F-4 failure was due to missile failure

Is that why the USN F-4s without guns had a better W:L ratio than USAF F-4s with guns?

Oh wait, no. It's because the USAF barely taught it's F-4 pilots how to properly utilize their missiles or BFM skills. AIM-9s were great, AIM-7s were sort of shitty at times.

>>34365590
>Soviet AA missiles may not have been much better
They were terrible. You might as well try ramming the fucker than shooting an early soviet A2A

>>34367514
both were pretty terrible.

see
>>34365677

>>34367706
and yet both US and Soviet missiles got AA kills in Vietnam. Makes you think...

>>34367790
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-13_(missile)
Literally a reverse engineered sidewinder
Maybe you should think more.

>>34367836
Yes I'm aware the K-13 is a reverse engineered sidewinder. It was still able to get AA kills, as was the sidewinder.
They were both pretty crap missiles in Vietnam.

>>34367876
So we can agree that old analog missile technology was in its infancy at the time.
But the Soviets had to copy a missile design to catch up.

As getting that AIM 9 stuck in one of their MiGs was a "university course on missile design" for them.

>>34366167
only at <400mph

>>34366413
Not at all. There was no formal dogfighting training at all until top gun. It took the Air Force even longer to unfuck themselves.

>>34366658
But all of the West's planes got kills on Mig's, why do they not count when Su-27's kill the same planes?

>>34365602
>highly trained
US pilots were not trained to dogfight, they were told that their missiles would do the job. It was only during and after the war that the need for proper dogfight training was noted and hence you got Top Gun and Red Flag exercises.

>>34366361
Then why did they often perform poorly against the Sabre?

>>34370938
Because its easy to beat your own stuff when you already know its weaknesses.

>>34367901
They then ditched sidewinders as they were so unreliable and decided to make their own missiles.

>>34372012
[citation needed]
feel free to show me some data of performance in the early years of Korea (lets say 1950 and 1951)