Jump to content

F-35 vs MIG-21


Cyb0rg

Recommended Posts

What's your source ?

 

Because wikipedia thinks he's right about wing loading.

 

F105 D Wing loading: 93 lb/ft² (452 kg/m²)

F 35 A Wing loading: 107.7 lb/ft² (526 kg/m²; 745 kg/m² max loaded)

F 104 G Wing loading: 105 lb/ft² (514 kg/m²)Wing loading: 105 lb/ft² (514 kg/m²)

F 16 C Block 50 Wing loading: 88.3 lb/ft² (431 kg/m²)

 

 

 

 

1. Wing loading is calculated from weight so is not a single static figure.

 

2. Wing loading as calculated is more relevant to older jets like the F-104/105 - however far less relevant to pitch unstable designs like the F-16/35 because its doesn't take into account the lift generated from other areas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's your source ?

 

Because wikipedia thinks he's right about wing loading.

 

F105 D Wing loading: 93 lb/ft² (452 kg/m²)

F 35 A Wing loading: 107.7 lb/ft² (526 kg/m²; 745 kg/m² max loaded)

F 104 G Wing loading: 105 lb/ft² (514 kg/m²)Wing loading: 105 lb/ft² (514 kg/m²)

F 16 C Block 50 Wing loading: 88.3 lb/ft² (431 kg/m²)

 

It was Wiki. Reread the post, I was posting empty weights to avoid payload bias. You're putting fully loaded weights where the F-35 is carrying so much more fuel than the F-16 that the results are skewed heavily. Basically in this case while the F-16 has less wing loading it probably wouldn't even be able to fly the mission because it would crash coming home.

 

Add a pair of underwing fuel tanks with bombs and the F-16 will probably go over 100 lb/ft^2 and incur a drag penalty to boot.

Awaiting: DCS F-15C

Win 10 i5-9600KF 4.6 GHz 64 GB RAM RTX2080Ti 11GB -- Win 7 64 i5-6600K 3.6 GHz 32 GB RAM GTX970 4GB -- A-10C, F-5E, Su-27, F-15C, F-14B, F-16C missions in User Files

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was Wiki. Reread the post, I was posting empty weights to avoid payload bias. You're putting fully loaded weights where the F-35 is carrying so much more fuel than the F-16 that the results are skewed heavily. Basically in this case while the F-16 has less wing loading it probably wouldn't even be able to fly the mission because it would crash coming home.

 

Add a pair of underwing fuel tanks with bombs and the F-16 will probably go over 100 lb/ft^2 and incur a drag penalty to boot.

 

I don't understand why this is always ignored.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Math (numbers from Wiki):

 

Empty F-35A: 29,098 lb

 

Wing area: 460sqft

 

Wing loading at this weight: 63

 

F-35A with 60% fuel, 4 AAMs, gun, and pilot: 41300lbs

 

The above is a typical expected weight and payload for an A2A engagement with >10000lbs of fuel.

 

Wing loading at this weight: 90

 

F-16 empty weight: 18900lbs

 

Wing area: 300sqft

 

Wing loading at this weight: 63 (OH SNAP!!!!)

 

F-16 with 80% fuel (because you just dropped fuel tanks), 4AAMs and pilot: 26230

 

Wing loading at this weight: 87

 

 

 

Mig-21-93 Empty weight: 11770

 

Wing area: 247

 

Wing loading at this weight: 48

 

Combat-loaded MiG-21 weight: 19000lbs

 

Wing loading at this weight: ~78

 

So apparently the MiG-21bis should be whipping F-15's, F-16's and F-35's all day long. But wait! A combat-loaded MiG-21 has far less TWR than a combat-loaded F-16 or F-35, so it can't stick in a turn with them anyway. It also has poor visibility, and is more difficult to actually fly. Both of the modern aircraft can handle high AoA more easily. But wait, does it mean that the wing loading is not all you have to go by to compare performance! OH NOES!

 

TLDR: F-35 and F-16 have similar wing loadings under typical expected combat situations. Wikipedia doesn't think, and Sprey should sit down with a pencil and napkin before spouting off, not to mention pointing out that this wing loading stuff is a tiny part of the big picture.

 

 

What's your source ?

 

Because wikipedia thinks he's right about wing loading.

 

F105 D Wing loading: 93 lb/ft² (452 kg/m²)

F 35 A Wing loading: 107.7 lb/ft² (526 kg/m²; 745 kg/m² max loaded)

F 104 G Wing loading: 105 lb/ft² (514 kg/m²)Wing loading: 105 lb/ft² (514 kg/m²)

F 16 C Block 50 Wing loading: 88.3 lb/ft² (431 kg/m²)


Edited by GGTharos

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's put it that way.

 

With the cost of the F35 (and its weapons) you could easily field 50x time more MiG21bis and its weapons. Which cost 50x more than a P51.

 

So here is the point : Do you prefer one single F35, 50x Mig21, or 2500x P51D ?

 

 

EDIT : AFTER A CHECK ON PRODUCTION COST, IT APPEARS THAT ONE SINGLE F-35 IS 3100x P51D. :P

($124.000.000 vs $40,000)


Edited by Darkwolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
Let's put it that way.

 

With the cost of the F35 (and its weapons) you could easily field 50x time more MiG21bis and its weapons. Which cost 50x more than a P51.

 

So here is the point : Do you prefer one single F35, 50x Mig21, or 2500x P51D ?

 

 

EDIT : AFTER A CHECK ON PRODUCTION COST, IT APPEARS THAT ONE SINGLE F-35 IS 3100x P51D. :P

($124.000.000 vs $40,000)

 

Most of those MiGs and Mustangs would be blowed up on the ground....

64Sig.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today those $40000 would actually be $535600 ... you have to account for inflation, bud ;)

 

So you'd only get 231 P-51's for the F-35 and 3.8 MiG-21's ;)

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today those $40000 would actually be $535600 ... you have to account for inflation, bud ;)

 

So you'd only get 231 P-51's for the F-35 and 3.8 MiG-21's ;)

 

 

Beat me too it.. And I think I'd rather take three Mig 21s on from the cockpit of the f-35 than be one of the trio.

[sIGPIC]sigpic67951_1.gif[/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't bring missiles to a dogfight :D

 

If F-35 manages to get into a dogfight with Mig-21, pilot of F-35 deserves to get shot down....

A dogfight is a dogfight. I recall some F-15 driver's giving respect to -21 in Cope India excercises, it could "light a candle", as he said, and pose a threat. And also there was a speech of Colonel Terrence Fornof, an F-15 pilot and the Director of the Requirements and Testing office at the United States Air Force Warfare Center, Nellis AFB.

 

Now coming to the aircombat. You know the story of Cope India and how our F-15s went there for the exercise at the Indian Nellis. Our aircraft were a regular unit while they had the most experienced pilots on the Sukhoi-30s there. Ours were a mix of 80-20 - 80 percent with low experience, less than 500 hours on the F-15, the remaining 20 were fairly experienced but they came back from a staff appointment so they really hadn't had a lot of time flying. Anyway at Cope India, we held our own, but the Indians went to town thumping their chests - they said we (IAF) shot them down more times than they shot us down - which was true.

 

Now here at Mountain Home, the Sukhoi unit that they sent was a regular operational unit - had a mix of 50-50 (experienced and inexperienced). They had come off MiG-21s.. Well what happened was after the first two to three days of operations, you know exchanging patches and all, we went up in 1 vs 1 combat. The Indian pilots came from MiG-21 Bison units. the MiG-21 bison, as you know is based on the Mig from the Vietnam war era, but upgraded with an Israeli radar, Israeli jammer, active homing missile etc. the small RCS of the MiG-21 with the Israeli jammer would make them invisible to radar... mean they could close in on our legacy fighters (F-15 and F-16) and engage in aircombat. Remember back in 4477th... Mig-21 had ability to get into the fight, 110 knots, 60 degrees nose high, 10,000 feet to 20,000 feet, very maneuverable airplane, but it didn't have any good weapons. Now it has high off bore sight, helmet, jammer, good radar, and the archer, so that's the plane the SU-30 experianced pilots came out of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did though about that - however i also though that modern improvment in production would down play the inflation ;)

 

Across pretty much all industrialized nations, the portion of cost that goes to salary has remained the same since then. So be careful in judging how well those things balance out: in spite of all this automation, companies still pay about the same portion in revenue to their workers as they did before. (Basically, if people didn't have better wages now, you might have a point. But a worker today is paid a lot better than a worker in the 40's, both nominally and in real terms. ;) )

 

Basically, making a proper comparison on price is nigh on impossible. Besides also potentially weighing in the program's portion of the economy*, there's also the issue of checking which materials would be cheaper then than now; for example copper etc. It's such a laborious exercise that it's really not worth it, so the closest we get (IMO) is to compare numbers and adjust for inflation.

 

* This is an important thing to consider in a lot of ways. I recall reading that the record in the US was for the same person to control ("own" as far as stock etc goes) about one 300th of the net wealth of the USA. Think it was Rockefeller. However, today, Bill Gates is definitely WAY richer than Rockefeller ever was, but his "share" of the economy is microscopic compared to that. The analogy in airplanes is that the P-51 (or MiG 21 etc) might become a "better deal" if the economy shrunk enough that the total amount of affordable F-35's simply became too small. (Compare with how Sweden and many other countries would rather have X Gripens/Upgraded 21's/etc than half or third that amount of "heavy" fighters.)

 

Though, in a way, I suspect I just took this thread way more seriously than it was meant to be taken. :D

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Daniel "EtherealN" Agorander | Даниэль "эфирныйн" Агорандер

Intel i7 2600K @ 4.4GHz, ASUS Sabertooth P67, 8GB Corsair Vengeance @ 1600MHz, ASUS GTX 560Ti DirectCU II 1GB, Samsung 830series 512GB SSD, Corsair AX850w, two BENQ screens and TM HOTAS Warthog

DCS: A-10C Warthog FAQ | DCS: P-51D FAQ | Remember to read the Forum Rules |

|
| Life of a Game Tester
Link to comment
Share on other sites

if you included the reallife battles, and not just compareing Wiki stats, Both jets would know each other were(Hoping the Russian Goverment's Radar isnt from the 60s) and it would come down to who's launch first,if neither jets hit each other with missles. i am 90% certain the jets would ever get within cannon distance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Modern improvement in regulatory oversight brings it back up ;)

 

I did though about that - however i also though that modern improvment in production would down play the inflation ;)

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
I did though about that - however i also though that modern improvment in production would down play the inflation ;)

 

Oops... what's that... those pesky F-35s just snuck in and bombed your production facilities back to the stone age... sorry.

64Sig.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A dogfight is a dogfight. I recall some F-15 driver's giving respect to -21 in Cope India excercises, it could "light a candle", as he said, and pose a threat. And also there was a speech of Colonel Terrence Fornof, an F-15 pilot and the Director of the Requirements and Testing office at the United States Air Force Warfare Center, Nellis AFB.
Underestimation can be played by both sides. People keep downplaying the F-35 will eventually get a rude awakening by it. It may not be the best turning aircraft ever, but it has alot of things going for it; ignoring it will be a huge problem. Especially if they procure the actual numbers they are going for.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 10 months later...

Today, the MiG-21 can set another world record: the number of aircraft of one type being upgraded and the savings obtained by the operators of the aircraft through their modernization are unsurpassed. It is not accidental that notable interest in the MiG-21 upgrade programs has been displayed by the world's leading developers of airborne radars and weapons control systems, because it is the radar alone that can turn the aircraft, a second-generation front-line fighter used to carry out a limited range of missions in the 1960s to 1980s, into a modern multi-functional fighter-bomber capable of performing a broad range of missions of the late 1990s and featuring the characteristics of a fourth-generation fighter. Various foreign firms offer their versions of MiG-21 upgrade projects. However, only two projects are competing today and their authors are looking for customers. The first project, designated MiG-21-93, is based on the Kopyo radar. This project has been developed by a conglomerate of such influential Russian organizations as the Rosvoorouzhenie State Corporation, Sokol Aircraft Manufacturing Plant (Nizhni Novgorod), Phazotron-NIIR Company, MAPO-MIG, and GosNIIAS. Presently, a prototype of the MiG-21-93 aircraft is undergoing comprehensive flight tests. In the course of the tests the Kopyo airborne radar demonstrated a high level of performance characteristics and proved that the MiG-21-93 aircraft shows promise as a good combat aircraft.

This project's higher performance characteristics and better economics resulted in that it has won India's tender for the refit of the MiG-21bis aircraft. Apart from Russia, the invited bidders were firms from Israel, France, Great Britain and Italy.

As a result, India and Russia entered into a contract for the update of the first batch of the MiG-21bis aircraft. Today, the fleet of MiG-21bis aircraft in service with the Indian Air Force and manufactured by HAL under Russian license is 125 machines.

A "precious tidbit" of the project is the Kopyo radar (FK-04) that is designed to manage the full spectrum of weapons ranging from ordinary cannons and unguided rockets to the latest missiles fitted with IR and radar homing heads (including active), controlled bombs equipped with IR seekers and TV-guided bombs.

Another project and principal rival of the MiG-21-93, is the MiG-21 Lancer program offered by Israel's Elbit, with participation by Romania's Aerostar. This program envisions modernization of 110 MiG-21s in service with Romania's Air Force. Under this program, the first 85 machines, including 10 to be converted to a two-seat trainer (MiG-21UM), will be upgraded with only the EL/M-2001 radar rangefinder. In the second phase, 25 aircraft will be equipped with the EL/M-2032 radar manufactured by Israel's Elta.

Comparison of the performance characteristics of the EL/M-2001 rangefinder and EL/M-2032 radar with those of the Kopyo radar and analysis of the performance characteristics of the fighter aircraft using them show that the Kopyo radar has a considerable advantage over the abovementioned sensors in the following areas:

- greater air-to-air operating range due to the use of a high-power transmitter and availability of a high repetition frequency mode;

- greater air target kill range in operation into the forward hemisphere due to the use of the missiles fitted with radar homing heads (semiactive R27R1 and active RVV-AE).

In the MiG-21 Lancer project, operation into the forward hemisphere is substantially constrained due to the fact that missiles fitted with radar homing heads are not used;

mig21_0703.jpg

MiG-21-93 with missile armament

- high-resolution air-to-ground capability in the ground-mapping mode of operation via a synthesized antenna aperture, making it possible to guide the aircraft onto the target with a high degree of accuracy, to use air-to-surface weapons, including guided aerial bombs KAB-500KR which can be observed on a display 24 hours a day. (Under the MiG-21 Lancer project, control of the Opher bombs fitted with a laser homing heads is ensured via the installation of an additional laser range finder in a pod);

- track-while-scan mode with the capability of tracking up to 10 targets while simultaneously engaging two of them with radar homing missiles in a long-range missile attack;

- overall superiority in an aerial combat over fourth-generation fighters which are not armed with air-to-air active radar homing missiles;

- effective engagement, by the MiG-21-93's X-25MP anti-radiation missiles, of ground targets protected by air defense gun-missile systems covered by radars;

- operational efficiency in long-range aerial combat offered by the MiG-21-93 retrofit project outdoes that suggested by the MiG-21 Lancer project, under which the EL/M-2032 radar will be installed, by 10 times, while the overall efficiency in all types of aerial combat will be three times as great.

Our belief is that the major difference between the two projects lies in the divergent character of their goals: while the primary objective of the MiG-21-93 project is to attain maximum combat efficiency of the aircraft with minimum changes of its cockpit, the MiG-21 Lancer project focuses mainly on pilot's comfort and envisions only minor enhancement of the aircraft's combat efficiency.

This will enable the MiG-21-93 aircraft equipped with the Kopyo radar and armed with modern weapons to fly into the 21st century.

 

http://www.enemyforces.net/aircraft/mig21.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This video has been posted everywhere,

 

A. Sprey did not design the F-16 nor the A-10.

B. A 50's MIG-21 would have been shot down before it even detected the F-35.

 

as for not turning and weight.

 

I've seen the F-35B Fly in person, it can turn fine. The lift fan prolly weighs less than the fuel cells that were removed to make room for the lift fan.

 

Sprey is a nutter who loves media attention, as you say, he had nothing to do with the F-16 or A-10, but he sure does like to pretend he did.

 

The best he can say is that he wrote in a memo once that simple, low cost, low weight is the way to go... he was completely wrong, as history has proved, and even then he's hardly the first to think that.

 

I think at best he confuses writing a very simple and very generalised spec for an aeroplane with actually designing an aeroplane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

His comment about Wing loading is absurd, the F-35 like all modern fighters is a blended body, you have to consider the whole plane in the lift drag coefficient not just the wings lol and the migs wings are way stubbier in any case, and it turns well.

 

All Aside from the fact that a dogfight between those two fighters is insainly unlikely as it's been pointed out in BVR combat the F-35 is unstoppable, but even if it did take place, hmds Aim-9x and sensor fusion and excellent training equals dead mig. Case point the f-35 is more then capable of dogfighting

DCS F/A-18C :sorcerer:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sprey is a nutter who loves media attention, as you say, he had nothing to do with the F-16 or A-10, but he sure does like to pretend he did.

 

The best he can say is that he wrote in a memo once that simple, low cost, low weight is the way to go... he was completely wrong, as history has proved, and even then he's hardly the first to think that.

 

I think at best he confuses writing a very simple and very generalised spec for an aeroplane with actually designing an aeroplane.

He's an out right liar. He's a pretty decent public orator and in a time of underpaid techblogging performed by underqualified laymen with terrible facial hair, that's more than enough to pass as an expert.

 

He claims the F-15E can't hold more than 4 bombs despite:

tumblr_inline_noq7fcU4Gp1rlhtha_1280.jpg

 

He claims the P-38 was a failure as a fighter, despite it producing America's two top aces of the Second World War.

 

He claims that the M48A5 had better survivability than the M1 Abrams series.

 

He's got an imagination that one. One that's stuck in the '70s. It had to be the '70s, too. Let's remember what also came from the 70's: Disco.

Reformers hate him! This one weird trick found by a bush pilot will make gunfighter obsessed old farts angry at your multi-role carrier deck line up!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This guy misses one thing. MiG21 has standard delta wing design, while modern planes have LERX, (leading-edge root extension) which gives them ability to maneuver at highter AoA without stalling.

 

I saw a Romanian MiG21 at Radom Airshow 2015. When it flew around 600kph and turned the instantenous turn was quite nice, but it has burned all its energy and immediately had to level out, because you could see that was just too much for the plane. While F16, MiG29 had better sustained turns.

 

Anyway, turnfighting is all that important? I mean since WW1 it wasn't... what happened again? Maneuvering is not turning on its own.


Edited by Solty

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]In 21st century there is only war and ponies.

 

My experience: Jane's attack squadron, IL2 for couple of years, War Thunder and DCS.

My channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyAXX9rAX_Sqdc0IKJuv6dA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't bring missiles to a dogfight :D

 

If F-35 manages to get into a dogfight with Mig-21, pilot of F-35 deserves to get shot down....

 

A little bird told me that it is not uncommon for F-22 pilots to end up in merges that were never supposed to happen during exercises.

P-51D | Fw 190D-9 | Bf 109K-4 | Spitfire Mk IX | P-47D | WW2 assets pack | F-86 | Mig-15 | Mig-21 | Mirage 2000C | A-10C II | F-5E | F-16 | F/A-18 | Ka-50 | Combined Arms | FC3 | Nevada | Normandy | Straight of Hormuz | Syria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...