MiGs - Overrated, or not ?

No worries!

There is a bit of a gap though, between the late 50s/early 60s and the mid 80s where the UK did little more than buy American. (the 'little more' is the Sepcat Jaguar, which I think was Anglo-French).

We did have a thriving industry with good developments in hand (ever heard of the TSR2?), but that *$&@ing Government White Paper...

Anyhoo...

 

Also the bribing ameicans giving NATO it's first rocket fighter and vetoing any funding to the British helped with the demise

VERY big LOL for Danyel.

 

Harrier: About Mach 1
Jaguar: Mach 1.35 990mph (1,593km/h) at 36,000ft (11,000m).
Buccaneer: About Mach 1
Javelin: About Mach 1

So much about being fast.

 

Harrier, Buccaneer and Javelin were (and are!) all sub- Mach 1.

The only fast fighter we produced was the Lightning.
*wipes away a sentimental tear*

 

Only just sub mach 1.

650to 710 mph.

Mach 1 is approx 760 mph.

The skills or abilities of these aircraft ar not just speed.

Harrier can almost stall and allow a following fighter to fly past and take it out as in the Falklands war.

Buccaneer was very good at low level (200 feet or 60 metres)

The Javlin was a good night or bad weather interceptor.

 

They were all very good in their jobs. But sadly the statement was about fast fighters, which none of them are.
And yes, simply wanting sopeed from a plane is not always the best option!! (Lockheed F104 Starfighter, for example)

 

The U.S. managed to drag about all the fighters in their inventory through Vietnam at one point or another. I believe the worst performance was the F-104. One of the best, funny enough, was the F-5.

 

Vietnam was the place where most of the new theories bit the dust -

eg:
Fastest = best
Who needs guns

 

Sorry yes I missed that.

 

Interestingly enough, the Germans, prior to WW2, were convinced that the fastest=best formula was correct for fighters, which led to the Me 109.

 

Well *AHEM* back to the main topic:

I did read somewhere that the MiG-21 was similiar in performace and speed to the F-4, was half as big and probably far cheaper and more maneouverable. In terms of firepower it was slightly lacking but later versions could carry up to 4 missiles, didn't they? The tactics developed by the NVA did inflict some considerable damage to the USAF.

 

Yeah, although being as the USAF was severely hamstrung by ridiculous political restraints, it is sadly not a fair comparison.

Does anybody know the 'results' of the aerial fighting in the various India/Pakistan wars?

 

The pakistanis came out on top time and time again. But that was probably a result of better training and tactics then aircraft

 

Interesting - didn't India tend to win the wars though?

 

India had the Centurion tank. The tank actions in their wars tended to become head on smashes and the Centurion was better armoured that what Pakistan was using.

 

The Pakistani air force had a 2:1 kill ratio against the Indian air force during the 1965 war, allthough they made themselves believe that the ratio was 4:1. 2:1 was actually quite good in any case and was probably caused by poor training on the Indian side. The Pakistanis could not not have sustained a prolonged war, however, since India had the numbers on their side.

The 1971 war turned the table slightly in favour of the Indian air force. The Pakistanis didn´t admit to many losses ( six F-104s on loan from the Jordanian air force were never returned, even though not one of them were lost according to the Pakistanis ) but neutral sources usually gives a slightly higher number of Pakistani aircraft lost than Indian aircraft.