F-104 vs. MiG-21

Which would win??

  • F-104 Starfighter (USA)

    Votes: 6 21.4%
  • MiG-21 (Russia)

    Votes: 14 50.0%
  • Pepper (AHH)

    Votes: 3 10.7%
  • Superman (DC)

    Votes: 5 17.9%

  • Total voters
    28

Grimloc

Rear Admiral
Besides, we all know the record that the F-15 has - I distinctly remember reading a story where one lost its entire wing and still the pilot managed to get it on the ground, saying it just listed to one side and needed more throttle to stay airborne. I also saw that story on the History Channel. That's a good fighter.
I just looked that up. Pretty amazing, actually. It happened in 1983...

The wings have three spars and the aircraft can still fly even if one of the spars has been shot away. The Eagle's outstanding aerodynamics allow it to stay in the air even with a loss of a substantial portion of a wing. In 1983, one Israeli F-15 actually lost all but a stub of one wing in a mid-air collision during training and managed to still land safely, to be repaired and returned to service. The wings of the prototypes had a slightly wider span than production machines.
 

Gliderboy

Spaceman
Actually, the guy didn't realize he lost so much of a wing until he landed. If he'd known I highly doubt he would have attempted to land his wingless craft.
 

Gliderboy

Spaceman
Crazy J said:
Read my name. Crazy J. I'm inexpliacble ;)

My standpoint comes from the fact that comparatively (between these two, not just fighters in general) the F-15 takes more skill to win in a dogfight.
So, you think a particular plane is better, because it puts its pilot at greater risk? Oh, and about the number of F-22's and their price, the point is that they'll be bloody expensive, and no one denies that. Right now, the Air Force has only ordered 100 or so and even if some people get the amount they want, it won't add up to more then 300-400. However, the F-22 is a plane that when fielded will actually cost less then it would to field a similar number of Eagles or Falcons to do the job only a handful of F-22's can do.
 

powell99

Aviation Junkie
I'll go with the F-104s because they are way sexier. I don't know much about aircraft of that era other than the carrier based planes and the F-105.

Now WW2? Thats another story
 

Bandit LOAF

Long Live the Confederation!
I never compared the Mig 21 to modern fighters? Where did you get that? I said contemporaries...as in other airplanes designed for a similar role and/or around the same time period.
I'm tired of this Delance-level semantics shit. You're banned.
 

Crazy J

Spaceman
Gliderboy said:
So, you think a particular plane is better, because it puts its pilot at greater risk?
Where in heck did you get that idea? I said 'skill', not 'dangerous and stupid'. It does not put a pilot at greater risk; well, in comparison to the F-22, yes it would be riskier to fly because it isn't very stealthy (at all); my point was it isn't just a 'push the damn button' kind of machine (Tom Paris did the same thing with the Delta Flyer in ST: Voyager, but that's a different story); you actually have to seriously know how to fly because it isn't a fly-by-wire design. I respect skills, not your fancy shmancy techo-babble s***. This is where my entire basis of prefering the F-15 over the F-22 came from.

To get back to topic; I thought it kind of pitiful that the F-104, which is a seriously lightweight craft intended for one purpose alone, which is intercepting bombers, got slapped in the ground support role. That just doesn't seem to make sense; an pure-bred interceptor was suddenly tasked with popping tanks. Granted, the Hawker Typhoon was originally supposed to be an intercept fighter, but it was redesigned to be the ground-attack craft that it came to be. The F-104 just got thrown into the polar opposite of what it was designed to do. It just don't make much sense.
 

ChrisReid

Super Soaker Collector / Administrator
Tigerhawk said:
I'm doubting that the F-15s will still be in service, at least if this whole JSF snafu is ever straightened out. The Eagles probably won't be flying all that much longer, considering McDonnell/Douglas doesn't make replacement parts for them anymore. That's the trouble with a lot of most of our air wings...the aerospace companies aren't producing maintenance parts anymore, so operational aircraft end up getting cannibalized.
That's not true. McDonnel Dougless was purchased by Boeing, which maintains support for all its operational planes. They still manufacture new F-15s for places like South Korea.

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/f15/

The F-15E is produced by Boeing and will be in the U.S. Air Force (USAF) inventory well into the 21st century.

The F-22 replaces only the F-15C air-combat aircraft, and many F-15Cs will remain in the Air Force to complement the F-22. The U.S. Air Force has no planned replacement for the multi-role F-15E that Boeing continues to produce, and which serves as the baseline for the F-15K. In fact, the Air Force has a defined upgrade program to modernize the F-15E and sustain it as a frontline combat aircraft through 2030 and beyond.

The U.S. Air Force and Boeing have a plan to sustain the F-15 at least through 2030. Korea will have access to new technology and system improvements developed for the U.S. Air Force, keeping its F-15Ks relevant for decades to come.
If you just meant that the earliest models of the F-15 will be phased out, that's just the natural evolution of a fighter design. Upgraded F-15s will continue to be supported for a long time.
 

Tigerhawk

Captain
ChrisReid said:
That's not true. McDonnel Dougless was purchased by Boeing, which maintains support for all its operational planes. They still manufacture new F-15s for places like South Korea.

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/f15/



If you just meant that the earliest models of the F-15 will be phased out, that's just the natural evolution of a fighter design. Upgraded F-15s will continue to be supported for a long time.

Ah...nice! Last I'd read (which was within the last months of my Navy time back in 2001), all production for parts and aircraft had been halted, up to and including talking directly to Air Force aircraft mechanics who'd mentioned how hard it was to get parts because of them not being produced. Thanks for pointing to this...I'm glad I'm wrong on that one, and it's interesting reading to boot.
 

Iceyl86

Spaceman
TankGunner said:
It don't matter what the stats are for a fighter, the only thing that matters is the pilot of it, the level of training he has had and his experience with that particular plane.

An Expert pilot in a F-4 Phantom could down a novice pilot in a F-22. It's the pilot that matters, not the machine.
... so your basic argument is... put Chuck Yeager in a P-51 and a rookie in an F-35, and because Yeager is one of the best military pilots in history, he'll win the fight? COME ON!!! Though extreme in example, yours is no better!


Maj.Striker said:
As someone else mentioned, the F104 wasn't exactly designed to be a superiority fighter as it was an interceptor. The F104 however was pretty much a failure, it didn't succeed in its intended role as an interceptor and it wasn't designed for a multi purpose role so it's usefulness was short lived.
I think you are giving the F-104 waaaaay too much credit. The reason the thing didn't see much active combat is because its range sucked! It didn't have anything to do with the fact that it was an interceptor, the design was built so that it could outrun any other fighter of its time, as a result, the engine sucked up so much juice, it really wasn't worth continuous production.

... alright... who thinks thier cute and put "Pepper" up there??
 

ChrisReid

Super Soaker Collector / Administrator
Iceyl86 said:
I think you are giving the F-104 waaaaay too much credit. The reason the thing didn't see much active combat is because its range sucked! It didn't have anything to do with the fact that it was an interceptor, the design was built so that it could outrun any other fighter of its time, as a result, the engine sucked up so much juice, it really wasn't worth continuous production.
If you're going simply by production figures, the F-104 beats out tons of fighters. A quick search of a couple .mil and historical websites shows that more than a couple thousand were produced. Active service continued for many decades in Germany, Italy and a few other places.

Iceyl86 said:
... alright... who thinks thier cute and put "Pepper" up there??
Their cute? What about our cute?!
 

Bandit LOAF

Long Live the Confederation!
I think you are giving the F-104 waaaaay too much credit. The reason the thing didn't see much active combat is because its range sucked! It didn't have anything to do with the fact that it was an interceptor, the design was built so that it could outrun any other fighter of its time, as a result, the engine sucked up so much juice, it really wasn't worth continuous production.
It's very clearly a dedicated bomber interceptor, though, which you can tell just by looking at the thing. It's a fighter that grew out of that brief pre-ICBM period in the 1950s when the "bomber gap" was America's loudest problem. They upgraded/redesigned the F-104C model into an everyday fighter, but it never saw very effective service. It's a cool as heck looking airplane, but it wasn't ever meant for the kind of roles that existed for it -- it's a solution to a problem no one actually had.
 

Hawkjoe

1st Lieutenant
I don't remember all the specs of the planes but the mig would definitely win from a design point-of-view. Looks can be deceiving. I beleive the mig could out perform in performance due to its frame construction and engine type. Example: the mig wings are actually a single wing vs. the F-104's wings a singular. I could be wrong but I've seen a lot of TV shows regarding planes.
 

HammerHead

Rear Admiral
The F-104, being an interceptor, has the higher maximum speed, and better high-speed-performance.
The MIG-21 is a dogfighter, and has better subsonic performance, and tighter turn radius.
In a Dogfight the MIG-21 wins easily. Even a MIG-17 can take on the F-104 in an outright dogfight and win (!).
That's why F-104 pilots were trained to use their high-speed performance, making slashing attacks on their targets, without evolving in a real dogfight - after all, it's all about using your advantages against your enemy's weaknesses.

About Major Striker reference to the Israeli Air Force's experience with the MIG-21 - During the Six-Days-War, The French Mirage IIICJ (the model used by Israel) was the lesser fighter compared to the MIG-21 - especially in maneuverability , but the differences were somewhat minor.
However, a year earlier, in June 1966, an Iraqi defector, flew a MIG-21 to Israel, allowing the IDF-AF to train it's pilots against the real thing, learning it's weaknesses, and ultimately conquering the skies.

On another note:
1. TankGunner claimed an expert F-4 pilot can down a novice F-22 pilot - that's not so true - I don't know what is your definition of a novice pilot, but a below average F-16 pilot can quite easily down an ACE F-4 pilot, simply because the F-16 can literally fly circles around the F-4.

2. Tigerhawk claimed the F-15 won't stay in service for much long – Both the Israeli and Turkish (as well as other) air-forces are still operating F-4 Phantoms, and the IDF-AF intendeds to keep using them for at least 7-10 years more (I don't know about the Turkish or other air-forces).
So what makes you say the F-15 (and specifically the brand new F-15-E, -I and –K models) are soon the be withdrawn from service?
 

Quarto

Unknown Enemy
HammerHead said:
About Major Striker reference to the Israeli Air Force's experience with the MIG-21 - During the Six-Days-War, The French Mirage IIICJ (the model used by Israel) was the lesser fighter compared to the MIG-21 - especially in maneuverability , but the differences were somewhat minor.
However, a year earlier, in June 1966, an Iraqi defector, flew a MIG-21 to Israel, allowing the IDF-AF to train it's pilots against the real thing, learning it's weaknesses, and ultimately conquering the skies.
Of course, it also helped that the IDF attacked the enemy air forces pre-emptively, on the ground, and consequently didn't need to worry all that much about actual dogfighting.
 

StarSlayer

Rear Admiral
The problem is, you guys are arguing in the abstract: about statistics that haven't even been cited.
To test the question empirically, one need simply hop into Falcon 4: AF or FreeFalcon. Though built on an older graphics engine, the flight models of this program have repeatedly been hailed by fighter pilots as amazing. So, one need simply fly a dogfight against an F-104 and against a Mig21. Although an F-16 (the main flyable aircraft in the sim) can shoot down either with relative ease, the Mig21 is a much greater threat. Though it is greatly outgunned, it is the maneuverability accorded to it by its airframe design that allows it to contend even with more modern fighters. If, by sheer luck, it manages to get inside a modern aircraft's medium missile range and enters a turning dogfight, the winner is very much up in the air. Luckily for U.S. and other NATO pilots, a MiG would almost never manage to get that close.
 

HammerHead

Rear Admiral
Quarto said:
Of course, it also helped that the IDF attacked the enemy air forces pre-emptively, on the ground, and consequently didn't need to worry all that much about actual dogfighting.
Actually, A few aerial dogfights did took place - IIRC, 19 Arab fighter planes were shot down in aerial combat, including 1 Iraqi Tu-16 bomber, shot down inside Israeli airspace, and one MIG-21 shot down by an Israel French made Super Myster, (less just say it’s like the F-4 shot down the F-16 – see my previous post).
That's compare to about 250 which were destroyed on the ground.

But going back to the point - Surprise is one of Sun-Tzu’s most basic fundamentals of warfare…

So…

Can you blame us?

[*Devilish Smile Goes Here*]
 
Top