Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hypothetical Dogfight EE Lightning v Mig21

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • steve wilson
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Jul 2007
    • 185

    Hypothetical Dogfight EE Lightning v Mig21

    I have a question for the boffins here. If an EE Lightning were placed into a dogfight with a Mig21 what would the outcome be? Both aircraft have a basic radar, short range AAMs and a cannon. The Mig21 bleeds off airspeed in a continuous tight turn. The Lightning has short legs. Both are Mach2 jets.

    I know that pilot training between the RAF and WARPAC airforces varied but for the sake of the argument lets say that both pilots are of equal caliber.

    Let the bunfight begin.

    Steve
    7nm SSE of EGNR.
  • Bager1968
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • May 2005
    • 3635

    #2
    Mig-21 can turn tighter than Lightning, so in a turning fight the "bleed-off" won't matter, as Lightning won't last long enough to make Mig-21's turn rate deteriorate.

    In a straight-line fight, Lightning accelerates far faster than Mig-21 and has a better rate of climb, so it can engage/disengage at will... until it runs out of fuel.

    If Lightning initiates, expect 1 or two passes then it runs for home, with Mig-21 probably dying.

    If Mig-21 initiates, Lightning probably dies before it can accelerate out of danger. Mig-21 probably attacks out of a dive.



    Interesting "dogfight"... two aircraft primarily designed as bomber-interceptors trying to fight each other.
    Last edited by Bager1968; 17th October 2009, 23:59.
    Germany, Austria and Italy are standing together in the middle of the pub, when Serbia bumps into Austria, and spills Austria's pint.

    Comment

    • MadRat
      Rank 5 Registered User
      • Aug 2006
      • 5033

      #3
      Both ill-equipped to take the other down. My heart tells me I'd rather be flying the bigger jet.
      Go Huskers!

      Comment

      • contrailjj
        Rank 5 Registered User
        • Jan 2006
        • 1084

        #4
        no self-respecting (properly trained) Lightning 'driver' would enter a dogfight ... period! (Lightning was designed and built as an interceptor - never intended for 'dog-fighting')

        I'd still give the advantage to the Lightning - simply favouring the missile technology - Lightning to me would have nailed said FISHBED before they got to 'dance'.
        Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is a war room!

        Comment

        • F/A-18RN
          Rank 5 Registered User
          • May 2005
          • 256

          #5
          I was always under the impression from interviews with pilots in books and documentaries that the Lightning was a good dogfighter and that with the introduction of the Typhoon the RAF was getting back to single-seat dogfighters after a 20 year absense.

          Comment

          • Robert Hilton
            Rank 5 Registered User
            • Jan 2007
            • 709

            #6
            Originally posted by F/A-18RN View Post
            I was always under the impression from interviews with pilots in books and documentaries that the Lightning was a good dogfighter and that with the introduction of the Typhoon the RAF was getting back to single-seat dogfighters after a 20 year absense.
            Roly Beamont's party piece with the P1 was to do a reheat turn within the airfield boundaries. My own personal experience, sseing them practice air displays amd interceptions I would say that it was indeed very agile. Better than it's counterparts at the time. One even pulled over 10g and returned intact.

            Comment

            • steman
              Rank 5 Registered User
              • Aug 2009
              • 40

              #7
              I have also read in several publications, not last Air International, that the Lightning was indeed agile (compared to its counterpart of the 60s). But its weapon system, Fireflash and Firestreak missiles were somewhat inferior, which, together with the already mentioned short endurance, made it a less than ideal defence fighter.
              I dont know much about the performances of the Mig21. Its widespread use is most probably due to its cheap price and lack of complexity than to its overall capability.

              Ciao

              Stefano

              Comment

              • lothar
                Rank 5 Registered User
                • Aug 2007
                • 59

                #8
                Lightning wins

                Contrary to some posts above the Lightning was an excellent combat aircraft in its time and certainly a match for the Mig21. Turn performance was similar and it could easily outclimb/outdive the Mig21. The performance of the respective missiles was quite similar but the Mig21 carried 4. Nobody has mentioned the very poor cockpit visibility of the Mig21, especially to the rear, which was execrable and certainly tipped the balance in favour of the Lightning. Later marks of the Fishbed were heavier with consequent increase in wing loading and had even worse rearward visibilty thanks to the much deeper spine.
                My experience with DACT in the Lightning which included F4, Draken, F104, Hunter, Mirage III had the Lightning as the better aircraft in all cases except the Mirage. Sure, once the next generation came along things were very different!

                Comment

                • Schorsch
                  Severely Transonic
                  • Aug 2005
                  • 3843

                  #9
                  The MiG-21 has advantages as it is smaller and better at slower airspeeds. A Lightning pilot should use speed to do surprise attacks, and if he misses he should get the hell out of the fight.
                  The Lightning has some superior performance aspects, but hardly could use it.
                  Publicly, we say one thing... Actually, we do another.

                  Comment

                  • Robert Hilton
                    Rank 5 Registered User
                    • Jan 2007
                    • 709

                    #10
                    Originally posted by Schorsch View Post
                    The MiG-21 has advantages as it is smaller and better at slower airspeeds. A Lightning pilot should use speed to do surprise attacks, and if he misses he should get the hell out of the fight.
                    The Lightning has some superior performance aspects, but hardly could use it.
                    Which means that the Lightning would always have the tactical advantage over the Mig 21. The difference in range between the two isn't very much either. So if the Lightning couldn't use it's advantages then neither could the Mig.

                    Comment

                    • Sens
                      Rank 5 Registered User
                      • Jan 2000
                      • 12296

                      #11
                      The one of both staying over the own home-base will win.

                      Comment

                      • Levsha
                        Rank 5 Registered User
                        • Jan 2006
                        • 2838

                        #12
                        Bear in mind also, that many of the early MiG-21s were not even fitted with a cannon as standard - recalling the problems the Indian air force had when it first ordered the PF version in the 1960s, a gun pod was eventually rigged up underneath, gunsights nicked from their Hunter fleet.
                        Mind you there were versions of the Lightning without a cannon if I recall...?

                        Comment

                        • Robert Hilton
                          Rank 5 Registered User
                          • Jan 2007
                          • 709

                          #13
                          Originally posted by Levsha View Post
                          Mind you there were versions of the Lightning without a cannon if I recall...?
                          F3, T4 and T5. F6 were retrofitted.

                          Comment

                          • Schorsch
                            Severely Transonic
                            • Aug 2005
                            • 3843

                            #14
                            Originally posted by Robert Hilton View Post
                            Which means that the Lightning would always have the tactical advantage over the Mig 21. The difference in range between the two isn't very much either. So if the Lightning couldn't use it's advantages then neither could the Mig.
                            If he (=the Lightning pilot) spots the -21, yes. But if not, he's in trouble. When he is in a dogfight versus the -21 and enters the "slow'n low" region, he's in deep trouble. The Lightning doesn't have the thrust to run away at all altitudes.
                            Generally, I would rather pick the -21.
                            Publicly, we say one thing... Actually, we do another.

                            Comment

                            • Robert Hilton
                              Rank 5 Registered User
                              • Jan 2007
                              • 709

                              #15
                              Originally posted by Schorsch View Post
                              If he (=the Lightning pilot) spots the -21, yes. But if not, he's in trouble. When he is in a dogfight versus the -21 and enters the "slow'n low" region, he's in deep trouble. The Lightning doesn't have the thrust to run away at all altitudes.
                              Generally, I would rather pick the -21.
                              The Lightning is fitted with two turbojets, which made up about 3/4 of the total thrust, max dry. The only limitation I know of on thrust is that the later versions with 300 series engines had the reheat T4 limited below about Mn 1.6 to prevent choking the intake. It's thrust/weight ratio is close to 1 so it's performance is somewhat lively. Have you ever seen one fly? I've seen footage of the Typhoon in action and must say it's performance mirrors closely the way a Lightning flew.

                              Comment

                              • martinez
                                Rank 5 Registered User
                                • Mar 2005
                                • 1209

                                #16
                                Instead of hypothetically speaking "if, when" or who would be in deep trouble, someone could post Lighting charts of climb rate, acceleration, max. allowable G`s or turn rates, then we can compare those two aircrafts more precisely. I`ll provide charts of the Mig-21.
                                <Find a job you like doing, and you'll never have to work a day in your life>

                                Comment

                                • Sens
                                  Rank 5 Registered User
                                  • Jan 2000
                                  • 12296

                                  #17
                                  Originally posted by Schorsch View Post
                                  If he (=the Lightning pilot) spots the -21, yes. But if not, he's in trouble. When he is in a dogfight versus the -21 and enters the "slow'n low" region, he's in deep trouble. The Lightning doesn't have the thrust to run away at all altitudes.
                                  Generally, I would rather pick the -21.
                                  The Lightning can disengage at will. The main advantage of the Lightning is its superior thrust. Be it dry or AB. The 600 Imp ventral pack and the economical Avon gave the edge from 1965.
                                  Initial climb-rate was 50.000+ feet. Wing-load at NTOW was ~442 kg/m. Accelerates from Mach 0.9 to Mach 2.0 in 3,1 min and fly supersonically at half power.

                                  Despite that I am intrested in some handbook data too.
                                  Last edited by Sens; 19th October 2009, 06:36.

                                  Comment

                                  • Schorsch
                                    Severely Transonic
                                    • Aug 2005
                                    • 3843

                                    #18
                                    Originally posted by Robert Hilton View Post
                                    The Lightning is fitted with two turbojets, which made up about 3/4 of the total thrust, max dry. The only limitation I know of on thrust is that the later versions with 300 series engines had the reheat T4 limited below about Mn 1.6 to prevent choking the intake. It's thrust/weight ratio is close to 1 so it's performance is somewhat lively. Have you ever seen one fly? I've seen footage of the Typhoon in action and must say it's performance mirrors closely the way a Lightning flew.
                                    Largely depends on altitude and tactical situation. When the Lightning is surprised the pilot will most likely not even engage his reheat. Same applies vice versa. Sure thing is that the two Avon make a very good target even for the AA-2 Atoll missile.
                                    Publicly, we say one thing... Actually, we do another.

                                    Comment

                                    • Schorsch
                                      Severely Transonic
                                      • Aug 2005
                                      • 3843

                                      #19
                                      Originally posted by steve wilson View Post
                                      I have a question for the boffins here. If an EE Lightning were placed into a dogfight with a Mig21 what would the outcome be? Both aircraft have a basic radar, short range AAMs and a cannon. The Mig21 bleeds off airspeed in a continuous tight turn. The Lightning has short legs. Both are Mach2 jets.
                                      The energy bleed for continuous turns of the Lightning should be in the same ballpark region.
                                      Publicly, we say one thing... Actually, we do another.

                                      Comment

                                      • Sens
                                        Rank 5 Registered User
                                        • Jan 2000
                                        • 12296

                                        #20
                                        Originally posted by Schorsch View Post
                                        Largely depends on altitude and tactical situation. When the Lightning is surprised the pilot will most likely not even engage his reheat. Same applies vice versa. Sure thing is that the two Avon make a very good target even for the AA-2 Atoll missile.
                                        In the 60s the R-3 Atoll was not reliable, too limited in range and in war-head.
                                        At low level the Atoll was useless. The seeker had to look-up against the cool sky and the MiG-21 in a position below the higher target. Even than the Atoll was in need of a none manovering target, just a few Gs were enough , either from the firing MiG-21 or disengageing Lightning to break the lock of the Atoll.

                                        The Firestreak or Red Top had more than 3 times the range compared to the Atoll. Both were in a different class compared to the Atoll. By that even most AIM-9s were just cheap.

                                        Comment

                                        Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                        Collapse

                                         

                                        Working...
                                        X