mrstickball said:
That quote shows no mention of the type of aircraft used by the Egyptians as being sub-standard, or inferior to Israeli F-4E's. Care to provide an ORBAT that shows that the Egyptians were using inferior aircraft? Last I checked, they were using the same thing the Vietnamese used (Mig-21's) which were one of the best Soviet aircraft at that time. Ah, I've done your work for you. They used Mig-21's almost exclusively. There was only one Eastern Bloc aircraft that was newer than it (Mig 23), which wasn't for export at that time (too new). I don't think you can claim the Mig 21 to be very inferior to F4's or A4's, as the Vietnamese did pretty well against the Americans in Vietnam using the same aicraft (13 Vietnamese pilots scored 5 or more kills against American aircraft during the Vietnam War). http://webspace.webring.com/people/qs/skythe/losses.htm
Yes, the Egyptians were using Soviet-supplied 2K12 Kubs, which is why Israel lost a large number of aircraft during the war:
Yom Kippur War The 2K12 surprised the Israelis in the 1973 Yom Kippur War. They were used to having air superiority over the battlefield. The highly mobile 2K12 took a heavy toll on the slower A-4 Skyhawk and even the F-4 Phantom, forming a protective umbrella until they could be removed. The radar warning receivers on the Israeli aircraft did not alert the pilot to the fact that he was being illuminated by the radar. Once the RWRs were reprogrammed and tactics changed, the 2K12 was no longer such a grave threat. Pilots dubbed the 2K12 the "Three Fingers of Death", in reference to the launcher's appearance. The superior low altitude performance of the weapon, and its new CW semi-active missile seeker resulted in a much higher success rate compared to the earlier SA-2 and SA-3 systems. While exact losses continue to be disputed, around 40 aircraft are usually cited as lost to SAM shots, and the 2K12 / SA-6 proved most effective of the three weapons.[9]
|
The MiG-21 design is based on tailed delta wing planform while the French Mirage was a tailless delta. The pure delta has many advantages in high-altitude, high-speed flight. It also has no clearly defined point of stall and develops max lift at very high angles of incidence. But it pays a high price in increased drag. Drag is also high while maneuvering.
The tailed delta avoided the worst drawbacks of the tailless variety.
Turning ability of the MiG-21 is good and at the lower speed levels it is very good. But increase speed to Mach 0.9 at 15,000-feet altitude and the MiG-21’s instantaneous turn rate becomes worse than that of the Phantom though still better than the Mirage 3C can achieve.
The controls are heavy, to a degree where a fair amount of muscle is needed. The pilot’s view out is not good, rear vision is almost non-existent and even the view ahead is restricted by both avionics displays and a heavy canopy bow. A fairly low fuel fraction reduces the combat radius without external fuel to a ridiculously short distance. The performance above 20,000 feet was described as poor.
The truth is that the MiG-21 is a very ordinary fighter and had it been of Western origin, it would have probably sunk without trace prior to 1970.
At the same time, the latest MiG-21bis (Fishbed-N) has a more powerful engine and a far superior thrust-to-weight ratio. Its performance has to improve dramatically and it must be a formidable dogfighter
i am sorry for misconfusing cause i though i read that the soviets refused to send advanced planes
