The legendary MiG-21

AESAs are expensive now because they are still relatively new technology... like CDs were more expensive than cassette tape for quite some time.

But as the technology gets cheaper and mass production kicks in a CD is less than 50c worth of plastic and the music is a printed label with the music printed on the underside of the label.

The first AESA modules will be hundreds or even thousands of dollars each, but when aircraft and vehicles and ships and SAM radars and even missiles and satellites get AESA radars the number of modules you make a year becomes billions or trillions... a new R-77 ARH missile has 64 modules each... the enormous 2,500km range radar of the S-500 probably has hundreds of thousands of modules each... ship radars will be enormous too... Armata tanks use AESA radars to detect incoming threats, and UAVs will carry radars too.

As production continues they will make them faster and more accurately with fewer duds and the production price will go down to dollars or even cents per module...

They could even use them in motor vehicles for collision prevention and parking to improve on the current sensors used for those jobs.

If the choice is to keep a MiG-21 with operational costs of maybe $4,000 per flight hour and put a $1,500,000 dollar new AESA radar in its nose, or have to buy a new $35 million dollar MiG-29 or F-16 with a 1.5 million dollar radar in their noses, but pay $15,000 per flight hour... and also buy all new parts and retrain your ground crews and pilots.

The reality is that the vast majority of countries with an air force don't really need fighters, and generally the fighters they have they really don't need anyway.

I mean WTF does Germany actually do with its fighter planes?

If you gave Poland F-35s... how long would they last in real combat?

More importantly... how many hours would they be able to afford to keep them operational?

A month?

BlackArrow wrote:

GarryB wrote:

Not a bad figther, but pretty much F-5A/E material. Has nothing on F-16C past Block 25/30.

It is a small light cheap fighter.

An AESA radar in the nose,and wingtip R-73 missiles, four R-77 missiles under the wings and belly positions for two R-77s and you have a potent little fighter.

Helmet mounted sight.

Nobody is going to fit an AESA radar to a MiG-21 - or F-5, do you know how much those radars cost? In fact, who is upgrading their 1980s MiG-29 or F-16 with AESA?

If we can say the JF-17 is an extension of the chinese F-7 that is in fact Mig-21. Then the JF-17 Block III will integrate an AESA radar. In fact a Mig-21 with RD-93 with AESA radar.

India’s MiG-21 upgraded by Russia equal to Pakistan’s F-16, says analyst

More:
http://tass.com/defense/1047106

George1 wrote:India’s MiG-21 upgraded by Russia equal to Pakistan’s F-16, says analyst

More:
http://tass.com/defense/1047106

I seriously doubt that

George1 wrote:India’s MiG-21 upgraded by Russia equal to Pakistan’s F-16, says analyst

More:
http://tass.com/defense/1047106

No need specialits to understand that Mig-21 at least 93, as 97 are better in aerial combat against any F-16, including the last Lockheed Martin's Blocks. I have previously been explaining that US claims about the F-16/15 migs killer is a mere joke, fantasy, if not idiotic statement of american elites in order to debunk soviet/russian industry. This hype began with Israel, that claimed without any proof in Bekaa valley battle -june 1982- they downed at least 100 migs against 0 losses. Meanwhile their ground forces -2 times more than syrian forces - were unable to reach their most important objective in Lebanon, the Beyruth-Damascus Highway. I assume during this battle syrian air forces lost 27 Mig-21 Bis. Not because the Mig-21 were inferior than their israeli counterparts, but because the Mig-21 Bis were used as fighter bombers, and not as interceptor, because at this time Syria lacked aircraft like SU-25. During this battle Israel lost 5 F-15, and 6 F-16 A. It is noteworthy to add that during the 80's Israel lost at least 70 F-16 because of the magic word "Accident", "mechanical faillures". In fact many of these F-16 were downed by syrian aircraft like Mig-21 Bis. Of course I would not say that the raw Mig-21 could outcome western 4 th generation fighter, but with a fair upgrade -like new modern IRST, new engine as RD-93, if not more powerful AL-31, new modern sensors like the JF-17 Block III- if a good pilot is inside the Mig-21 can overcome nowadays any western fighter.

A lot of it has to do with the pilot... and of course if we remember the first lessons of air to air combat from WWI... three quarters of those shot down didn't know they were under attack until it was too late... and that applies today just as much if not more so...

nemrod wrote: This hype began with Israel, that claimed without any proof in Bekaa valley battle -june 1982- they downed at least 100 migs against 0 losses.

They claimed about 88 SAF jets.

I assume during this battle syrian air forces lost 27 Mig-21 Bis. Not because the Mig-21 were inferior than their israeli counterparts, but because the Mig-21 Bis were used as fighter bombers, and not as interceptor, because at this time Syria lacked aircraft like SU-25.

In '82 Syria had the SU-22 and MIG-23BN for ground attack.

During this battle Israel lost 5 F-15, and 6 F-16 A.

What evidence? I noticed in the old book on arab MIG-19 and MIG-21 Units in Combat, there is a pic purportedly showing the wreckage of an F-4 downed over Lebanon. In his recent book on arab MIG-23s, however, Cooper says there's no evidence for any Syrian air to air success in '82 except damage to a single F-15.