MiG-21 question?

Question

why are the mig-21s still in service i mean not in russia but around the world is a good reliable plane for futhere use

Answer 1

As in the world there are a lot of F-5 Tiger or Freedomfighter still in service...
These planes are not outstanding(but not bad at all, they are "onest" fighters) fighter planes, but they are probably quite cheap to mantain and surely less expansive than buy a new plane, but they are fast enough to act as interceptors and can use auto-homing air-to-air missiles like AIM-9"Sidewinder"(or the similar russian/soviet missile) and so a lot of air forces keep them in line. They are simply considered cost-effective airplanes.

Answer 2

Compared to modern aircraft, it is unreliable, eats lots of fuel, has extremely limited range, and is underarmed with obsolete weapons.
For a plane its age, its outstanding.
It has a TBO of 260 hours, which is abismal compared to the 6000 hour TBO of the f-16, but at the time, that was pretty good.
It was probably the fastest climbing fighter in the world for 20 years, but the English Electric Lightning was very close to it.
Its engines use nearly 5 times as much fuel as a modern f-16 per pound of thrust, and it has extremely small fuel tanks. It is considered useless without wing tanks.
It also uses really outdated weapons. Before the 1980's missiles had terrible performance. One in 16 worked correctly during Vietnam.
We started to get good missiles after the military started demanding better equipment, mostly due to the feeling that saved lives was worth it.
The reason the Mig-21 is still around is that most countries will never fight a country that has anything better than a mig-21. It is not cheap to maintain, but 75% of the worlds countries are not allowed to buy new fighters from the US or Russia.
Anything short of a 1X series fighter wont be able to out perform it, short of a modified F-4, which is not rare, but its not common.
The Israelis were able to use the inferior mirage fighters to shoot down hundreds of mig-21's, but almost completely due to better training.

Answer 3

The MiG21 is obsolete.
Very high fuel consumption, not air-refuelable.
Poor stores availability-compared to other aircraft
Nasty habit of "juddering' during turns which throws the guns off track.
Low sustained-G, good instantaneous G though-relatively speaking.
No BVR capability. Heaters only (IR missiles)
Poor engine reliability. Many commentators spout about "simple" but in aircraft crude ain't necessarily a good thing. MiG-21s are designed to easily remove and replace the engine-the core of which only lasts about 150-300 hours. MUCH less than a Western engine.
Also in the air combat arena, "somewhat better" means, simply a target rich environment for guys like me. Frankly a good gomer in a Fishbed's going to die against an average pilot in an F14/15/16/Mirage 2000.
The reason some countries still fly 'em is simply economics. They're already there, and spares are somewhat available.
However, if you look closely at those countries, you'll see they don't "fly" all that much: under 20 hours/month on average. barely enough to maintain proficiency, but not nearly enough to keep combat skills sharp. Whereas a NATO/Western crew averages 60-80 hours/month.

Answer 4

There are so many MIG-21's because the Soviets built so many for domestic use and export to many other nations. They are old, but relatively cheap to maintain and operate because they don't have modern avionics and fly by wire systems. However, they'll get blown out of the sky pretty quickly by any current American, Western European, or Russian combat plane.

Take a look at the map at the bottom of the Wikipedia article I list as a source. Most nations are from either Asia or Africa that rank among the poorest of the poor in the world.

Answer 5

MiG-21, while obsolete, is actually NOT THAT bad of a plane. It is fast, it shoots missiles, and it's better than anything propeller driven. It's when you compare them to western planes that they start to look not that good by comparison.

Keep in mind that it costs $$$ to keep a fighter, ANY fighter up and running, and MiGs, for all their fault, costs a lot less than western fighters to upkeep, esp. older ones.

Some countries for one reason or another can't afford the latest and greatest, or western countries won't sell to them, for some reasons or another. Iran got no Western planes after the ayatollahs took over so they have to buy Russian stuff, and for air defense, and the style of combat, they don't need a lot of the latest and greatest like MiG-29 or Su-35 and such. For them, MiG-21 is "good enough". They rather spend money on ground troops and such that "looks" more impressive and useful on more things.

Western planes get old too. Stuff that were never adopted by the USAF, or cast-offs, like F-5 Tiger, F-20 Tigershark, A-4 Skyhawk, and more are still in service in many countries, esp. lesser Asian and South American countries. Skyhawks were used in the Falklands War between Argentina and England.

French also exported a lot of Mirages and Super Etendards when the Americans for some reasons won't sell planes. Taiwan (ROC) picked up quite a few Mirages when US won't sell them F-16's, not even the underpowered F-16/79's. They aren't state-of-the-art like Rafale or EuroFighter, but they will do the job.

I'd suggest you find a novel called "Warriors" by Barrett Tillman. It sort of discusses this issue, about how it's the man, not the machine, that makes the difference.

Answer 6

My father flew US F4 Phantom IIs in Vietnam. He flew over 100 missions in North Vietnam during several tours. He told me F4s had a tough time taking on Mig-21s. He said Phantoms had shot down Mig-21s with missiles, but it was very difficult with guns. He said, basically, when the Mig-21s engaged them in a dog fight, they had to fire up the afterburners and get the h*ll out of there. He said outrunning them was necessary because Mig-21s had a tighter turning radius and could pretty easily get on top of them and shoot them down if they did not take these precautionary measures. My dad survived even though some of his friends/fellow pilots were captured or died in the explosions. May God bless the souls of those who died in the war, and those who survived and faced difficulty upon returning home.

Answer 7

They are cheap. You might as well ask why old trucks, old boats and old trains are still running. B52s are still on the go and they are the same age. The Migs were quite tough and were built to be easy for relatively poorly trained conscripts to maintain, so they can still be roughly maintained for reasonable money.

They may drink fuel, but it takes a long time to make back the cost of a Mig 29 or and F-16 in fuel savings.

But I wouldn't feel safe in one!

Answer 8

It's cheap to maintain them, and they are not overly complicated to train on. For a country that does not have a very stable economy, aircraft like the Mig-21 are ideal for their air force.
and even while being an old aircraft, it still is a reasonably good fighter.

Answer 9

The MiG-21 is a piece of crap. An F-14 can out run 'em.