could MIG-21 jets be converted to cruise missiles?

[kashifshahzad]

I THINK THE IDEA OF CONVERTION OLD USELESS FIGHTER PLANES INTO CRUISE MISSILES IS GOOD CAZ THERE IS NO OTHER WAY TO USE THEM AS TRAINERS THEN IN THE WAR THEY WILL BE A GOOD TOOL TO USE THEM AS CRUISE MISSILE.
THE IDEA FOR THE CONVERSION OF F-16 IS TOO BAD CAZ THE SECOND HAND F-16 CAN BE SELLED TO OTHER COUNTRIES WHICH WILL USE THEM FOR DEFENCIVE PURPOSES.I THINK US HAS ALREADY A LOT OF CRUISE MISSILES NO IT MAKE SENCE TO CONVERT F-16 TO CRUISEMISSILES:coffee

Mod edit: Path: Please do not write your entire comment in cap letters in the future. Makes some of us think you are trying to yell. Thank you.

 

[ajay_ijn]

I THINK THE IDEA OF CONVERTION OLD USELESS FIGHTER PLANES INTO CRUISE MISSILES IS GOOD CAZ THERE IS NO OTHER WAY TO USE THEM AS TRAINERS THEN IN THE WAR THEY WILL BE A GOOD TOOL TO USE THEM AS CRUISE MISSILE.
THE IDEA FOR THE CONVERSION OF F-16 IS TOO BAD CAZ THE SECOND HAND F-16 CAN BE SELLED TO OTHER COUNTRIES WHICH WILL USE THEM FOR DEFENCIVE PURPOSES.I THINK US HAS ALREADY A LOT OF CRUISE MISSILES NO IT MAKE SENCE TO CONVERT F-16 TO CRUISEMISSILES

No,Converting the Mig-21 into cruise Missiles is more costlier than buying the A Very Costly Crusie Missile.
And moreover Mig-21 will perform Many Times Better Cruise Missiles.
Mig-21 will be the most Unreliable Cruise Missile if coverted.

Its Absolutely a foolish idea to do that.
And u are going to till F-16.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I THINK THE IDEA OF CONVERTION OLD USELESS FIGHTER PLANES INTO CRUISE MISSILES IS GOOD CAZ THERE IS NO OTHER WAY TO USE THEM AS TRAINERS THEN IN THE WAR THEY WILL BE A GOOD TOOL TO USE THEM AS CRUISE MISSILE.
THE IDEA FOR THE CONVERSION OF F-16 IS TOO BAD CAZ THE SECOND HAND F-16 CAN BE SELLED TO OTHER COUNTRIES WHICH WILL USE THEM FOR DEFENCIVE PURPOSES.I THINK US HAS ALREADY A LOT OF CRUISE MISSILES NO IT MAKE SENCE TO CONVERT F-16 TO CRUISEMISSILES:coffee

Please refrain from typing responses in uppercase only. It's a lack of forum etiquette and means that you are yelling and/or shouting.

Thanks.

 

[dabrownguy]

why not just put pilot on a Fishbed and then drop dumb bombs on the target and fly back.?

 

[Deltared075]

if you want the MIG-21 to drop a bomb 1000km away.. that will be one way ticket for the pilot for no returning fuel.

 

[vrus]

Instead of converting old out-of technology planes into 'flying suicide vehicles', it would be a much more clever thing to dismantle it and keep the parts. For example, you might be able to use the afterburners or parts of the engine like fans and compressors. That would be a good saving of manpower and money. Taken that they will be a bit old 'n rusty but I'm sure they can be modified a bit.

 

[mikier]

in some cases, stripping a plane for parts is worth it.. Ever seen the "boneyard" the US operates? it keeps the older US planes flying. But as for the Mig21, there would either have to have enough planes that would justify the expense, or a potential pool of buyers for the parts. most buyers want "the new planes" instead of older planes, like the F16, where older models are passed over for new, country specific versions built new (some countries have newer, more up-to-date 16's than the USAF)

the USAF looked at converting F16, with a lengthened wing to support more "hardpoints" for extra missile. cost to convert to UAV isn't as costly than building new UAVs cause the airframe is already built. the required equipment is already on hand, old fighters are regularly into "fullsize" aerial targets for USAF training.

 

[salmansignals]

Air Commodore M.Salman



No it is impossible.It takes time to converted to cruise missiles. :coffee

First Pilot attends class of Flying and droping actual bombs on its target.....



www.sulman4paf.tk

 

[gf0012-aust]

Air Commodore M.Salman



No it is impossible.It takes time to converted to cruise missiles. :coffee

First Pilot attends class of Flying and droping actual bombs on its target.....



www.sulman4paf.tkhttp://www.sulman4paf.tkhttp://www.sulman4paf.tk

Nope, you're wrong. The US, UK, Germany, France, Russia and numerous others all have regularly been using aircraft as radio controlled drones. There is no difference from using a jet fighter that is QF classified (ie rated as a fully functioning radio controlled drone) to turning it into a cruise missile.

The USAF has costed it as 1/10th that of a cruise missile. They could convert their excess F-16's to a QF status for minimal effort.

Iraq had trialled RC Mig23's as ChemBio carriers in the early 90's.

It's not impossible at all. In fact the PLAAF has been converting F7's to cruise missiles. An F-7 (Mig 17) all fueled up and hitting a target is going to make a hell of a mess if it gets to the target area and makes contact - the fuel spillage alone would cause considerable damage - let alone the kinetic energy impact, and then the detonation of the primary.

 

[Pendekar]

a high tech incarnation of japanese WW2 kamikaze, minus the pilots.

 

[jtcohen]

It can be done but targeting is an entire different issue, unless you might want to fly them against an enemy fleet, perhaps causing the fleet to use up surface to air missiles, before hiting them with the real attack. Could also perhaps rig up a system whereby the r/c Migs would be equiped with a Heat/IR SAM, could lock on itself, send a signal the controler who would fire it. This is not a fighter, it could intercept a helicopter or slow flyer.

Guess it could be a better idea then sending them to the scrap yard.

 

[Firehorse]

What about Australian F-111, once it's fased out? It has the range, speed and large payload to become unmanned ground attack/Anti-Ship drone, IMO!

F/RF-111C/G bombers is without doubt the ADF's most potent asset, capable of projecting air power against maritime and surface targets to combat radii of 1000 NMI from land bases, without inflight refuelling. http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-F-111-Upgrades-1998.html

A one-way unrefueled mission range could be twice as that -2,000mi or more, after life support systems and crew weight is eliminated!

 

[lobbie111]

A one-way unrefueled mission range could be twice as that -2,000mi or more, after life support systems and crew weight is eliminated!

Ok first of all, it costs around $100,000 to fuel an F111 and because they are an aging aircraft they cost like 1mil a year just to maintain the things why would the Australians waste their money when they can just buy more fighters plus some already tried and proven UAV systems? Besides you say the decreased weight of the life support systems and the crew, the weight of the R/C systems will cancel out any real advantage.

 

[Firehorse]

Besides you say the decreased weight of the life support systems and the crew, the weight of the R/C systems will cancel out any real advantage.

Maybe not! I don't think those avionics weigh anywhere near the combined weight of the crew, oxygen, ejection seats, canopy, etc. IMO, if the value of a target is high, it may be well worth sending an old F-111 to destroy it.
As for bailing out of Mig-21 before it hits the target, I doubt about the stability after the canopy & ejection seat are gone.

 

[lobbie111]

Even so, it isnt really a cost effective way to do it, why not send in the lastest and greatest fighter that you'd be in and out before you could be tracked or engaged.

 

[KGB]

One interesting thought is to combine r/c planes with piloted ones. The extra drones can act as decoys, protecting the real pilot. Once in the air, the drones could be slaved to maintain formation with the real pilot, coordinate evasive maneuvers, maybe even decoy missiles.

 

[lobbie111]

One interesting thought is to combine r/c planes with piloted ones. The extra drones can act as decoys, protecting the real pilot. Once in the air, the drones could be slaved to maintain formation with the real pilot, coordinate evasive maneuvers, maybe even decoy missiles.

Thats exactly the US concept, combine about 5 UAV drones to two F-22's the F-22's provide Anti-Air whilst the drones complete the main mission.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I think the F-111 would be reasonably easier to convert, it has a lot of systems and sensors required.

For a high value target. Or if Australia really needed to deliver a hasily made nuclear payload somewhere regionally.

Say post a nuclear strike on Australian soil.

 

[lobbie111]

I think the F-111 would be reasonably easier to convert, it has a lot of systems and sensors required.

For a high value target. Or if Australia really needed to deliver a hasily made nuclear payload somewhere regionally.

Agreed about the ease of conversion but I don't think its going to happen just because of how much it costs.

And Australia does not have any Nuclear Weapons so we can't really hit back.

 

[Firehorse]

Nor does Australia have long range cruise missiles or bombers, (except F-111s); Harpoons are Ash missiles but could be converted to LACMs & fitted on F-111s. So, if the AD threat is high around the target area F-111 is perhaps the only weapon of choice!