Replacing the venerable MiG-21 Fishbed's

[Todjaeger]

I don't understand why people keep harping on the fact that LCA doesn't have its own engine yet. Other than the xp options like rafael and typhoon or russian planes neither the Gripen nor FC-1 have their own indegenous engines. This is not such a big drawback as it seems, well it is a drawback . but if you compare it with FC-1or gripen its not a point for the other planes since neither planes have a indegenous engine.

I wouldn't comment on the not sophisticated comment since a generic comment saying some plane is not good enough, not sophisticated turns out into a pointless discussion. But I guess you can explain that further if you want.

Discussion of the LCA is a little bit OT, but given that is is supposed to be a MiG-21 replacement aircraft, some comments are needed. I would not consider it harping, the issue LCA has in terms of an engine. If the LCA was to be fitted with a licensed-production engine, or a imported engine, the situation would be different. As I understand it however, some early production LCA are currently/will be fitted with a foreign engine (which is somewhat underpowered IIRC) while an indigenous with more power finishes development and testing. What this means to me, and likely others as well, is that the LCA is still in the SDD phase and not really ready or appropriate for ordering as an aircraft replacement by other countries when there are alternative aircraft which are already in production and have service records. The LCA situation for India is a bit different as part of the reason for the program was to develop a domestic aircraft design and development capability. For other countries which still operate the MiG-21 like Romania, the best they will likely do is either local assembly or some subcomponent manufacture of whatever replaces the MiG-21. That is quite a different situation than in India.

As for suitable replacements for the MiG-21, I have no suggestions to offer currently because ~38 countries operate different variants of the MiG-21/F-7/J-7. With that many different operators, the capabilities needed in the replacement aircraft are going to vary widely depending on the specific user.

In the case of Romania specifically, it would seem that they would be interested in a cheap/inexpensive air defence fighter than can integrate with NATO/EU allies, provide exposure to NATO conops, and have multi-role upgrade paths available utilizing advanced munitions. In this case, 2nd hand F-16s should do nicely, assuming there is a reasonable amount of airframe life remaining and any needed MLU is not overly expensive. If the F-16s had not been ordered, I would have suggested JAS-39C/D Gripens as being a good overall choice. Other current production aircraft like the Rafale, Typhoon or current production F-15/F-16/F-18 SHornets IMO would be too expensive and/or complicated to have been good candidates. Now, once Romania builds up familiarity with their 2nd hand F-16s, then a replacement order of F-16 Block 52s may well be in order.

For other MiG-21 operators, the situation is quite different, as there is less (or no) advantage in being able to interoperate with NATO forces. In such cases, the aircraft appropriate for these operators is dependent on the different air forces respective conops.

-Cheers

 

[shag]

Discussion of the LCA is a little bit OT, but given that is is supposed to be a MiG-21 replacement aircraft, some comments are needed. I would not consider it harping, the issue LCA has in terms of an engine. If the LCA was to be fitted with a licensed-production engine, or a imported engine, the situation would be different. As I understand it however, some early production LCA are currently/will be fitted with a foreign engine (which is somewhat underpowered IIRC) while an indigenous with more power finishes development and testing. What this means to me, and likely others as well, is that the LCA is still in the SDD phase and not really ready or appropriate for ordering as an aircraft replacement by other countries when there are alternative aircraft which are already in production and have service records. The LCA situation for India is a bit different as part of the reason for the program was to develop a domestic aircraft design and development capability. For other countries which still operate the MiG-21 like Romania, the best they will likely do is either local assembly or some subcomponent manufacture of whatever replaces the MiG-21. That is quite a different situation than in India.

I agree with what you say. I found it stupid however when I read it being compared to other fighters saying it doesn't have the indegenous engines, when other fighters dont have an indegenous engine either?
btw LCA is currently powered with GE 404 engines, the same ones that power current generation gripens, Gripen NG is most likely going to use GE414 engine which is also in contention for the competition for powering the LCA mk II along with EJ200 which powers the EF. Besides LCA is lighter than Gripen.
However there might be other reasons LCA might not be adopted by other countries. First is the fact that it uses Israeli electronics in some parts, which will cause political problems for both buyer and seller if we try to sell it in middle east. besides it might not come as cheap as the FC-1.

 

[Todjaeger]

I agree with what you say. I found it stupid however when I read it being compared to other fighters saying it doesn't have the indegenous engines, when other fighters dont have an indegenous engine either?

I think you missed the important point regarding the LCA engine. IMO it has nothing to do with the actual engine source, whether is is foreign or indigenous. The key part is that the LCA engine has not been finalized. Until that happens, the LCA remains at a developmental stage and is unready for production and entry into service.

-Cheers

 

[Feanor]

I personally think Romania made a good choice, and their current plan, if carried out, will give them a small but highly modern and capable airforce.

 

[Falstaff]

Excellent thread!

I'd like to bring another issue to the table here:

For many 3rd world countries, esp. those in central and south Africa the Mig-21 is at the top of what they can handle technologically and sometimes even too much. Many of those airforces were built during the high times of the Cold War with massive support from NATO, WP or France thus resulting in rather sophisticated airforces with mach 2 capable status symbols like the Mirage III/V or Mig 21 or even 23. Whole fleets of these were e.g. manned by cuban pilots and maintained by soviet technicians. However, times have changed and many capabilities have simply vanished in chaos and civil war.
So I think that many countries that operate the Mig-21 or have some of them mothballed in some hangar (which is often the case) will have to go for something much simpler, e.g. a light attack and trainer aircraft in the class of the K-8, unless there is massive chinese support which will eventually enable them to operate fighters like the JF-17 which in this case is a natural candidate. Just my 2 (€-)cents

I'm not talking about arab or east european countries here.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Its a role requirement. Mig-21 = fighter.

Some african countries need COIN a/c rather than fighters. Agree trainers are often good light atk a/c that can perform the COIN role cost-effectively. The other option are helos.

Depends on counter-threat level eg presence of SAMs etc.

 

[Falstaff]

Its a role requirement. Mig-21 = fighter.

Some african countries need COIN a/c rather than fighters. Agree trainers are often good light atk a/c that can perform the COIN role cost-effectively. The other option are helos.

Depends on counter-threat level eg presence of SAMs etc.

Agreed. And my previous post comes with the implicit understanding that a fighter is not really required.
Many reports on this topic suggest that the acquisition of relatively advanced Mach 2 capable fighters were driven by two main factors, one- and not an important one- being the ego of some state leaders, the other being the fact that there was an artificial requirement due to a "proxy arms race".
And as IADS are a long way off in this region I guess that for the occasional village bombing raid, COIN and birthday parade a light attack/ trainer aircraft is well sufficient.
And still, you must be able to support the aircraft financially and technologically.

 

[adriann]

With who the Romania is going to fight ?
Any new fighter will serve just as cosmetics, expensive one...it will hardly help its infantry to won well dug enemy, but it would be useful to bomb cities in total war....
But if Romania must please its daddy thats different story...

 

[Todjaeger]

With who the Romania is going to fight ?
Any new fighter will serve just as cosmetics, expensive one...it will hardly help its infantry to won well dug enemy, but it would be useful to bomb cities in total war....
But if Romania must please its daddy thats different story...

Also useful for intercepting unauthorized aircraft flying in restricted airspace. Not to mention providing an opposition training force for army and naval personnel to practice air defence operations. Additionally, a (small) fighter force can also provide additional forces which can be used to participate in joint exercises or operations.

All things which are generally considered worthwhile by nations wishing to maintain their sovereignty.

-Cheers

 

[Feanor]

With who the Romania is going to fight ?
Any new fighter will serve just as cosmetics, expensive one...it will hardly help its infantry to won well dug enemy, but it would be useful to bomb cities in total war....
But if Romania must please its daddy thats different story...

Actually it can do just that. It can provide CAS and interdiction, as well as strike missions. Compared to their current MiG-21s, they are getting a huge new capability.

 

[adriann]

All things which are generally considered worthwhile by nations wishing to maintain their sovereignty.

Thats the point, is there any country with new system that does not sell their sovereignty with new oligarchs bribing? If the people are poor, who will try to take their poverty from them?

They just upgraded mig-21, somebody took the money and concluded it was in wane??
In these countries there's no need to be overflown to gather intelligence. They are cooperative.
If people wish to maintain their sovereignty nobody can take it from them. Look at Koreans, Vietnamese, Afghans vs CCCP, Arabs...

 

[Todjaeger]

Thats the point, is there any country with new system that does not sell their sovereignty with new oligarchs bribing? If the people are poor, who will try to take their poverty from them?

They just upgraded mig-21, somebody took the money and concluded it was in wane??
In these countries there's no need to be overflown to gather intelligence. They are cooperative.
If people wish to maintain their sovereignty nobody can take it from them. Look at Koreans, Vietnamese, Afghans vs CCCP, Arabs...

You are apparently completely missing the point. And no, examples of ground combat and/or guerilla warfare are not particularly good examples of maintaining sovereignty IMO, particularly with respect to air operations.

Using the US as an example, there are several cases from the last two decades where a fighter intereception of an unauthorized aircraft would have been appropriate. Earlier this year a small private aircraft was deliberately crashed into a building which had offices for the IRS (Internal Revenue Service). September 11th, 2001 is a stark example of what can be done using aircraft as a weapon. Had fighter intercepts been successfully conducted, it is possible that several hundred would have died, instead of several thousand. Going back further, a light airplane was landed/crashed on the grounds of the Whitehouse (in 1992 IIRC). Had fighter aircraft been available and routed to the correct areas, these events might never have happened.

If an operator of the MiG-21 choses not to replace them, at some point those operators will find themselves without fighter aircraft available to use. Which would mean that in situations like those mentioned above, the national air force would not even have the option of attempting a fighter intercept. In addition to all the exercise and training opportunities which the army and navy would no longer have. For examples of that, I suggest one take a look at New Zealand and the various air defence issues the NZDF is having following the retirement of the A-4K Skyhawk without replacement in 2001.

Some might feel that poor countries need no defence forces, as no one would be interested in them due to poverty, but history and current events suggests otherwise.

-Cheers

 

[King Comm]

You are apparently completely missing the point. And no, examples of ground combat and/or guerilla warfare are not particularly good examples of maintaining sovereignty IMO, particularly with respect to air operations.

Using the US as an example, there are several cases from the last two decades where a fighter intereception of an unauthorized aircraft would have been appropriate. Earlier this year a small private aircraft was deliberately crashed into a building which had offices for the IRS (Internal Revenue Service). September 11th, 2001 is a stark example of what can be done using aircraft as a weapon. Had fighter intercepts been successfully conducted, it is possible that several hundred would have died, instead of several thousand. Going back further, a light airplane was landed/crashed on the grounds of the Whitehouse (in 1992 IIRC). Had fighter aircraft been available and routed to the correct areas, these events might never have happened.

If an operator of the MiG-21 choses not to replace them, at some point those operators will find themselves without fighter aircraft available to use. Which would mean that in situations like those mentioned above, the national air force would not even have the option of attempting a fighter intercept. In addition to all the exercise and training opportunities which the army and navy would no longer have. For examples of that, I suggest one take a look at New Zealand and the various air defence issues the NZDF is having following the retirement of the A-4K Skyhawk without replacement in 2001.

Some might feel that poor countries need no defence forces, as no one would be interested in them due to poverty, but history and current events suggests otherwise.

-Cheers

The question is, do they need a real fighter, like F-16, MiG-29, or Grippen, or just K-8's with gun pods? Trainers are far cheaper to run and have longer air frame life than fighters, and at 3 million dollars a piece, it's possible to replace the old MiG-21's one for one.

 

[Feanor]

How many MiG-21s does it fly?

 

[Air Force]

How many MiG-21s does it fly?

About sixty-eight...

 

[adriann]

You are apparently completely missing the point. And no, examples of ground combat and/or guerilla warfare are not particularly good examples of maintaining sovereignty IMO, particularly with respect to air operations.

Using the US as an example, there are several cases from the last two decades where a fighter intereception of an unauthorized aircraft would have been appropriate. Earlier this year a small private aircraft was deliberately crashed into a building which had offices for the IRS (Internal Revenue Service). September 11th, 2001 is a stark example of what can be done using aircraft as a weapon. Had fighter intercepts been successfully conducted, it is possible that several hundred would have died, instead of several thousand. Going back further, a light airplane was landed/crashed on the grounds of the Whitehouse (in 1992 IIRC). Had fighter aircraft been available and routed to the correct areas, these events might never have happened.

I'm saying that if country WANTS to maintain sovereignty in LOCAL war, its people does not need Air Force. Did Soviets won Afghans? Latter only had Stingers and same would have been w/o them. Some countries realized that propaganda war, student exchange... are far more effective against undeveloped countries.

I'm from AD industry and I'm speaking against myself, but Mexican fly drug syndrome exists in other industries, not only in pharmaceutical.
Airline interception is not good reason. If there are angry fanatics, they will carry atom bomb on their back and detonate or else.

 

[fromzg]

I don't believe that there is a suitable MiG-21 replacement at all. One shouldn't forget that MiG-21 is so wide spread primarily through the programs of military assistance run by Soviet Union during cold war, in order to spread its political influence. Similarly F-5 Freedom Fighter and Tiger II were offspring of MAP and IFA programs run by US administration as their way of military assistance, i.e. spreading the political influence in countries that were not in (economic) position to purchase more sophisticated fighters. Of course F-5 had different origin than MiG-21 which was actually built as Soviet primary tactical fighter in late 50-ties, while F-5 originated from N-156 family of light supersonic aircrafts (not to bother you with more details).

The replacement will for sure depend on both political aspirations of current users as well as their economic capabilities. From a technical aspect the only similar designs are Chinese J-7 and JF-17. J-7 itself is a further development of early MiG-21 design, in some versions married with Western avionics. I'm not sure if it is still produced by Chinese, but this is by far the simplest supersonic combat aircraft available on market. JF-17 is more complex but still affordable. However in order to become as popular as MiG-21 or even J-7, it will take some sort of military assistance program taken by Chinese government. Another viable option might be India's HAL Tejas (LCA), developed as direct replacement for MiG-21, but with estimated cost of 15-20 million $ per unit it will not be widely accepted. Purchasing new or old airframes for some listed options like F-16, Mirage 2000 or MiG-29 is out of the question for more than a half of current users, since operational costs would far exceed their economic capabilities.

On the political aspect, the remaining European users are Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia (all NATO members today) and Serbia. As you can see, it seems that Romania prefers the (used) F-16 option which will improve Romanian Airforce capabilities, but also provide basis to build future capabilities based on people getting more experience with advanced weapon systems, while keeping the costs on the acceptable level. Here in Croatia there is a program for MiG-21 replacement (by initial plan the decision was supposed to be taken in 2010), but it is postponed due to an economic crisis. The JAS-39 Gripen was favorable according to available information, with F-16 practically being the only other serious contender. I would personally go with F-16 option to strengthen the ties with US and improve our political position in EU accession negotiations, although we also have a good experience with Sweden which provided technical assistance in integrating the RBS-15 anti ship missiles on Croatian war ships during early 90-ties in the time of arms embargo (missiles themselves were delivered prior to conflict). However the government today has to deal with the recession, overblown social programs and large subventions to economically inefficient branches like ship-building or small farmers, so this program may be set back for a few years. I don't know what is happening in Serbia, though I remember one Serbian article which mentioned their plans to purchase 16-20 multi-role fighters. Since Serbia is also MiG-29 user, MiG-29 or one of its derivates might have much better chance than in Romania or Croatia. The Bulgaria is a mystery to me, so if anyone can share some insight on Bulgarian Airforce and its MiG-21 replacement plans would be appreciated.

The last ex-Soviet republics still using MiG-21 are Azerbaijan and Georgia. According to some sources Azerbaijan has purchased the MiG-29 as the replacement to its fleet of MiG-21, obviously in the line of strengthening its ties with Russia. Georgia on the other hand will not be allowed by Russia to purchase just about any kind of military equipment before Georgia recognizes Russian interests on the Georgian territory.

India is both purchasing the more sophisticated designs like Su-30MKI and in the same time working on their own direct replacement of MiG-21 called HAL Tejas (LCA program), but it is too expensive as already mentioned to be considered wide replacement for MiG-21. Vietnam, Egypt, Syria and Libya are all acquiring more sophisticated designs. However, something needs to be said here. Egypt may have purchased the Western aircrafts like F-16, but they still strongly prefer the MiG-21. The simplicity of the design allows the pilots to use them to their full capabilities, while F-16 is too sophisticated and with the level of training provided to the pilots they are simply not capable of using the aircraft to a full extent. This quite shows that there is a market for MiG-21 replacement, however I have to say again that without significant military assistance program launched by manufacturers of such aircraft, it will just not happen.

For the rest of the users it is beyond their economic capabilities, although there are countries with specific security issues like Cuba or North Korea which would probably desire to upgrade their fleet. However, considering the state of their economy, it is questionable to which level they can maintain their aircrafts and provide training to the pilots and other technical staff in general. For many (sub-Saharan) African users, it might be more viable option to use armed versions of subsonic trainers with ground-strike capabilities, then maintain supersonic fleet with (highly questionable) AA capabilities.

 

[Feanor]

Georgian fishbeds are not operational. Their only operational combat aircraft are a handful of Su-25. How many is unclear since at least several were destroyed during the war.

North Korea can certainly maintain and operate a large airforce. Their problem is that the MiG-21 is about as advanced of an aircraft as they can get. They do operate a handful of Fulcrum-A, and allegedly have license production of the type. However I haven't been able to confirm this.

 

[fromzg]

Georgian fishbeds are not operational. Their only operational combat aircraft are a handful of Su-25. How many is unclear since at least several were destroyed during the war.

You are right on this one. It seems that they only got a couple or few of training versions in 1991 (probably unassembled aircrafts from Tbilisi aircraft factory), but they are not operational.

North Korea can certainly maintain and operate a large airforce. Their problem is that the MiG-21 is about as advanced of an aircraft as they can get. They do operate a handful of Fulcrum-A, and allegedly have license production of the type. However I haven't been able to confirm this.

This one is for debate. I don't believe that North Korea is able to maintain their airforce in the real combat operations, without external help by China or Russia. But on the other hand in the case of major conflict with South Korea and US they could easily count on such support (whether it is going to be provided openly or covertly is another story and would depend mostly on US-China relation). Of course it is always hard to estimate the battle readiness in the closed country like that, so one could find a lot of information pointing of high operational status. But from my perspective over the years under such regimes armies tend to loose their capabilities. I remember the time just before the collapse of communism in Europe, when a lot of things were just a tribute to a long past era. This happens because people are not thought to make something new or better, but simply to preserve the privileges of few lucky ones (well, in the best case people tries to become one of the lucky ones).

 

[Feanor]

The key difference between North Korea and other such places is the level of indigenous manufacturing. North Korea manufactures and domestically modifies the MiG-21, along with much other military hardware. They thus have the necessery spares, weapon systems, etc. I'm sure the DPRK airforce can fly combat missions effectively. Against the RoKAF? Probably not. Against a similar 80s and 70s vintage airforce? Most likely.