Микоян - Гуревич, МиГ-21 [Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21] NATO Reporting Name FISHBED

[Sauragnmon]

Hmm, if that's true, then it might well be.  Of course, a further improved version of Kopyo might well get decent performance as well.  If I recall, the APG-65's array might be able to fit into the radar section of a Fishbed... Extend the design, widen it out a little, you could potentially keep it.  Or else you go for broke and take a Ye-8 style chin intake, based on, say, the J-10 (convenient that) and put in a beefier radar system.

[dy031101]

Of course, a further improved version of Kopyo might well get decent performance as well.

There is a active electronically-scanned version although little is said as to how it performs.

If I recall, the APG-65's array might be able to fit into the radar section of a Fishbed... Extend the design, widen it out a little, you could potentially keep it.  Or else you go for broke and take a Ye-8 style chin intake, based on, say, the J-10 (convenient that) and put in a beefier radar system.

Version used by the AV-8B+, I gather (it has a scanner array of around 58cm; most articles over the internet with diametre of the Kopyo for MiG-21 puts the number around 50cm).

Depend on how you look at the platform- the MiG-21 Bison for India is supposed to act as the interim (until the LCA Tejas becomes operational) while Chengdu's proposals are made with the possibility of being produced in place of the FC-1......

Both are formidable nonetheless...... I personally couldn't resist putting the Bison fuselage and the Analog-144 wings together in my head...... 

Or else you go for broke and take a Ye-8 style chin intake, based on, say, the J-10 (convenient that) and put in a beefier radar system.

See below for their J-7MF project.

[Sauragnmon]

I'd surmise the AESA Kopyo would do Somewhat decently at least.

Yeah, I wasn't sure about any difference between the 8B+ version vs the -18 version.  I was also thinking APG-73, if it wasn't insanely big.

The Bison's not just an interrim for India, though I was considering the 21-97 more (with new engine) which is comparable up against F-16's in several cases.

Yes, they are both formidable, and you're not the only one to go "hey, Bison + Analog = cool, ya?" in their head.

Love that J-7MF - add Analog Wings and we're cooking with napalm, ya?

[dy031101]

Yeah, I wasn't sure about any difference between the 8B+ version vs the -18 version.  I was also thinking APG-73, if it wasn't insanely big.

The version used by the Harrier has a scanner array of reduced diametre (further Googling suggest that sets used by the Hornet have a 71cm-diametre array).  The APG-73 should at least be able to adopt the same modification.

And if you do want to adopt a radar taken from the Harrier, no-one does it better than the Blue Vixen......

I once played with the line drawing of early FC-1 prototypes and that of the J-7, combining the forward fuselage from the former and the rest from the latter...... wingtip PL-5, underwing droptank and (not readily visible) PL-11, and underfuselage 23mm twin-barrelled gun:

[Taiidantomcat]

Sweet pics DY! 

[ChernayaAkula]

^ Yeah!  'specially the J-7MF! 

[Sauragnmon]

That J-7/FC-1 combo does look quite nice, Dy... Very interesting indeed to be certain.

[dy031101]

When I drew that one, I thought of the wings as inheriting the double-delta wing of the J-7E/G but with wingtip missile rails......

Although I couldn't find an entry for it in the Soviet Secret Projects that I recently bought...... didn't the Soviets experiment with the idea of wingtip missile carriage on MiG-21?  What prompted them not to adopt such a scheme?

[McGreig]

Although I couldn't find an entry for it in the Soviet Secret Projects that I recently bought...... didn't the Soviets experiment with the idea of wingtip missile carriage on MiG-21?  What prompted them not to adopt such a scheme?

Yes, the second Ye-6 prototype (Ye-6/2 - "22" Red) was fitted with a broader chord outer wing, giving a slight double delta effect, to allow wingtip missile rails to be carried. Although there were marginal improvements in directional stability, acceleration and service ceiling, flight tests showed that the fighter's performance was virtually unchanged and so it was decided not to introduce the wingtip rails on production MiG-21s (see Yefim Gordon's MiG-21 book from Midland Counties).

Also, the wingtip missile rail trials were mainly carried out for the benefit of the (then) more important Ye-152 heavy interceptor project and this did carry wingtip rails when built.

[dy031101]

The fun I have in mind is an Su-22, turned into a Mega-Fishbed at some point.  That should be fun.

As of right now, where do you plan to take the nose from?

Someone (I think that is fabe) used to do a series of solid-nose Su-22 profiles.  Those are based on two-seaters though.

Although there were marginal improvements in directional stability, acceleration and service ceiling, flight tests showed that the fighter's performance was virtually unchanged and so it was decided not to introduce the wingtip rails on production MiG-21s (see Yefim Gordon's MiG-21 book from Midland Counties).

Hum..... I found it kind of puzzling that contemporary fighter-interceptors of MiG-21's class were very rarely (if there was any) designed to carry more than two SRAAMs (Sidewinder/Atoll).

An extra MRAAM if possible, but seemingly never more than two SRAAMs.

[gunfighter]

I´m not a fan of fishbeds but this morning, as I was putting some order on my decals box, I found some russian navy markings that could look nice on a Mig-21...it might be too fast for landings, but the A-4 had a similar wing area and worked well on carriers. How about the russians did not give up on building big aircraft carriers on the 60s (instead on concentrating on submarines) and found in need of a fleet defender? the Mig-21K should need some kind of radar guided MRAAMs to cope with american phantoms, of course...

[McGreig]

I found some russian navy markings that could look nice on a Mig-21...it might be too fast for landings, but the A-4 had a similar wing area and worked well on carriers.

You might not need carriers. The photo below of a MiG-21PFM with a Soviet Navy flag marking is in both Yefim Gordon's recent (720 page!) Midland Counties MiG-21 book and his earlier Aerofax MiG-21 title.

In the Midland Counties volume it is captioned as from "a Soviet Navy fighter bomber unit" but in the Aerofax title it is said to be "Red 42" and to be "in dark blue-grey camouflage for evaluation by the A-VMF at Saki, Crimea"

[dy031101]

In the Midland Counties volume it is captioned as from "a Soviet Navy fighter bomber unit" but in the Aerofax title it is said to be "Red 42" and to be "in dark blue-grey camouflage for evaluation by the A-VMF at Saki, Crimea"

For air defense over naval bases?

[gunfighter]

Yes, indeed the polish navy had fishbeds, and the AV-MF had a few fitters as well, all of these land based. But it would be nice to see a series of navalized MIGs over time. Now we have fulcrums, flankers and frogfoots, so why not?

[famvburg]

        I was thinking earlier today about the MiG-21 & the Su-9/11 & the fact that their designs are similar, just different sizes, somewhat like the MiG-29 & Su-27 relation. I was wondering if the two had followed each other more similarly. Like if the MiG-21 had been developed along the lines of the Su-17/20/22 series with swing wings. ISTR there was a swept wing MiG-21 design that would've been a stablemate to the Su-7. How about a Su-9/11 with a nose radome, canards & belly scoop like a bigger MiG Ye-8? I bet MiG's Su-15/21 stablemate would've been basically a Shenyang F-8II. Suppose Sukhoi had developed a Su-9/11 with a MiG-25 engine, as in the MiG Ye-150, or even a twin engined Su-9/11, paralleling MiG's Ye-152, much like an open-nosed Su-15. Maybe I need to add a few more MiG's & Su's to my stash............