Military Review

Can the Russian MiG-21 fighter hold out for 100 years? (The National Interest, USA)

108
Can the Russian MiG-21 fighter hold out for 100 years? (The National Interest, USA)



The MiG-21 became the strongest and most reliable military aircraft in stories.

It is known that the service life of military aircraft is extremely short, especially in periods of rapid technological development. The best aircraft of World War I became outdated literally within a few months. The same can be said about most aircraft of the Second World War. At the dawn of the high-speed century, entire aircraft fleets were written off as obsolete. The newest planes that fought in the skies over Korea just a few years later were written off as obsolete.

Only a few aircraft managed to withstand the test of time. Strategic bomber B-52 "Strathofressress" made its first flight in the 1952 year and is still in service. The new C-130, entered service in the 1954 year, continue to be produced to this day.

But these are all bombers and transport aircraft that do not have to fight with each other. In the case of fighters, the problem of short service life is particularly acute, because they have to directly confront the latest models. That is why fighters rarely live long. The exception to this rule was the MiG-21.

History of creation

The initial test for serviceability of the MiG-21 began in the 1953 year. The successes of the MiG-15 and the MiG-17 indicated that Soviet aerospace engineers were able to compete with their western counterparts, and the MiG-19 became the first Soviet supersonic fighter. However, in the first two decades of jet flight technology changed so quickly that those fighters that were used in the Korean War, by the middle of the 1950-s were already outdated. Aircraft MiG-15 superior B-29, but could not compete with modern American bombers. The Soviet leadership planned that the creation of the MiG-21 would change the situation and help ensure air superiority.

The MiG-21 (according to the NATO Fishbed codification) could have developed a supersonic speed in 2 Mach, was equipped with two air cannons and could carry from two to six missiles. Like most fighters, it was usually used for assault operations, for which he could carry a limited number of bombs and missiles. As was the case with many other fighters, the Soviet military preferred to fly MiG-21 aircraft from the ground, which allowed them to abandon cumbersome and sophisticated radar equipment.

A total of 10645 MiG-21 aircraft were created in the USSR in the period from 1959 to 1985. By agreement with Moscow, India built 657 fighter jets and Czechoslovakia 194. Under rather strange and confusing circumstances, the People's Republic of China acquired a license and a sufficient number of technical documents in order to convert the MiG-21 to Chengdu J-7. In the 1966-2013 years in the People's Republic of China they released about 2400 fighters. To sum up the total number of vehicles, the MiG-21 is the most produced supersonic fighter in history.

Life time

The creators of the MiG-21 tried to deal with a number of major problems, and in the future, developers could not move much further. Modern fighters do not fly much faster than MiG-21, and their maneuverability only slightly exceeds the maneuverability of the Soviet design. Although they are equipped with more powerful artillery guns and more sophisticated electronic equipment, the armed forces of many countries see it as an unnecessary luxury: they just need cheap, fast and easy-to-maintain aircraft that can patrol airspace and occasionally drop several bombs. And the MiG-21 is great for this purpose.

It should be noted that the MiG-21 would not have become a particularly useful aircraft in the West. He has a small radius of action, he can not tolerate much weapons, and there is no place for installation of complex electronic equipment. The shape of his cabin limits the awareness of the pilot. However, the MiG-21 fully satisfied the USSR's need for a fighter-interceptor, which was able to fly and drop bombs over the fronts in Western Europe and from time to time serve as an interceptor.

During the Cold War, the United States received several modifications of the MiG-21 (in the end, they bought the division of Chinese fighter J-7). In general, the American pilots spoke well of the MiG-21, because it showed itself very well in the course of training for actions for a conditional enemy.

MiG-21 in war

MiG-21 aircraft did not have to go through battles on the central front in the war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact countries, but it was repeatedly tested in combat.

In Vietnam, it became clear that the compact and fast MiG-21 is able to use the American rules of warfare to bypass groups of bombers before they can see and take aim. The size and maneuverability of the MiG-21 also allowed it to avoid strikes of air-to-air missiles. After the attack, the MiG-21 rushed to their bases.

An exception to this rule was the incident that occurred on 2 in January 1967, when the F-4 “Phantom” II fighter group, commanded by the legendary pilot Robin Olds, outwitted the Vietnamese command, driving him into a trap. On that day, the Phantoms shot down several MiG-21, including a plane operated by Nguyen Van Coc, who survived and later became the highest-performing ace in Vietnam. This made Nguyen the most successful MiG-21 pilot of all time, although several other Vietnamese and Syrian pilots also received the title of aces, flying the MiG-21.

Aircraft MiG-21 often used in wars in the Middle East. The Israel Defense Forces bombers destroyed Egyptian and Syrian MiG-21 fighters during the first attacks of the Six Day War. The MiG-21 fought Israeli fighters in the war of attrition, the Arab-Israeli war and the war in Lebanon, suffering heavy losses from skilled Israeli pilots. One day, Israeli fighters ambushed and destroyed several MiG-21, controlled by Soviet pilots.

The successes of Western aircraft in their opposition to the MiG-21 in the Middle East, as well as in Angola, led many to conclude that Soviet fighters were inferior to their Western counterparts. However, the factor of the level of pilot training significantly complicates the comparison process. In conditions of an equal level of training, the MiG-21 pilots proved to be more than adequate. For example, the Indian MiG-21 participated in the Indo-Pakistani 1965 war of the year and showed high results in the 1971 war of the year and in the Kargil conflict. They also demonstrated their effectiveness in the war between Iran and Iraq.

Modifications

The number of exploited MiG-21 began to decline at the end of 1980-s and at the beginning of 1990-s, when more modern models began to come in its stead and when the collapse of the Soviet Union led to a sharp decrease in Russia's military power. The satellites of the Soviet Union, too, felt the consequences of this blow and could no longer afford to maintain these aircraft in service. But many countries have retained the MiG-21 and its Chinese counterparts.

Now the Soviet fighter is in service with the air forces of 18 countries, including two NATO member states - Romania and Croatia. Since 1960, the MiG-21 has been in service with armies around 40 countries. Chinese J-7 fighters remain in service in more 13 countries. China, Russia and Ukraine are still carrying out repairs and are engaged in the improvement of existing aircraft. The advent of the 3D era of the press, perhaps, will allow modern owners of the MiG-21 to keep them in service, because they themselves will be able to produce the necessary parts.

Modern MiG-21 are very different from the fighter, which came off the assembly line in 1959 year. They are equipped with completely different, more sophisticated weapon systems, including the PAMN, AAM, Magic 60 and Python III missiles. This makes them much more deadly than their Soviet predecessors. Moreover, they are equipped with more advanced electronic equipment and radar systems, which allows them to carry high-precision guided missiles on board.

Will the MiG-21 remain in service in the 2059 year?

China has stopped production of J-7, which means that we watched the latest version of the MiG-21 roll off the assembly line. Croatia and Romania will be decommissioned by MIG-21 in the next five years. After several accidents, India also sends its MiG-21 to rest (if it succeeds in buying or replacing it on its own). The Chinese J-7 is now used mostly for educational purposes.

However, all this does not mean that the MiG-21 has come to an end. Many modifications of the J-7 still remain in service and still be able to serve for some time. Bangladesh purchased the last batch of J-7 in 2013, and it will not need to replace it soon. The armed forces of many countries simply do not need more complex and expensive aircraft, and the MiG-21 suits them in all respects. Most likely, none of the fighters will be able to overcome the threshold in 100 years (although the B-52 has every chance of that). But the MiG-21 will easily jump over the sixtieth and even the seventieth anniversary since its inception, since it remains one of the most legendary fighters of the supersonic era.

Robert Farley often publishes articles in The National Interest. He is the author of The Battleship Book. Farley teaches at the Patterson School of Diplomacy and International Commerce at the University of Kentucky. His areas of specialization include military doctrine, national security and maritime affairs.
Author:
Originator:
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/could-russias-cold-war-super-jet-last-100-years-16378
108 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. marshes
    marshes 12 June 2016 21: 31
    +1
    Well, we had pretty smart storage conditions and we refused.
    23 and 29 are still of interest.
    So about the article, it seems that the life of the F-4, a flying iron, is lobbying.
    1. carp
      carp 12 June 2016 22: 58
      +34
      You don't read much VO materials, otherwise you would know that on VO the term "flying iron" is reserved for the F-35, it's "sucks", it's "cut the dough"))))
      1. marshes
        marshes 12 June 2016 23: 04
        -1
        Quote: carpag
        You don't read much VO materials, otherwise you would know that on VO the term "flying iron" is reserved for the F-35, it's "sucks", it's "cut the dough"))))

        Well, thats seriously the F-4 iron recall of Vietnam veterans.
        I also watched about F-15, and it seems, science is in English-speaking improvisation. It is not painful to lodge in English, there is no one to communicate with. smile
        1. severyanin
          severyanin 12 June 2016 23: 49
          +17
          Quote: marshes
          Well, thats seriously the F-4 iron recall of Vietnam veterans.
          I also watched about F-15, and it seems, science is in English-speaking improvisation. It is not painful to lodge in English, there is no one to communicate with.

          No offense, but you are not strong in Russian :))) hi
        2. carp
          carp 13 June 2016 00: 27
          -57%
          F-4 is for me the most beautiful and romantic plane. Like American cars of the 50-60s. And in Vietnam and the Middle East, he completely surpassed the MIG-21
          1. Papandopulo
            Papandopulo 13 June 2016 01: 16
            +8
            thickly on holiday troll, now they will catch up to explain that you are wrong
          2. NEXUS
            NEXUS 13 June 2016 08: 51
            +18
            Quote: carpag
            F-4 is for me the most beautiful and romantic plane. Like American cars of the 50-60s. And in Vietnam and the Middle East, he completely surpassed the MIG-21

            Dear, what was the ratio of downed Phantoms against 21 in Vietnam? According to some reports, for one downed MIG-21 there were two destroyed Phantoms.
            In 1966 alone, the United States lost 47 aircraft in battle, while only 12 fighter aircraft were missing from the Vietnamese air force. The Americans were forced to recognize the superiority of Soviet aircraft in many ways, such as, for example, the angular speed of a turn, as well as operational overload. In general, the handling of the Mig-21 was better. In addition, it turned out that the Phantoms tend to fall into a flat corkscrew, which was almost impossible to get out of. Only because of this, by 1971, Americans lost about 80 Phantoms.
            There is evidence that from 1965 to 1968 years, 268 American and 244 Vietnamese aircraft were shot down in 85 air battles over Vietnam. Subsequently, the aerial duels continued, but not so intensively. The United States resumed massive raids in 1971, when battles were fought with varying success.

            In 1972, in two hundred fights, the MiGs again won the advantage. The Americans lost 90 cars, the Vietnamese - 54. In general, the Phantoms lost the battle with Soviet fighters, losing cars in a 2 to 1 ratio.

            Do not confuse the MIG-21 with the MIG-17.
          3. svp67
            svp67 13 June 2016 09: 04
            +15
            Quote: carpag
            And in Vietnam and the Middle East, he completely surpassed the MIG-21

            Looking at what? In the task of delivering a "bunch of exploding iron" to the battlefield and pouring it onto the enemy's heads, the "Phantom" really has no equal, but I think that you perfectly understand that to use "something like that" from poorly equipped and short airfields, which used by the Vietnamese, they could not. For them, MiGs were the most suitable aircraft. And the physical training of American pilots, especially their resistance to overload, was higher than that of their Vietnamese visas-a-vi. Nevertheless, the victory in that war did not remain with the Americans. And at the expense of the Middle East, since this region was specially created for the F-4, and most importantly, the higher organization and training of the Israeli Air Force, I can argue that if Israel operated MiGs, and the Arabs were F-4, then the result of the war would have been early behind Israel
          4. Prisoner
            Prisoner 13 June 2016 09: 11
            +1
            Trying to be holier than dad? laughing Americans don’t think so, those who understand the issue. laughing
          5. sivuch
            sivuch 13 June 2016 09: 37
            +3
            You can’t argue with romance.
            The rest is a very controversial statement. If you discard the policy and try to compare only the technical side, you get an article several times larger than this
          6. GSH-18
            GSH-18 13 June 2016 22: 03
            +2
            Quote: carpag
            And in Vietnam and the Middle East, he completely surpassed the MIG-21

            Well, yes, if you take for granted the tales of American propaganda! And do not pay attention to the fact that the Americans in Vietnam then kicked ass! lol
          7. 76SSSR
            76SSSR 14 June 2016 12: 43
            +3
            Quote: carpag
            F-4 - for me the most beautiful and romantic

            No, the most beautiful and romantic moment is a burning merkava against the sunset ...
          8. wow
            wow 14 June 2016 17: 04
            0
            Yeah, wait a minute !!!
          9. Altona
            Altona 15 June 2016 10: 00
            +1
            Quote: carpag
            F-4 is for me the most beautiful and romantic plane. Like American cars of the 50-60s. And in Vietnam and the Middle East, he completely surpassed the MIG-21

            ---------------------
            How strange it is to compare a high-speed attack aircraft and a fighter. It's even stranger about "romance". Predatory nose, sloping wings, lowered rear plumage. Pure stormtrooper. However, the taste and color of the markers are different.
          10. COJIDAT
            COJIDAT 15 June 2016 10: 38
            0
            A phantom is a beautiful aircraft, but I also really like 21 MiGs, it's hard to argue about what you are considering from a technical and aesthetic point of view. But, in the sense of combat effectiveness - everything has been shown by history!
      2. 73bor
        73bor 13 June 2016 00: 21
        +7
        The author, in my opinion, is mistaken, from the "balalaika" bomber at that time is even worse than from the MiG-15, this is a pure fighter, although there are modifications "scout" and "interceptor" - (without cannon armament), they made it a bomber at the same time, they simply reduced The air regiments were pushing the ground missions to the fighters, on which they worked, by the strength of their capabilities, very badly!
      3. The comment was deleted.
      4. Simpsonian
        Simpsonian 13 June 2016 06: 13
        +8
        And you'd better listen to the American Pierre Spray - the MiG-21 will bring down the F-35 in close combat, and before that it will catch up.
      5. user1212
        user1212 13 June 2016 08: 02
        +8
        Quote: carpag
        ermin "flying iron" booked for F-35

        This is a "golden iron". A "flying iron" - f 117 laughing
      6. svp67
        svp67 13 June 2016 09: 00
        +2
        Quote: carpag
        that on VO the term "flying iron" is reserved for the F-35, aka "sucks", aka "sawing the dough"))))

        Didn't you know that this is their "middle name"? That is to say TRADITION.
        1. Simpsonian
          Simpsonian 14 June 2016 00: 24
          +2
          It’s like a penguin.

          Quote: svp67

          They are equipped with completely different, more sophisticated weapon systems, including R-60 AAM, Magic 2, and Python III missiles.

          Lobbying Israeli Modernization Orders

          The 3-D seal smiled.
        2. The comment was deleted.
      7. Altona
        Altona 15 June 2016 09: 54
        0
        Quote: carpag
        You don't read much VO materials, otherwise you would know that on VO the term "flying iron" is reserved for the F-35, it's "sucks", it's "cut the dough"))))

        --------------------
        He's a "flying penguin". fellow
    2. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 12 June 2016 23: 42
      +23
      "lobbying the life of the F-4, the flying iron." ////

      It’s for nothing that you ran into Phantom in vain - in Israel he was very loved.
      When they were written off, there was "Yaroslavna's cry" crying in the air force.
      We used it as a bomber. He had high engine thrust
      and outstanding payload - took bombs more than its own weight.
      Phantom or should be used as a high-altitude fighter, or as a bomber.
      Something in the middle is not good. If he is with bombs, he must be covered with lungs.
      fighters - he himself will not be beaten off. The Americans in Vietnam ran into this -
      Phantoms sent for bombing without cover. And the MiG-21s clicked them like nuts.
      1. carp
        carp 13 June 2016 00: 30
        -58%
        Voyaka, Read less Soviet sources. The ratio of losses in air battles in Vietnam was about the same as in the Middle East
        1. 33 Watcher
          33 Watcher 13 June 2016 02: 20
          +24
          Quote: carpag
          Voyaka, Read less Soviet sources. The ratio of losses in air battles in Vietnam was about the same as in the Middle East

          Well, of course..! I forgot about "technical backwardness" and "throwing corpses."
          Well, read American sources ... request Just for God's sake, don’t read the Israeli ones; laughing
        2. activator
          activator 13 June 2016 09: 14
          +7
          Quote: carpag
          Voyaka, Read less Soviet sources. The ratio of losses in air battles in Vietnam was about the same as in the Middle East

          From the American side only yes read about the losses somehow sympathized crying And the video when helicopters were dropped into the water from ships is not a retreat, it is an escape.
        3. AllXVahhaB
          AllXVahhaB 14 June 2016 14: 27
          0
          Quote: carpag
          Voyaka, Read less Soviet sources. The ratio of losses in air battles in Vietnam was about the same as in the Middle East

          Give your sources.
      2. Alex_59
        Alex_59 13 June 2016 00: 36
        +20
        Quote: voyaka uh
        It’s for nothing that you ran into Phantom in vain - in Israel he was very loved.

        Well, you are an old-timer on the site - it’s easy to mock American equipment on the verge of being childish :-) Phantom is an excellent plane, no worse than the MiG-21. It's just that these are different approaches to the fighter. And both approaches are correct. Double heavy long-range interceptor, and a small nimble single-seat front-line fighter. And in Vietnam, the Americans lost not so much because the MiG is good and the Phantom is bad, but because of the most serious tactical and strategic mistakes. There are many unsuccessful airplanes in the US, but the F-4 does not apply to them.
        Quote: voyaka uh
        And the MiG-21 clicked them like nuts.

        Well, if to be completely fair, how nuts they clicked mainly C-75. And the MiG-17. And then the MiG-21. There were not so many 21's in Vietnam.
        1. Simpsonian
          Simpsonian 13 June 2016 05: 16
          +6
          Quote: Alex_59
          It's just that these are different approaches to the fighter.

          It's just that the Phantom is not a fighter. F-4 could withstand the MiG-21 only together with the Mirage (in the Bl.Vostok) or with the Cruzader (in Vietnam), since it was a heavy deck interceptor to protect against the Tu-16.
          MiG-21s in large quantities were not delivered to Vietnam to prevent them from hitting the AUG - it was unrealistic to do this on subsonic MiG-17s. In order to exclude a breakthrough to the warrant, the Americans were forced to constantly keep in the air with AB (100 flights per day) and Danang (2600 flights per day) three times more supersonic aircraft than Vietnam had the MiG-21. Because if the NAR fan gets into the deck of AB, it’s done to McCain ...
          1. GSH-18
            GSH-18 13 June 2016 22: 19
            +4
            Quote: Simpsonian
            Because if the NAR fan gets into the deck of AB, it’s wondered to McCain ...

            Why such difficulties? One McCain successfully replaces this "fan"! Proven by McCain on Aircraft Carrier Forrestal lol
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 15 June 2016 12: 25
              +1
              Quote: GSH-18
              Why such difficulties? One McCain successfully replaces this "fan"! Proven by McCain on Aircraft Carrier Forrestal

              Actually, that would not be McCain.

              McCain flew the Skyhawk. And the NAR "Zuni", who had brewed all the mess, left the "Phantom" standing on the other side of the deck. And they hit Fred White's Skyhawk next to McCain's car. The NAR fuses did not work (because of the short range they did not manage to remove the fuse), but the PTB was torn off by a blow. And the spilled fuel was set on fire by the NAR engines. The rest of the Skyhawk's PTBs burst out of heat and added fuel to the fire. Also, 2 bombs unhooked from the NAR strike from White's plane and fell into the fire.

              If these bombs were equipped with a mixture of a new sample, everything would have been all right (the new filling did not detonate, but simply melted and burned). But the day before the fire, AB took on board 16-kg bombs filled with the old model. The gunsmiths of AB were shocked by the "present": rusty hulls, a current phlegmatizer (which indicated the decomposition of explosives), and 454 was stamped on the packaging of some bombs.
              It was later established that the bombs had been stored outdoors in the tropics for some time. Moreover, the head of the supply service at the Subic Bay base, having learned that the one who came for the TR bombs would take them to AB, without a certified order "from above" refused to release the TR and sign the loading documents - "I’m not going to sit, there’s nothing of me and my people to make scapegoats".
              But the bombs did hit AB - and after examining them, it was decided to use them as soon as possible. They were not even lowered into the cellars, fearing that they would explode right there (gunsmiths generally feared that the old bombs might explode when ejected). In addition, there were practically no "new" 454-kg bombs on AB, and no one removed combat missions from AB. So the next day, these "oldies" were hung under the planes.

              And it was these old bombs that started roasting in the burning fuel. The team members who were trying to get out of the cockpits and the leading BZZh did not have any 10 minutes. The first bomb detonated within 1 minute and 36 seconds after the start of the fire, mowing out Damage Control Team No. 8, breaking through the fuel tanks of nearby aircraft and scattering burning fuel across the deck. And then there was a chain reaction of burning aircraft and exploding bombs. In total, 8 old 454-kg bombs (half of those accepted the previous day) and one new 227-kg bombs exploded on the deck, detonated from a nearby explosion. It is significant that this was the only "new" bomb that exploded - the rest simply burned out.

              And McCain ... McCain miraculously managed to get out of his Skyhawk, which was standing next to a burning puddle of fuel (with bombs lying in it) before the expiration of 1 minute and 36 seconds. smile
              1. Simpsonian
                Simpsonian 15 June 2016 12: 46
                0
                that is, there was something to burn ...

                Quote: Alexey RA
                And McCain ... McCain miraculously managed to get out of his Skyhawk, standing next to a burning puddle of fuel (with bombs lying in it) before the expiration of 1 minute and 36 seconds

                I thought for a long time ... and it was before or after he was recruited in Vietnamese captivity? lol
                1. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 15 June 2016 16: 22
                  +1
                  Quote: Simpsonian
                  I thought for a long time ...

                  No, he realized quickly. It’s just not so simple: on your own, without the help of technicians, to get out of the cockpit of a jet attack aircraft, under which fire is blazing.
                  McCain showed the miracles of balancing act, having managed to not only leave the cockpit before the start of the explosions, but in all equipment crawl out of the fire zone along the nose cone of his "skyhawk" (and then run away).
                  1. Simpsonian
                    Simpsonian 16 June 2016 09: 59
                    0
                    tin, it was probably lifted into the cabin by a winch or equipped right there ...

                    and a skyhawk with a length of 150m, such a story just as McCain could have come up with, for some reason
                  2. Simpsonian
                    Simpsonian 16 June 2016 09: 59
                    0
                    tin, it was probably lifted into the cabin by a winch or equipped right there ...

                    and a skyhawk with a length of 150m, such a story just as McCain could have come up with, for some reason
        2. creak
          creak 13 June 2016 10: 42
          +6
          Quote: Alex_59
          Phantom is an excellent aircraft, no worse than the MiG-21

          Both the Phantom and the MiG-21 are decent cars, each in its class.
          However, I would like to note that the MiG-21 was originally conceived as a high-altitude high-speed interceptor, primarily for the country's air defense with its specific tasks and performance characteristics.
          For example, the MiG-21EF originally delivered to India was carrying only two air-to-air missiles without cannon armament, which appeared on later versions ...
          Therefore, comparing the Phantom is simply incorrect - they are just different machines.
          Quote: Alex_59
          Well, if to be completely fair, how nuts they snapped mainly S-75

          To be fair, the C-75 Phantoms like nuts didn’t click and click, unfortunately, couldn’t ...
          One of the undoubted advantages of the American machine, in addition to a solid bomb load, was the ability to act at low and high heights, literally on the tops of trees ...
          C-75 systems at such heights could not work (they were created to combat high-altitude targets) with all the sad consequences arising from this ... For successful counteraction, more modern complexes were required (but this is a completely different story) ...
          I know this from personal experience and have the dubious pleasure of knowing what BShU inflicted by the Phantoms is, I experienced this during a special mission to the Middle East ...
          Therefore, kvas patriotism is inappropriate here - the Phantom for its time was a very modern, serious weapon, just like the MiG and they deservedly occupy their place in the history of aviation ...
      3. Simpsonian
        Simpsonian 13 June 2016 06: 11
        +2
        You can cram so many bombs because it is a deck aircraft with a large wing area for low landing speed on an aircraft carrier.

        The F-4 has a turn radius of 3 times that of the MiG-21 or Mirage.
      4. sivuch
        sivuch 13 June 2016 09: 31
        +2
        BN - more than 7 tons with an incomplete refueling. This is not more than its own weight, but for a fighter - a lot
    3. iliitchitch
      iliitchitch 13 June 2016 00: 03
      +2
      Quote: marshes
      So about the article, it seems that the life of the F-4, a flying iron, is lobbying.


      Yes, they have those f-4s that shoe polish is hidden in the shoe polish factory for conservation. Very much, they are preparing for losses. Mig-21 are already afraid. Diarrhea, not otherwise. Mezim, it is irreplaceable (this is not an advertisement).
      1. Simpsonian
        Simpsonian 13 June 2016 05: 18
        +1
        This is an advertisement. wink That is, who will fly the pilots in this junk or from Iran?
        1. Berkut752
          Berkut752 13 June 2016 13: 07
          +2
          In 2015, Finland made a modernization (in Russia) that they have in service with
          MiG 21.
          1. Simpsonian
            Simpsonian 13 June 2016 21: 42
            0
            So it makes sense.

            It was about the F-4, so far Iran, Greece, Japan, South Korea, and Turkey have them.
          2. zyablik.olga
            zyablik.olga 14 June 2016 03: 51
            +2
            Quote: Berkut752
            In 2015, Finland made a modernization (in Russia) that they have in service with
            MiG 21.

            Really? No. A reference can? In general, write nonsense, Finns have long replaced their MiG-21bis with F-18.
    4. Bongo
      Bongo 13 June 2016 02: 52
      +5
      Quote: marshes
      So about the article, it seems that the life of the F-4, a flying iron, is lobbying.

      There are practically no F-4 "flying irons" left in the USA. The last operational aircraft of this type, stored at Davis Montan, have been converted into QF-4 radio-controlled targets.

      If necessary, these same machines can be used as shock UAVs and carry anti-radar missiles.
      McDonnell-Douglas F-4 Phantom II "The Leaving Legend"
      1. Basarev
        Basarev 13 June 2016 18: 54
        -2
        Quote: Bongo
        BN - more than 7 tons with an incomplete refueling. This is not more than its own weight, but for a fighter - a lot

        Suffice it to say that our fighters still have not even come close to this value. The Su-34 lifts 8 tons, but it is a front-line bomber, but fighters, even the heaviest ones, are not able to cross even the six-ton ​​threshold. So in this regard, the Americans have given us.
  2. pan.70
    pan.70 12 June 2016 21: 32
    +9
    Previously, technology was worse, but people worked with full dedication. Such aircraft still fly in some countries. Glory to designers, engineers and ordinary workers!
    1. yushch
      yushch 12 June 2016 23: 44
      +6
      Quote: pan.70
      Previously, technology was worse, but people worked with full dedication. Such aircraft still fly in some countries. Glory to designers, engineers and ordinary workers!


      Mig21 is also called the "flying Kalashnikov assault rifle".
  3. ALABAY45
    ALABAY45 12 June 2016 21: 34
    +4
    "Most likely, no fighter will be able to overcome the 100-year threshold (although the B-52 has every chance of doing so)"
    Inaccuracy of translation or ignorance of the author?! Although: school of diplomacy and international trade ... It is worth trusting ... Probably ... repeat
  4. Tusv
    Tusv 12 June 2016 21: 35
    +6
    The article is great, But! "The MiG-15 aircraft were superior to the B-29, but could no longer compete with modern American bombers" this is somehow absolutely not true
    1. marshes
      marshes 12 June 2016 21: 48
      +6
      Quote: Tusv
      The article is great, But! "The MiG-15 aircraft were superior to the B-29

      How can I compare a fighter with a bomber? 15 only with the old-fashioned jumper, you can compare the F-80. Or Sabarami. F-86A /
      1. Tusv
        Tusv 12 June 2016 23: 23
        +2
        Quote: marshes
        How can you compare a fighter with a bomber?

        About Tom and Speech
    2. Simpsonian
      Simpsonian 13 June 2016 05: 24
      -1
      The B-29 was a piston aircraft and was 15-1,5 times inferior to the MiG-2 in speed. Search the "hot skies of the cold war". It was reliably protected from American jet bombers only by the Su-9/11 interceptor.
      In 1954, over the Kola Peninsula, an entire MiG-15 regiment chased a high-speed and high-altitude jet B-47 and could not get it. Then the Americans started shooting at them. Then do group flights over Soviet cities.
      1. lazy
        lazy 13 June 2016 07: 35
        0
        what Soviet flights were group flights over?
        1. Simpsonian
          Simpsonian 13 June 2016 08: 58
          +1
          Over Kiev for example. Once, like that, immediately above three. And this khrushch at that time continued without even having a missile launcher to shoot them down to cut aviation ...
          1. Simpsonian
            Simpsonian 13 June 2016 09: 05
            +3
            Later, with their appearance, the low-speed U-2 began to climb to an even greater height, and fly around the air defense system batteries. Prior to this, the transonic RB-47s quietly flew even over the European part, and the entire sky over Siberia was closed only with the Su-9 and Tu-126.

            That is why when Powers was shot down it was such a big celebration - they finally got the "American".
            1. Simpsonian
              Simpsonian 13 June 2016 09: 22
              +2
              ... and even captured.

              Before that, in the Second World War, they also tried to fly wherever they want "because they are so strong" and "you still cannot prevent this" ... They have such an international American law - they only understand strength ... This is ... , Didn't you know about it ?! They even tried it when they tried to bomb on Soviet troops or attack airfields in the Far East and the Balkans. Well, "explained" to them, just like later in Korea.
              And then from 1954 they began to recoup for it using the fact that they made khrushchk and the fact that the Soviet engines had problems with the blades of the WFD.

              Then there was the Cuban crisis with the blockade yet ...
              After Vietnam, they sat quietly for 10 years until they "trained on cats" in Grenada in 1983, the British began to fight after the Argentines in 1982, they had to strict both, and then when the USSR began to pull ahead, the "speckled" came ...

              After Powers, the American prezik Eisenhower said that, as it were, we wouldn’t fly in again, that is, before that, it would have been ... “all the same” about the sovereignty of the USSR over its airspace. But at this time the satellites were already flying ...

              The "ambiguities" with "Kursk" in the light of all this behavior are not so ambiguous ...


            2. The comment was deleted.
  5. Observer2014
    Observer2014 12 June 2016 21: 45
    +9
    Put in advanced equipment in MIG21. And you will be happy! Incredibly cheap, fast, efficient, mass aircraft. soldier
    1. marshes
      marshes 12 June 2016 21: 56
      -4
      Quote: Observer2014
      Put in advanced equipment in MIG21. And you will be happy! Incredibly cheap, fast, efficient, mass aircraft.

      Chinese shock UAV, 500 tons of dead raccoons worth. smile 21 from 3 lyamov ..., until the 2000s. smile Now, like scrap. 23 There is even more interest. 27 without talking.
    2. SSR
      SSR 12 June 2016 22: 26
      +5
      Quote: Observer2014
      Put in advanced equipment in MIG21. And you will be happy! Incredibly cheap, fast, efficient, mass aircraft. soldier

      + As they said about it Pipe with an engine .. new engine, new avionics, new RADAR and this aircraft will easily occupy the niche of light fighters, just its concept is as EFFICIENT as possible and there is a lack of new technologies. (on the latter they put something like "spear" and this is only one element).
      1. RedBaron
        RedBaron 12 June 2016 22: 37
        +2
        Quote: SSR
        Quote: Observer2014
        Put in advanced equipment in MIG21. And you will be happy! Incredibly cheap, fast, efficient, mass aircraft. soldier

        + As they said about it Pipe with an engine .. new engine, new avionics, new RADAR and this aircraft will easily occupy the niche of light fighters, just its concept is as EFFICIENT as possible and there is a lack of new technologies. (on the latter they put something like "spear" and this is only one element).

        New engine, new avionics, new weapons, new software, and at a cost it will surpass the Mig-35 fellow and also considering the natural aging of the metal ....
    3. KVIRTU
      KVIRTU 12 June 2016 22: 47
      +4
      "the most massive supersonic fighter in the world"
    4. samoletil18
      samoletil18 12 June 2016 23: 37
      0
      You are there a decent radar try to place. And the Papuans drive there are cheaper and more effective means. UAV or Brazilian toucan, for example.
      1. Vadivak
        Vadivak 13 June 2016 00: 11
        +11
        Quote: samoletil18
        You are there a decent radar try to place. And the Papuans drive there are cheaper and more effective means.

        MiG-21-93 is equipped with a multifunctional coherent pulse-Lopler radar "Kopyo" with a phased antenna array, a number of foreign-made systems. The armament includes a GSh-23 double-barreled cannon, R-27R1 (T1), R-60, R-73, R-77, Kh-25MP, Kh-31A (P) missiles, NAR blocks, KAB-500Kr corrected bombs. The service life of the glider has been increased to 40 years. The use of a radio-absorbing glider coating is provided.
        The MiG-21-93 can destroy air targets day and night, in free space and against the background of the earth, in medium lalinity and in close combat, when attacking the front and rear hemispheres of a target, in conditions of organized radio interference at altitudes of 30-22000 m, flying at a speed of 1600-2300 km / h, as well as helicopters; hit airfields, ground structures, bridges, ships, existing ground and ship radars and air defense systems. At the same time, the combat effectiveness of the aircraft was increased by 8 times for air targets and 3 times for ground targets. A program for the modernization of early-flight MiG-21 fighters in the MiG-21-98 was developed.
        In 2000, the first 2 modernized MiG-21-93 aircraft were delivered to India. The rest 123 will be modernized by Hindustan Aeronotics in the city of Nasik, where sets of equipment are supplied from Russia.
  6. Arktidianets
    Arktidianets 12 June 2016 21: 46
    +5
    Some kind of confusion, not an article
  7. avvg
    avvg 12 June 2016 21: 48
    +1
    We must pay tribute to the designers that Mig is a "piece goods" with a capital letter, it's like a military "Stradivarius violin".
    1. mervino2007
      mervino2007 12 June 2016 21: 59
      +3
      How is it piecewise? This is a machch. Look how much they let out ...
  8. Wild Hunt
    Wild Hunt 12 June 2016 21: 55
    -2
    the most reliable military aircraft in history ?? belay
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 13 June 2016 10: 04
      +3
      By the way - single-engine!
      It’s about that for reliability two
      motor. MiG-21 showed that this is not so.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  9. atamankko
    atamankko 12 June 2016 21: 59
    +5
    The pilots spoke about the MiG-21 always with great respect.
  10. Thunderbolt
    Thunderbolt 12 June 2016 22: 06
    +12
    The MiG-21 has served its purpose, and although some air forces still use them, we are not Bangladesh. We can, but we must have aircraft capable of successfully confronting the most modern and sophisticated enemy. Just a good memory of this Soviet miracle and a bright memory who fought on it.
    1. Yuri Y.
      Yuri Y. 12 June 2016 23: 00
      +1
      Don’t say that, but he said his word (well, naturally, of a designer).
  11. marshes
    marshes 12 June 2016 22: 08
    +1
    Well, at work, the smell of kerosene, now I’ll go to the radar who writes circles there and dumps kerosene.
    1. marshes
      marshes 12 June 2016 22: 13
      +2
      Quote: marshes
      Well, at work, the smell of kerosene, now I’ll go to the radar who writes circles there and dumps kerosene.

      KLMvskiy sat, Busik 330 Amstdam-Almaty.
      Where does kerosene stink so laughing
      1. Papandopulo
        Papandopulo 13 June 2016 01: 20
        -4
        What could be causing problems with English at such a job?
      2. KOMA
        KOMA 15 June 2016 17: 02
        +1
        Neighbors kirogaz stoker, kuyrdak will fry!
        1. Simpsonian
          Simpsonian 16 June 2016 10: 01
          +1
          if you don’t cook ...
  12. Yak28
    Yak28 12 June 2016 22: 09
    +3
    The speed and ceiling of the MiG-21 are almost like that of modern fighters, it remains to cram modern electronics and the weapon system into it. The thrust-weight ratio of the MiG-21 is certainly small but there is enough modern air-to-air missiles for it. But the question is that the MiG-21 who doesn’t produce, and that means he will not reach 2059, and even the more modern and once massive MiG-23 as well as the MiG-21 are also in the past recourse
    1. marshes
      marshes 12 June 2016 22: 15
      -3
      Quote: Yak28
      T. But the question is that no one is producing the MiG-21

      Where is the main thing to find engines, what rubbish to go through?
      1. PCF
        PCF 13 June 2016 01: 58
        +1
        P25 - 300 Turbojet engine with afterburner

        http://www.umpo.ru/Good27_16_6.aspx

        Negotiate yourself bully
    2. Berkut24
      Berkut24 12 June 2016 23: 59
      0
      Believe me, there’s nowhere to shove. If there were somewhere, they would cram fuel. Under the wings, containers with equipment are also not particularly hung up - then you will have to reduce the combat load. I saw the last flights of these vehicles in Akhtubinsk - they depicted a potential enemy at our training ground. The plane is objectively small compared to modern cars. As a combat aircraft, he outlived his own.
      1. Revolver
        Revolver 13 June 2016 01: 03
        +3
        Quote: Berkut24
        The plane is objectively small compared to modern cars.

        Then everyone did it. I saw him next to the Israeli Kfir on the deck of the USS Intrepid, the size difference is small. And some American carrier-based fighters of those times, also about the same size. Phantom F-4 of course more, but then he heavy fighter.
        1. Simpsonian
          Simpsonian 13 June 2016 06: 03
          +2
          He is not a fighter, it is a Navy carrier-based interceptor (primary destination) or a carrier-based bomber.
          Its aerodrome counterpart in the USSR was a pair of Su-7 (IS) and Su-9/11 (interceptor) aircraft, which differed only in wing.
          MiG-21 was exterminated.
          Su-9s were not delivered to Vietnam; Su-7s were delivered to Egypt, but without radar, and without guided missiles.

          The Chinese were sold a license only for the MiG-19, their J-7 is "reverse engineering" of the MiG-21 and there are many discrepancies.
        2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Revolver
      Revolver 13 June 2016 00: 57
      +2
      Quote: Yak28
      The speed and ceiling of the MiG-21 is almost like that of modern fighters, it remains to cram modern electronics and an arms system into it.

      And where to? There will be another exercise in cramming the uncanny. Our Soviet engineers were able to lick the structure so that only the necessary and nichrome were left on top.
  13. Vladimir 1964
    Vladimir 1964 12 June 2016 22: 14
    +5
    For the Western author, the article is quite positive, and most importantly, completely consistent with reality. I am proud of my pioneering childhood and Komsomol youth, which in my country, the USSR, created similar weapons. True, then there was no such level of corruption, and EDRA, which created it, was not there either. soldier
    1. KBR109
      KBR109 12 June 2016 22: 28
      +2
      Right. Correction - SOVIET fighter MIG-21. And then over the UKRAINIAN Mriya neigh, and then ...
  14. marshes
    marshes 12 June 2016 22: 35
    0
    At the expense of MIG 21, who are scamming us, they have not been on the storage bases for a long time and there are also engines. Mig-23 is not there and 27 is not, 29 half rotted. We went through the bases ...
    Repair in 23,27 was still done in Ukraine. And also 29.
    Krani 21 went to the DPRK and before the NATO strike on Serbia they sent something, 6 cars slowed down in Baku, at the height of the bombing.
    In this case, 21 is scrap metal, 27 is of keen interest.
    29, rot better than 27 from dry.
  15. bald
    bald 12 June 2016 22: 43
    +3
    Here comes the 22nd century, then MIG-22 will come to replace it. So it's too early to write it off! smile
    1. samoletil18
      samoletil18 12 June 2016 23: 43
      +2
      The Americans are filming the sequel TopGan. Who will fly instead of the MiG-28? I'm afraid the MiG-32.
  16. maksim
    maksim 12 June 2016 22: 51
    0
    Iron not killed, flies and rumbles, then it lives and works !!!
  17. Oprychnik
    Oprychnik 12 June 2016 23: 19
    +8
    Pretty boy! This one can!
  18. hunt1
    hunt1 12 June 2016 23: 59
    +5
    fu-35 is not and is not yet expected so this article, as I understand it, is intended to convey one thought to the taxpayer: you see, fighter jets fly for 60 years too, so there’s no reason to worry about f-14-15-16-18 in reserve for another 30 years bully
  19. iouris
    iouris 13 June 2016 00: 31
    0
    You need to understand that a country that is still using the MiG-21 is a third world country or believes that it has very strong friends.
    1. Papandopulo
      Papandopulo 13 June 2016 01: 32
      +1
      Hindus used in joint mixed exercises with the Americans as aircraft carriers of electronic warfare containers, in which star-striped once again did not overpower them.
  20. AlexTarov
    AlexTarov 13 June 2016 03: 05
    +3
    MiG-21 Soviet fighter, not Russian.
  21. Mentat
    Mentat 13 June 2016 05: 42
    +3
    Quote: carpag
    F-4 is for me the most beautiful and romantic plane. Like American cars of the 50-60s. And in Vietnam and the Middle East, he completely surpassed the MIG-21

    It’s clear how not to blurt out such a thing, because the USA no longer exploits them, and Israel keeps this ancient flying fossil in storage, so urgently you need to convince yourself that he was superior somewhere (by head, be sure )

    A fact for you, for the head: the effectiveness of the use of air-to-air missiles during the Vietnam War was 4 times that of the F-3, three timeslower than the MIG-21!

    Well, such an epic trolling and demonstration of superiority, when the Vietnamese ace on the MIG-21 came out ONE against Thirty SIX F-4, shot down the wing commander and leftAmericans could not afford. They had to practice tactics of battles against the MIG-21.

    So something is wrong in your head.
  22. Mentat
    Mentat 13 June 2016 06: 04
    +1
    MIG-21 and F-4 devices are about the same level of technical excellence, successful models of their time with their bright pros and cons.
    No need to shove your youthful fantasies about the superiority of US technology here on the forum. This is not a "echo of Moscow" dump.
    1. Stas157
      Stas157 13 June 2016 14: 05
      +2
      Quote: Mentat
      MIG-21 and F-4 devices are about the same level of technical excellence, successful models of their time with their bright pros and cons.
      No need to shove your youthful fantasies about the superiority of US technology here on the forum. This is not a "echo of Moscow" dump.

      There is a significant difference between the cheap and not fancy Mig-21 and the capricious and expensive F-4. This is the price of the service. Serving and preparing for the flight personnel and materials needed many times more on the F-4 than on the MiG-21. This explains why private aviation enthusiasts have a lot in possession of the Mig-21 and the almost complete absence of the F-4. F-4 to maintain and maintain a private trader is too much for you!
      Another moment, for example, in those distant times, a protracted war between the USSR and the USA, cheap Mig-21 could be riveted many times more than expensive American fighters!
  23. cergey51046
    cergey51046 13 June 2016 06: 11
    0
    Than the gossips to consider, to work, is not it better to turn the gouge on yourself. You can’t achieve this.
  24. avg-mgn
    avg-mgn 13 June 2016 07: 39
    +1
    You can argue for a long time, but so many monuments like 21mu not a single plane in the world! in the photo is Cuba. And here is an interesting link:
    http://www.airforce.ru/content/5-pamyatniki-mig-21/

    The car is an honored veteran !!!
  25. avg-mgn
    avg-mgn 13 June 2016 07: 47
    -1
    Quote: AlexTarov
    MiG-21 Soviet fighter, not Russian.

    In your opinion it turns out that an exact copy of the Mig-21 - Chengdu J-7 pure chinese?
    Following your logic, there is no USA either, just because Columbus was not an American ...
  26. Barakuda
    Barakuda 13 June 2016 07: 55
    +1
    But about the Su-7 and its modifications, undeservedly forgotten. sad The control boosters were completely different, but a lot of things .. which is now the norm. And the Sukhoi Design Bureau has set world records many times, with a cocked hat and variable geometry ..
    1. svp67
      svp67 13 June 2016 09: 11
      +1
      Quote: Barracuda
      But about the Su-7 and its modifications, undeservedly forgotten.

      But somehow this plane has always been "in the shadow" of the glory of the MiG21. Also, MiG27, Su17 and Su22 are not deservedly "forgotten".
  27. svp67
    svp67 13 June 2016 09: 09
    0
    Will the Russian MiG-21 fighter survive for 100 years?
    Why not? The main thing is that it would turn out to be necessary for someone.
  28. midshipman
    midshipman 13 June 2016 09: 26
    +4
    The MiG-21 for NII-33 (VNIIRA) began the era of the creation of radio navigation and landing systems. On this plane, I, as the Chief Designer, worked out an automatic landing until the landing. They created a system and adopted the USSR and all the Warsaw Pact countries. On-board equipment of this system RSBN-6C is still mass-produced at the Kazan plant. In 1972, this aircraft successfully guaranteed the takeoffs and landing of the MiG25RB in Egypt. G.S. interned on this plane Titov, I have repeatedly signed flight tasks for military unit 15650. So we became friends. For the African continent, where more than 2500 MiG-21s were in service, Israel won the competition for the modernization of on-board radio electronics. NII-33 lost in the competition, thanks to Gorbachev. The plane was beautiful. Syrian Air Force and is currently working on it. I have the honor.
    1. iouris
      iouris 13 June 2016 11: 46
      0
      Dear Midshipman, I will allow myself a few remarks.
      A "truncated" version of the RSBN-21s was installed on the MiG-6, and the MiG-21 pilots experienced "mental" difficulties when switching to the MiG-23M and ML.
      In Egypt and Syria, the RSBN-6s was not really needed at all. The weather conditions are usually good there, and an adversary who is able to interfere is too close.
      RSBN-6s provides a landing approach to an altitude of 50-60 m. Further, the pilot must operate in manual mode. For this reason, even the pilots of the MiG-23, -27 did not use the automatic approach mode, although "it" worked. Only once was a combat pilot, a MiG-23 pilot, by the way, distinguished by a deep knowledge of materiel, very pleased with himself and with the plane said that he had landed "automatic" and everything went smoothly. But it was a kind of unconventional experiment carried out at the PMU.
  29. sivuch
    sivuch 13 June 2016 09: 28
    0
    I would have slammed the article without thinking. Of course, the translation is partially to blame - why are there only artillery pieces (this is on the fighter) and transportation of weapons. Yes and there are enough other factual errors - let the pilots better comment that the maneuverability of modern fighters is not much better than that of Mig -21. By the way, there were a lot of 21s, from Mig-21F-13 to Mig-21bis and their LTX were very different.
    And the phantom really should not be omitted. The F-4E with auto slats was no less maneuverable, if not better, than other planes of that generation.
    In order not to be unfounded, I’ll be engaged in self-promotion. Not so long ago I threw my monograph on Mig-23 into the Internet. Naturally, there is information about his contemporaries, including Mig-21bis, F-4D and F-4E. Separate tables summarize data on the time and radius of bends at small and medium heights and accelerating h-ki. Whoever is interested, I can give a link
  30. Ros 56
    Ros 56 13 June 2016 09: 58
    +1
    Whatever you say, the MiG-21 is one of the most beautiful and productive fighters in our aviation. Arguing with this is just plain stupid.
    1. sivuch
      sivuch 13 June 2016 10: 10
      +2
      Only in the photo Su-17M4
      1. Ros 56
        Ros 56 13 June 2016 11: 44
        0
        I apologize, slammed blindly, I’ll correct myself.
  31. Denis Skiff
    Denis Skiff 13 June 2016 17: 48
    0
    Can the Russian MiG-21 fighter hold out for 100 years? (The National Interest, USA)
    Will the FSA army survive for 50 years?
  32. magadanets
    magadanets 14 June 2016 00: 36
    0
    I’m far from aviation, I can’t argue. I read somewhere that at that time the Americans had tactics designed for long-range combat. They hoped for their perfect radars and missiles. Close combat is like old antiquity had passed. The escort flew at high altitude, and f4 bombers on the small one. Here and there they were waiting for the maneuverable Mig 17 heavy bombers. The escort did not have time to react, the Migi had time to attack, and left. The bombers were forced to drop bombs and go to the height. There were already 21 Migi attacked there. And it got to all the phantoms, escort and bombers. And since then, the Americans realized that they had forgotten about melee early
  33. drunkram
    drunkram 14 June 2016 07: 02
    0
    In total, 10645 MiG-21 aircraft were created in the USSR from 1959 to 1985.
    belay I didn’t know that there was so much, I thought 3-4 thousand from strength, why is there such a problem with airplanes now? ..
  34. cedar
    cedar 14 June 2016 16: 35
    +4
    Quote: drunkram
    In total, 10645 MiG-21 aircraft were created in the USSR from 1959 to 1985.
    belay I didn’t know that there was so much, I thought 3-4 thousand from strength, why is there such a problem with airplanes now? ..

    Not only...
    Now Russia's GDP is 1% of global GDP!
    In 1991, before its end, the USSR had 22% of world GDP! Every third aircraft in the world was produced in the Union!
    In 1914, before its end, the Russian Empire had 9,8% of world GDP.
    In 1812 - 5.5%
    And when did Russia have 1%?
    Under Ivan Vasilievich the Terrible! 400 years ago!
    And the territory we have is 1/7 of the land, in order to keep it we need the Army and the Navy, and therefore the aircraft and pilots of the army and naval missile-carrying aviation. The adversary does not need this, he has already handed over the medals "For the victory over the USSR-Russia in the Cold War" to all who are entitled to the medals and rang out with glasses.
    Therefore, Abama, that is, his puppeteers, said that he would destroy the Russian economy by sanctions and in fact destroy, if we allow, i.e. surrender in the election of Putin. He is their number one goal.

    P.S. An airplane makes a person a pilot, and people love these winged cars for this. Someone gave this gift to the F-4, to someone the MiG-21.
    "In the sky blue and clear, my phantom, like a bullet fast, with a roar gains height ..."
  35. aba
    aba 14 June 2016 17: 37
    0
    If you live to be a hundred, then a well-deserved fighter!
    Although now he is well-deserved - how many years in service.
  36. bbss
    bbss 15 June 2016 11: 20
    +1
    Quote: Denis-Skiff
    Will the Russian MiG-21 fighter survive for 100 years?

    The question is idiotic. MiG-21 SOVIET Fighter!