MiG-21 with guns - combat effectiveness?

[mack8]

I've touched this subject in the past on various occasions, but this is a more specific question.

So let's say that the soviets retain 2x 30mm NR-30s on the MiG-21F-13 with probably 60 rpg (rather than just one gun with iirc 75 rpg), while the MiG-21P variants all have an internal GSh-23L 23mm gun with probably 200 rpg (none OTL, except later on the GP-9 pod, but this at the cost of drag and much reduced range, since no drop tanks could be carried).

My question to more knowledgeable folks is whether is there a way to roughly estimate how many more kills could the gun equipped MiG-21 get in it's heyday, 1960s and early 1970s in Vietnam and Middle East? Is there a way to put a rough percentage on that, so we can say the gun-equipped MiG-21 could get x % more kills? Because the MiG-21P especially had no guns and only 2x R-3S misiles that missed at least as often as the early AIM-9s, it was severely handicapped in combat since once the missiles were fired (and like i said they often missed), it was left literally unarmed and defenceless. With a gun, even if the missiles missed there is still a chance to hit/kill the target with the GSh-23, or if attacked can confidently dogfight it out with a US or israeli fighter. I do recall reading for instance egyptian fighter pilots accounts showing the great frustration of missing dozens of kill opportunities against the israelis (the MiG being in a good position but with nothing to fire since the AAM were gone and there was no gun!), as well as probably more than a few avoidable losses, since the unarmed and defenceless MiG-21 could be attacked by Mirages/Phantoms etc. with near impunity, since they'd have no retaliation to fear from the MiG.

Looking at the US experience, initially the F-4 had no guns too, but later on they put first a 20 mm pod, and then the internal 20 mm M61 on the F-4E. They got quite a few guns kill once they got the M61s, so in terms of overall percentage, how many were with the guns? Perhaps the rough ratio can be applied to my MiG-21 query.

The F-8 being another example of having both guns and missiles. Is there a rough breakdown as to how many kills with guns and how many with AIM-9s? I do of course realized some kills were joint, i.e. target damaged by AAMs and finished with guns or the other way around.

And finally, going the other way and a bit of-topic, roughly how many more kills would the MiG-17 and MiG-19 get if they had 2x R-3S missiles in addition to their guns?

 

[starman]

So let's say that the soviets retain 2x 30mm NR-30s on the MiG-21F-13

I think it had just one 30mm gun. The MIG-19 had three--too bad it had serious maintenance issues.

My question to more knowledgeable folks is whether is there a way to roughly estimate how many more kills could the gun equipped MiG-21 get in it's heyday, 1960s and early 1970s in Vietnam and Middle East? Is there a way to put a rough percentage on that, so we can say the gun-equipped MiG-21 could get x % more kills?

Maybe twice as many but not enough to make a big difference. According to Cooper's research, in OTL in '73 the EAF and SAF combined got only about a dozen kills, or roughly half a dozen each.
Unfortunately for the MIG-21 pilots, lack of a gun, or enough ammo for the MIG-21F-13, was just one drawback, the others being poor cockpit visibility and limited endurance.

I do recall reading for instance egyptian fighter pilots accounts showing the great frustration of missing dozens of kill opportunities against the israelis (the MiG being in a good position but with nothing to fire since the AAM were gone and there was no gun!),

IIRC in '67 Sukri downed an IAF jet with an Atoll, but said he could've killed two if he had a gun.
Btw I've read accounts in which EAF pilots claimed to have hit IAF jets with their guns but failed to kill them. Maybe soviet guns lacked enough hitting power. I suspect, though, the Egyptians hadn't heard of, or didn't heed, the advice of Hartman, the German ace of WWII. He stressed that to be effective with a gun, "you have to get close."

as well as probably more than a few avoidable losses, since the unarmed and defenceless MiG-21 could be attacked by Mirages/Phantoms etc. with near impunity, since they'd have no retaliation to fear from the MiG.

Possibly the worst source of "avoidable" losses was the poor endurance of the "short winded" MIG-21. In no time it got low on fuel and could no longer maneuver if it wanted to get back to base. As the SAF knew very well, the 21 was highly vulnerable then.

And finally, going the other way and a bit of-topic, roughly how many more kills would the MiG-17 and MiG-19 get if they had 2x R-3S missiles in addition to their guns?

I think both were equipped with AA missiles.

 

[mack8]

I think it had just one 30mm gun. The MIG-19 had three--too bad it had serious maintenance issues.


Maybe twice as many but not enough to make a big difference. According to Cooper's research, in OTL in '73 the EAF and SAF combined got only about a dozen kills, or roughly half a dozen each.
Unfortunately for the MIG-21 pilots, lack of a gun, or enough ammo for the MIG-21F-13, was just one drawback, the others being poor cockpit visibility and limited endurance.



IIRC in '67 Sukri downed an IAF jet with an Atoll, but said he could've killed two if he had a gun.
Btw I've read accounts in which EAF pilots claimed to have hit IAF jets with their guns but failed to kill them. Maybe soviet guns lacked enough hitting power. I suspect, though, the Egyptians hadn't heard of, or didn't heed, the advice of Hartman, the German ace of WWII. He stressed that to be effective with a gun, "you have to get close."



Possibly the worst source of "avoidable" losses was the poor endurance of the "short winded" MIG-21. In no time it got low on fuel and could no longer maneuver if it wanted to get back to base. As the SAF knew very well, the 21 was highly vulnerable then.

I think both were equipped with AA missiles.

Thanks for your comments. To touch a few points:

Indeed the OTL MiG-21F-13 had only one gun, however my alternate version retains both NR-30s like on the earlier MiG-21F or indeed most of the chinese J-7 variants.

Re Yom Kippur, same author said elsewhere that the total might be quite alot more than just a dozen SyAF/EAF kills, anywhere from two or three dozen up to as many as 50. Probably the middle ground is more likely.

If by having guns (or two of them on the F-13) the MiG-21Ps kill rate doubles that is a big jump imo, and besides even if some targets are only damaged that still exposes them to either further MiG attacks, AA fire, or crashing /being written off on landing. Or at a minimum, the airframe will be out of service until repaired, which would have a significant impact in high intensity clashes like Yom Kippur or even the 6 days war. Plus the P models could always carry the 490 or 800l drop tanks if they have the internal GSh-23L, so they have a bit of extra pratical combat range/endurance.

Indeed, guns don't solve other MiG-21 weaknesses, BUT it's still a considerable improvement imo. I don't think the GSh-23 is significantly inferior to the M61, or for instance the 2x 20mm guns on F-5, who i understand got some kills with said guns as well. The F-5 being another example of a gun and missile armed light fighter for which it would be very interesting to see how many kills it made with guns and how many with AAMs.

Re MiG-17 and MiG-19, my understanding was that AAM adaptations were not widespread, i don't think (but i might be wrong) that VPAF had AAMs like R-3S/PL-2 on their J-6/MiG-19, or indeed the much more numerous J-5/MiG-17. Though i think PAF did have AAMs ( AIM-9 or PL-2?) on their J-6s in 1971?

 

[starman]

Re Yom Kippur, same author said elsewhere that the total might be quite alot more than just a dozen SyAF/EAF kills, anywhere from two or three dozen up to as many as 50.

Over the years, I've seen a number of claims of this kind. The commander of an EAF MIG-21 squadron claimed his jets (alone) killed 22 IAF jets and "he had the film to prove it." O'Ballance included the claim that "one third of IAF losses were killed by fighters." In one of his ARAB MIGs volumes, Cooper concluded the total # of arab air to air kills was 30. More recently, however, in an fb group he indicated only about a dozen kills were verified.

 

[mack8]

Over the years, I've seen a number of claims of this kind. The commander of an EAF MIG-21 squadron claimed his jets (alone) killed 22 IAF jets and "he had the film to prove it." O'Ballance included the claim that "one third of IAF losses were killed by fighters." In one of his ARAB MIGs volumes, Cooper concluded the total # of arab air to air kills was 30. More recently, however, in an fb group he indicated only about a dozen kills were verified.

Considering that the israelis lost about 110 planes/helos (according to their claim) in 1973, plus iirc about twice as many damaged, it should be no surprise that at the very least 30 of those would have been killed by arab MiGs (and i guess same could apply to the damaged israeli planes, some would have been damaged by arab MiGs.)

 

[RanulfC]

Reminds me of a funny aside:
Commercial pilot is informed by the controller that he's being passed by a group of F-35's at a lower altitude. Pilot's response?
"Too close for missiles, switching to guns"
Silence from the controller... Mostly I suspect because he was laughing to hard

Randy

 

[sarge]

Don't forget, carrying an additional 30mm gun comes at the cost of more weight. Reducing fuel load to counterbalance the extra weight is a dumb idea, since the MiG-21 had a very short range as it was.

I think the best bet to improve the performance of the MiG-21F-13 would be to give it 2 additional missile pylons like the later variants had. Another idea would be to replace the single NR-30 weapon with twin AM-23 cannon as was used on bomber turrets. It's a very fast firing gun, and would increase firepower without too much of a weight penalty. The single NR-30 could not carry very many shells. The 23mm AM-23 gun would be able to store more ammo since the shells are smaller.

 

[starman]

Reducing fuel load to counterbalance the extra weight is a dumb idea, since the MiG-21 had a very short range as it was.

Exactly.

I think the best bet to improve the performance of the MiG-21F-13 would be to give it 2 additional missile pylons like the later variants had.

Dunno; the only available AAM, the atoll, wasn't much good.

Another idea would be to replace the single NR-30 weapon with twin AM-23 cannon as was used on bomber turrets. It's a very fast firing gun, and would increase firepower without too much of a weight penalty. The single NR-30 could not carry very many shells. The 23mm AM-23 gun would be able to store more ammo since the shells are smaller.

From what I've read the MIG-21F-13 was the best performing variant in air to air action, because its 30mm gun had better hitting power than the 23mm.

 

[sarge]

Exactly.



Dunno; the only available AAM, the atoll, wasn't much good.


From what I've read the MIG-21F-13 was the best performing variant in air to air action, because its 30mm gun had better hitting power than the 23mm.

The Atoll missile sucked for sure, but was capable of getting kills sometimes. 2 extra gives 100% more missiles, and could make the difference. The BIS variants were wired for the R-60 (although rarely used it in practice) and this was a great upgrade. But I can't see the Soviets creating this missile any quicker than they did historically, they always lagged the west in missile R&D. For entry into service as early as OTL we're stuck with the Atoll. Adding two extra pylons wasn't hard although a stronger wing would have been required... I believe the MiG-21S was the first variant to do so.

The NR-30 was probably the best single barreled aircraft cannon the Soviets ever designed, but its ammo load (130 or so shells) was limited because carrying too much hampered performance. Which is why I suggested the AM-23, it can fire at 1200 rpm and carries more ammo for the same weight at the cost of a smaller calibre and some muzzle velocity. The gun itself is also lighter, so two of these plus ammo would be heavier than the single NR-30, but wouldn't be as much as 2 NR-30 and their ammo.

Do twin NR-30s, plus 4 Atolls
Or twin AM-23, plus 4 Atolls

Either option would give you the result you're looking for, a MiG-21F-13 better optimized for air to air combat vs other fighters. Giving it the ability to use a centerline drop tank from the very beginning as well will give it a more useful combat range. Although all these improvements would come at the cost of being less maneuverable due to being weighted down. The later variants had more powerful engines to offset this issue. Unfortunately to stay on schedule for the OTL entry into service it is what it is. The USSR put the most powerful engine that would fit at the time into the plane. If the R-11 engine could have been upgraded for more thrust, while keeping the project on schedule it would have been.

 

[Monk78]

The Atoll missile sucked for sure, but was capable of getting kills sometimes. 2 extra gives 100% more missiles, and could make the difference. The BIS variants were wired for the R-60 (although rarely used it in practice) and this was a great upgrade. But I can't see the Soviets creating this missile any quicker than they did historically, they always lagged the west in missile R&D. For entry into service as early as OTL we're stuck with the Atoll. Adding two extra pylons wasn't hard although a stronger wing would have been required... I believe the MiG-21S was the first variant to do so.

The NR-30 was probably the best single barreled aircraft cannon the Soviets ever designed, but its ammo load (130 or so shells) was limited because carrying too much hampered performance. Which is why I suggested the AM-23, it can fire at 1200 rpm and carries more ammo for the same weight at the cost of a smaller calibre and some muzzle velocity. The gun itself is also lighter, so two of these plus ammo would be heavier than the single NR-30, but wouldn't be as much as 2 NR-30 and their ammo.

Do twin NR-30s, plus 4 Atolls
Or twin AM-23, plus 4 Atolls

Either option would give you the result you're looking for, a MiG-21F-13 better optimized for air to air combat vs other fighters. Giving it the ability to use a centerline drop tank from the very beginning as well will give it a more useful combat range. Although all these improvements would come at the cost of being less maneuverable due to being weighted down. The later variants had more powerful engines to offset this issue. Unfortunately to stay on schedule for the OTL entry into service it is what it is. The USSR put the most powerful engine that would fit at the time into the plane. If the R-11 engine could have been upgraded for more thrust, while keeping the project on schedule it would have been.

There were typhoon ? Dual carriers for R3S in the Polish and East German variants so even with two pylons the MiG 21s can carry up to four missiles

 

[Monk78]

Exactly.



Dunno; the only available AAM, the atoll, wasn't much good.


From what I've read the MIG-21F-13 was the best performing variant in air to air action, because its 30mm gun had better hitting power than the 23mm.

R-13M and R-55 are also available