@F104Deathtrap
Exactly, the MiG-21 is still used by many countries 60 years after introduction

@KnightOfRen There's really nothing to be said about MiG that had t been said, they've been a top-notch manufacturer since the end of WWII. It would be absolutely silly to try and sum up all the different planes they've built, each one certainly needs to be considered separately and in the context of when it was built. I will say this, however, you don't see anybody else building planes that stay in service longer.

I am definitely not qualified for this. @F104DeathTrap is. If they'res anyone to ask, its him. I look forward to seeing what he has to say

@ChiChiWerx
"Copy of what?" Nah. I mean, NOT a copy of, but imo it's comparable to the Starfighter. Designed for similar things. The top speeds of both aircraft are very comparable, and you can see similarities in the shape between them. However, the MiG-21s range is puny compared to the Starfighter. Overall I think they're comparable.

Migs have been in combat since the Second World War. In Korea (1950-1953) the migs when first introduced out classed the straight wing UN planes. We swept wing F 86s arrived the migs began to lose even Soviet flown migs could not out fight a Sabre. In Vietnam (1964-1975) the mig could out turn a F4 but tactics and guns soon prevailed. In Libya (1986) F14 defeated migs in combat. Throughout the history of Israel (1948 to now) western fighters have out classed the mig. In operation desert storm (1991) around 25 migs were lost to western fighters for minimal loss (mainly bombers and one F18 at stand off missile range). In contrary how ever in most conflicts with migs the mig pilots were not Russian and were fighting highly trained western pilots. In a combat senario between a mig 29 and a F15, F16, F 18 (and F14 before the retired) the western jet would probably win. The same goes for eroupean jets.

To be honest I think they wanted something cheap and easy but good and reliable like cough cough t34 COUGH

Meh Russian bias always wins

@Squirrel
The F-104's design was the perfect point-defense interceptor, kinda like the E.E. Lightning. It's just Lockeed sold it as a "strike fighter". It was a great plane, but it was used in a role (strike fighter and attacker) that made it a hazard to fly while conducting those missions it WASN'T designed for at all, which is why it had such a high accident rate.

Honestly, I've seen most people call Warsaw Pact/Russian equipment bad. But, if you think for a little and, hopefully, get your hands on some hard facts that can be compared, sometimes, Warsaw Pact/Russian equipment outperforms Western equipment. It's a debate that would be absolutely amazing to have and, actually, I think I will start it :)

MiGs are cheap propaganda planes?! Don't make me laugh. From the shock MiG-21 caused in Vietnam to MiG-29/35 (best frontline/light fighter currently in service), MiGs have proven to be exceptional aircraft. Try to match them to their western counterparts. MiG-29 vs F-16, for example. MiG-29 is faster, more maneuverable, can carry more, has IRST, and in newer versions has electronics roughly equal to F-16. When both planes were tested with equally experienced crews MiG has shown a significant advantage. What bugs MiGs in conflict is the fact that MiG pilots from poor countries with just 40-50h of flight a year are going against USAF and USN pilots with 200-400h of flight per year. And the fact that US can bring more aircraft and overwhelm defenders enough to make them ineffective. One such case happened in Serbia in 1999. Two of our MiG-29s took off to intercept a threat. They were soon attacked by around forty NATO fighters using long range missiles and were destroyed.

@Mostly I’ll agree with you for the most part, but, for it’s time, I would say the MiG-15 might have been the best fighter in the world, until the more advanced Sabres gave it a run for its money.

They were great planes, but they were not the best in the world, either.

No, they have the bias on their side

Depends what you want the plane for. American planes are built like fine pocket watches with a lot of tech and fancy gizmos, but if the wind blows the wrong way, they break. Russian planes don't have the fancy tech, but they build their planes like tanks.
.
The Mig 29 was sold to Germany I believe, where NATO conducted a number of tests on the aircraft and concluded that while some areas such as range (it drank fuel like a sponge) were worse than western jets, it also outperformed western counterparts in a lot of other areas. And that was an export aircraft, which tend to be dumbed down a bit.
.
Since then, they've developed the Mig 35 which is supposed to improve on the areas where the Mig 29 fell short and consequently upgrading its status from 4th generation to 4++ generation.
.
To say Mig aircraft are bad is naive at best. Sure, they've made some questionable planes in the past, but then every company has. Take Lockheed's Starfighter. That plane was so bad is was nicknamed both the 'widowmaker' and the 'flying coffin' because its accident rate was so bad.

Idk. People just label it bad for some reason. I personally think that it’s great. Minus that price tag. @Chancey21

The F-35 is my favorite fighter jet, what’s bad about it? @ColonelStriker

It’s a matter of cultural mentality manipulation. It’s kinda like how the F-35 is continuously labeled as bad. You want the opponent to underestimate you and overestimate themselves.
.
The same is encountered here with MIGs. It’s cheap, so it must be bad. But what they don’t want you to know is that it is very good

“The poor man buys twice” or “The poor nation manufactures 12’00”

Communism isn’t meant for plane building, especially when you’re starving half to death

MiG es gud plen. USAF es betta plen. Both es plen. Yah.

@BACconcordepilot TUmor-4

People interested in this discussion might also be interested in this video concerning Soviets testing the F-5 Tiger II.

Soviet (now Russian) design philosophy: Rugged and simple to maintain, inexpensive, GCI dependent (centralized control), high performance aerodynamics
Western design philosophy: Stealth (current day), high tech, electronics and computer heavy, ultra high performance in both aerodynamics and systems capabilities, multi-role whenever possible, cost is not a factor (we talk about keeping cost down, but, in the end, we'll still pay a lot for cutting edge capability)

MiGs are good planes. Done.

@ChiChiWerx Yes.
That was so much text.
I only read the first part XD