- Thread starter
- #21
The MiG-29A and S was not exported to 30 nations, but to 17, a lot of them bought circa 20 examples total, some even less than 10 examples, and often second-hand pieces.
MiG 'frontline jet' fighters remain 'cheap and cheerful'?
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The MiG-29A and S was not exported to 30 nations, but to 17, a lot of them bought circa 20 examples total, some even less than 10 examples, and often second-hand pieces.
Admiral Beez
Major
It's a little sad how MiG lost favour with the Putin regime, losing almost all domestic fighter business save a few MiG-35s to the Sukhoi Su-27/35 and now the upcoming Su-57.
I suppose with the MiG-29 becoming mostly a third world, second-hand fighter it is fulfilling this thread's look at MiGs as the cheap and cheerful fighter once more.
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
The Fulcrum A was so short on range that it was almost pointless and could only perform airshows and over the airfield fence interception.
The Flanker could do what the Fulcrum could and also had long range. So it was far more mission multiplier than the Fulcrum. So the Flanker offered a lot more bang for the buck.
The Flanker could do what the Fulcrum could and also had long range. So it was far more mission multiplier than the Fulcrum. So the Flanker offered a lot more bang for the buck.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
2 points - the AIM-9 has up to a 22 mile range. "Beyond Visual Range" is defined as combat beyond 20 miles. By definition the AIM-9 is a BVR missile although not always advertised as such.
The F-15 and F-16 WERE NOT concurrent designs - both aircraft were designed for a different mission. I could tell you that some politicians questioned why the USAF needed 2 fighter aircraft. The F-16 was touted as a multi-role aircraft where the F-15 was designed as an air-to-air tactical fighter. The Lineage of the F-15 goes back to studies made as early as 1968. The F-16 came about from proposal requests sent out in 1972. There were concerns about the affordability of both aircraft but in the end the USAF purchased both. If the F-16 was "undergunned" it was because of reducing costs. When foreign sales came in, unit cost came down making the aircraft more affordable and opening the door for more add-ons. I don't know about politics, but I remember when all this was going on.
- Thread starter
- #25
Any source for the 22 mile range for the AIM-9 as used in the Cold war?
AIM-120 went into service in 1991 - nine years after the MiG-29 entered service.
Last edited:
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
The USN shows the AIM-9M with a range of 18 miles. AIM-9M Sidewinder | NAVAIR
- Thread starter
- #29
Unfortunately, Wikipedia does not give ranges per version.
SAC sheet for the AIM-9L (the most widely in-service version in 1980s) gives 13+28=41 kft range (less than 8 miles), providing the target uses afterburner but still flies at 0.9M and manuvering at 5G, with launching aircraft flying at 0.9M. Same source gives detection range of the IR sensor of 19 kft (3.6 miles).
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Yes it did, but the original comment - "The F-16 was deliberately not given BVR in case it was seen as an F-15 rival. The USAF wanted the Eagle and didn't want the possibility of the Viper been seen as equal." As shown, that was not the case.
- Thread starter
- #31
Not my comment.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Effective combat range - would an AIM-9L hit anything at 20 miles? Probably not. Can it fire an AIM-9 up to 20 miles. I think so. Was the F-16 not a BVR fighter in its original form? Arguable, but then again as shown, it wasn't supposed to be a dedicated air to air fighter. Did the F-16 carry BVR weapons? Yes! Was the F-16 "undergunned" for political reasons? I doubt it.
- Thread starter
- #33
Apart a few US-based F16As that were modified to carry AIM-7 (fighter version F16A ADF, from 1989), the F-16A was not carrying BVR weapons until the AIM-120 was in service. The F-16 in it's original form was not a BVR fighter - the missiles it carried were not BVR missiles, the radar could not guide the BVR missile in service in the time (AIM-7).
Not my cup of tea.
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
Well, it is possible to shoot a .22LR bullet 1 to 1 1/2 miles but hitting anything at 200-300yds is a near miracle.
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
The prototype F-16 had no capabilities to fire the Sparrow. And it was deliberately not given a BVR capability.
It was designed as a clear weather day fighter dogfighter and Sparrows and big radar would hinder that 9g turn.
Sparrow was the main BVR missile of the time so the Viper not having it and even not having the capacity to use it was deliberate.
NATO F-16 flown by Netherlands or Belgium were not Sparrow equipped. This is where the MiG-29 with its R-27 had an edge in combat range.
The Sidewinder range varies wildly depending on altitude and all sorts so 20 miles would be very specific conditions.
The Outrageous Adolescence of the F-16 | Page 4 | Military Aviation | Air & Space Magazine
It was designed as a clear weather day fighter dogfighter and Sparrows and big radar would hinder that 9g turn.
Sparrow was the main BVR missile of the time so the Viper not having it and even not having the capacity to use it was deliberate.
NATO F-16 flown by Netherlands or Belgium were not Sparrow equipped. This is where the MiG-29 with its R-27 had an edge in combat range.
The Sidewinder range varies wildly depending on altitude and all sorts so 20 miles would be very specific conditions.
The Outrageous Adolescence of the F-16 | Page 4 | Military Aviation | Air & Space Magazine
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
For it's initial air to air role and foreign sales, yes, Not because of political reasons you stated. It was a "multi role" combat aircraft and later the air-to-air requirement came into the requirement before the YF-16/ YF-17 flyoff. Some in the F-15 development camp saw it as a threat but that was later squelched when it was established that both aircraft were necessary. What I remember split the two, "the F-16 dropped bombs, the F-15 didn't."
Last edited:
That's what you're pulling me up on? Ok. Whether they operated five, ten or even one, they are still operators. You're right though, the MiG-29 has not been exported to 30 nations, but has had a lot more operators, My bad...
List of Mikoyan MiG-29 operators - Wikipedia
Last edited:
Another issue with the early MiG-29s was their chronic unreliability compared to other jets of the era. This is another reason the VVS doesn't have that much enthusiasm for them.
Here's an interesting and revealing article that covers what some of the Western fighterpilots evaluating the ex-Luftwaffe examples had to say about the type.
"In 1996, Fred "Spanky" Clifton became the first American MiG-29 exchange pilot with JG 73. A Weapons School graduate in the F-16, with thousands of hours in F-15s, F-5s, and MiG-29s as well, he turns an analyst's cold eye on the Fulcrum. "It's a great [basic fighter maneuvers] machine," he says. "But of the four fighters, it's easily the worst-handling of any I flew." Before becoming a Fulcrum driver, Clifton had his first pilot-scholar assignment as an aggressor, flying F-5 Tigers in intensive training aimed at honing the skills of experienced pilots against known threats, including the MiG-29. When he joined JG 73, it was a unique opportunity to judge the Stateside syllabus. "I got to see if what I was teaching as an aggressor pilot was correct," he says. "Much of what we ascertained through intelligence was indeed accurate." Yes, the Fulcrum was a highly capable dogfighter, and its ability to fire a shot regardless of where the nose was pointed was impressive. (The Russians lost the aiming advantage by 2002, according to Fred Clifton, when the U.S. military fielded the AIM-9X missile and the Joint Helmet-mounted Cueing System.) But it had low fuel capacity, a head-down, knob- and switch-congested cockpit, a so-so radar, and not much versatility: It wasn't designed to do much besides intercept and shoot down adversaries who were flying not far from its airfield. Eastern bloc pilots were trained to slavishly follow ground controllers, so the Fulcrum's systems, including its head-up display, were not highly developed, and the situational awareness the pilots got was very limited."
Article here: The Truth About the MiG-29 | Military Aviation | Air & Space Magazine
Here's an interesting and revealing article that covers what some of the Western fighterpilots evaluating the ex-Luftwaffe examples had to say about the type.
"In 1996, Fred "Spanky" Clifton became the first American MiG-29 exchange pilot with JG 73. A Weapons School graduate in the F-16, with thousands of hours in F-15s, F-5s, and MiG-29s as well, he turns an analyst's cold eye on the Fulcrum. "It's a great [basic fighter maneuvers] machine," he says. "But of the four fighters, it's easily the worst-handling of any I flew." Before becoming a Fulcrum driver, Clifton had his first pilot-scholar assignment as an aggressor, flying F-5 Tigers in intensive training aimed at honing the skills of experienced pilots against known threats, including the MiG-29. When he joined JG 73, it was a unique opportunity to judge the Stateside syllabus. "I got to see if what I was teaching as an aggressor pilot was correct," he says. "Much of what we ascertained through intelligence was indeed accurate." Yes, the Fulcrum was a highly capable dogfighter, and its ability to fire a shot regardless of where the nose was pointed was impressive. (The Russians lost the aiming advantage by 2002, according to Fred Clifton, when the U.S. military fielded the AIM-9X missile and the Joint Helmet-mounted Cueing System.) But it had low fuel capacity, a head-down, knob- and switch-congested cockpit, a so-so radar, and not much versatility: It wasn't designed to do much besides intercept and shoot down adversaries who were flying not far from its airfield. Eastern bloc pilots were trained to slavishly follow ground controllers, so the Fulcrum's systems, including its head-up display, were not highly developed, and the situational awareness the pilots got was very limited."
Article here: The Truth About the MiG-29 | Military Aviation | Air & Space Magazine
Last edited:
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
I would take issue with any review which critical about the MiG-29 saying it wasn't NATO standard. It wasn't supposed to be!
I remember one German pilot was talking about the stick forces been heavier than a western jet and also had to be deflected more. Which was no big deal as soon as you got used to it. But western pilots complained about it.
The Archer/helmet mounted sight and general handling was such that German pilots considered themselves unbeatable in a dogfight. So much for been a poor aircraft.
I remember one German pilot was talking about the stick forces been heavier than a western jet and also had to be deflected more. Which was no big deal as soon as you got used to it. But western pilots complained about it.
The Archer/helmet mounted sight and general handling was such that German pilots considered themselves unbeatable in a dogfight. So much for been a poor aircraft.
- Thread starter
- #40
No hard feelings
I can only recommend the article.
One can note that in the article the F-16 was noted not just as better (the later F-16s are/were certainly better than MiG-29A or S), but also more economical. That, coupled with very short range, points out that MiG-29 combined bad points of a two-engined fighter (not economical) and 1-engined fighter (small fuel tankage dictated not just by it's small small size). Or, per Wikipedia figures, the total thrust of ~160 kN (with afterburner) used 1150 US gals, while on F-16A had 1073 gals for thrust of 106 kN. A 300L drop tank will provide much better mileage on a F-16 than on the MiG-29. The F-18A and C, sometimes criticized for the range, have had 1585 US gals of fuel for 142 kN or 160 kN (later versions). We know that two engines making 160 kN worth of thrust will be heavier and more draggy than one engine that does 100-120 kn, and that resulting airframe will be heavier and draggier.
So, after all this number-crunching, I'd reiterate my suggestion that MiG's lightweight fighter for the 1980s and on would've been better if it was designed around just one engine, instead around two engines. It will still do Mach 2+, it still can carry a worthwhile electronics suite, missiles and bombs, while also being easier & cheaper to make and maintain, and also faster to make. Plus the licence production to, for example, India might happen.
About the knob-infested cockpit - it is much easier to install the 'glass cockpit' than to reshape the aircraft.
