What purpose does the MiG-29 (and its various derivatives) serve

>>31367707
Cheap close range interceptor

>>31367707
The MIG-29 costs literally half as much. It's like the F-15 vs F-16

>>31367973

What makes it so much cheaper?

>>31367707
MiG-29 stays home and guards the Motherland.

Su-27 (and MiG-29K) goes out to fight for the Motherland.


Both look good doing it.

>>31368017
It's literally 2/5's the size.

>>31367707
it's a "frontline fighter." it's a deliberately short-ranged, multirole fighter with good rough field performance and that can deploy rapidly. it's also cheap.

SU-27 isn't necessarily better in every way. it's huge, an its pilots complain that its cockpit is too cramped.

>>31368041

Well the Flanker is X-box sized compared to other fighters so that makes sense.

>>31367707
Half the cost and more suited as an interceptor
>inb4 Russia suddenly prefers quality over quantity

>>31368057
Yep.

The only real advantage the Su has over its tiny brother MiG is the radar, range, and payload.. and that's just because of the size difference.
That gap will close with the introduction of the MiG-29M2/M3/-35 upgrade(s).

The early MiG-29's that Germany got after unification scared the crap out of NATO Super Hornet pilots that trained against them (instead of F-5's pretending to be REDFOR).

File: Mikoyan_MiG-29K_of_the_Indian_Navy.jpg (242KB, 1500x1068px) Image search: [Google]

242KB, 1500x1068px

>>31367707
The MiG-29's a pretty shitty plane in most respects compared to the Flanker, especially when you're talking about the early models.

More recently, MiG's done a lot of work to keep the MiG-29 relevant (notably addressing things like the horrible internal fuel capacity and god awful cockpit layout), but they've had trouble competing with the Flanker.

The only real place it stands out is as a naval fighter when compared to the Su-33. Sukhoi never really put any effort into keeping the design updated since they beat out the MiG-29K in the late 80's, so when the Indians (and later Russian Navy) were looking for a new fighter, the MiG-29K was actually a surprisingly viable option.

So MiG-29 or F-16?

>>31368153
>Super Hornet
Considering the Super Hornet didn't start entering active service until 1999, and all those tests took place in the early 90s, I find this somewhat suspect.

File: MiG-29 GDR.jpg (119KB, 1020x680px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 1020x680px

>>31368153
>The early MiG-29's that Germany got after unification scared the crap out of NATO Super Hornet pilots that trained against them (instead of F-5's pretending to be REDFOR).
The only thing that really stood out about them was their high off-boresight targeting capabilities. Otherwise they were pretty terrible aircraft.

>>31368236
Definitely F-16. The MiG-29 can't compete.

MiGs are ugly.
Sukhois are beautiful.

>>31368273
Aren't they supposed to fill a similar role? The low end of the Hi-Lo mix that's a smaller multirole fighter, though the F-16 is smaller still.

>>31368306

There are advantages to being small for a fighter jet. It makes you a smaller target, harder to see.

>>31368251
Errr.. right.

Not Supers, just the updated C/D Hornets.

My bad.

>>31368329
Wouldn't it also limit your payload and fuel options?

>>31368236
MiG-29 but with F-16 engines.

>>31368357
Yes, just like a F-15 to F-16.. or a F-16 to a JAS-39.

>>31368220

That matters more for A2G than A2A.

>>31368220

What if they introduced a new MiG with thrust vectoring like the Flanker-E?

>>31367707
Giving jobs to Mikoyan cocksuckers.

>>31368329
It also means a tighter turning radius, and if done right a better T:W ratio.

File: Engines.png (195KB, 681x488px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 681x488px

>>31368382
>What if they introduced a new MiG with thrust vectoring like the Flanker-E?
Then the MiG-29 would be an even bigger maintenance clusterfuck than it already is.

File: 56456.jpg (133KB, 1024x780px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 1024x780px

>>31368329
>""""harder to see""""

>>31368382
>What if they introduced a new MiG with thrust vectoring like the Flanker-E?

It's not an awful option, but I think their money is better spent trying to get as many T-50s flying as possible. Even upgraded Mig-29s are not going to survive against the latest Eurocanards or US 5th gens.

>>31368382
Thrust vectoring is less and less relevant to anything as time goes on and HOBS becomes more prevalent.

>>31368433

To be fair, it was a legitimate gripe back in the 'Nam days when the Fishbed is positively tiny compared to the Phantoms they faced.

File: 72619[1].jpg (2MB, 2667x1771px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2667x1771px

>>31368433

That's probably just an engine problem.

File: MiG-29_-35OVTnozzles.jpg (25KB, 300x195px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 300x195px

>>31368382
Fulcrum-F (MiG-29M2/-35 Super Fulcrum) has that covered.

OVT thust vectoring nozzles.

File: MiG-29SMT.jpg (227KB, 1200x866px) Image search: [Google]

227KB, 1200x866px

>>31368382
>What if they introduced a new MiG with thrust vectoring like the Flanker-E?
Thrust vectoring solves none of the problems of the MiG-29 while adding more. The biggest issues of the MiG-29 were
>range
>shit cockpit layout
>shit avionics
>poor serviceability

MiG's doing what they can to upgrade the avionics and cockpit, and later versions have enlarged the dorsal spine to give it a better fuel capacity. But it still suffers from a short range and the poor service lives of the RD-33s.

Realistically, short of a massive overhaul of the MiG-29 on the scale of the Super Hornet (meaning you're getting almost an entirely new plane that would be a MiG-29 in name only), you're not going to really "fix" it. And at that point, you might as well just start from the ground up and make something better.

>>31368433
Not even a Slavshill but every military or high performing jet engine will do that to an extend. This image doesn't really prove anything.

I've seen b52s leave thick smoke trails on a clear spring day on take off.

>>31368412
>>31368433
Old RD-33 engines

>>31368487
>>31368502
Newer RD-33MK/-133 engines.

Burn cleaner, higher thrust, and more hours between overhauls / replacement.

>>31368388
This. Mikoyan bureau were Party cocksuckers since WWII. They constantly produced inferior planes from back then but still somehow managed to procure government contracts.

>>31368539
The vast majority of 29s still use the older models though.

>>31367707
My country operates Mig-29N, Su-30MKM and F/A-18s. Read about our training with American Marines F/A-18s here: http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/hornet-v-mig-5996629/

File: Advanced-Super-Hornet.jpg (11KB, 450x300px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 450x300px

>>31368515
The enlarged dorsal tank and wet tails {MiG-35 and newest Flankers only) definitely upped it's flight time, add the standard centerline fuel pod and it actually starts being respectable in that department.

Surprised they didn't try what the USA did with the F-16V & F/A-18ASH, and give it CFT's on the wing shoulders.

>>31368585
I'm sure the Marines get far more flight time than Malaysian pilots though, i'm not sure it's really a completely fair assessment. It's very true that the Hornet has superior avionics, but that doesn't mean the result in these exercises is absolute.

>>31368582
Well duh, all the poor nations that have original MiG-29's (including the VVS) don't have the budgets available to upgrade ASAP.

File: 1473622464112.jpg (355KB, 2048x1149px) Image search: [Google]

355KB, 2048x1149px

It'll always be inferior

>>31368524

B-52 is an awful example, it's engine are old as fuck and utter shit.

They've been trying to re-engine the BUFFs for decades and there's never the money.

Look at the engines for the C-17, that thing burns extremely clean.

File: hornet and Mig-29.jpg (24KB, 631x300px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 631x300px

>>31368433
>>31368585

>>31368487
> That's probably just an engine problem.

>>31367707
It's purpose is to keep mig afloat

>>31369762
>there's never the money

That phrase from Congress & the USAF always makes me chuckle.

They force feed the Army tanks that it doesn't want.. but can't re-engine the BUFFs.

Which leads back to this for the MiG-29..
>>31368582
>>31368674

>>31367707
To keep MiG's manufacturing plant open

>>31369831

It's always a case of "they are too old, we are getting rid of them soon"

Then 10 years later the BUFFs are still chugging on engine that nobody makes parts for anymore, so the only source of parts is boneyard BUFFS.

Repeat ad nauseam.

The E-3's are in the same bucket, but in slightly better conditions.

If worst comes to worst, they'll have to start pulling parts off of old 707's.

>>31368052
you got it mixed up, senpai.

Su-27 is the front light fighter.

>>31368273
lol. tell that to the burgers who went up against JG73.

the 29 was absolutely deadly in a knifefight

http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/truth-about-mig-29-180952403/?busted=20996&page=3

>>31368253
bullshit.

Nobody who flew against a Fulcrum shittalks its airframe. Go be a fucking moron elsewhere.

>>31370131
>in a knife fight
....and now that we've got F-22s and F-35s those will pretty much never happen again.

>>31370143
were they in fucking service back in the 80s?

We're talking about contemporary aircrafts. By your definition, every 4th gen fighter including all American products are shit fighters.

>>31370155
>By your definition, every 4th gen fighter including all American products are shit fighters.
Compared to American 5th gens they absolutely are. The only one that maybe would have a chance is the Tomcat due to the AIM-54C outranging the AMRAAM.

>>31368515
>shit cockpit layout
What's wrong with it? I flew the Mig-29S in DCS: flaming cliffs, and I never noticed anything bad about the cockpit. It was more or less the same as the flanker's cockpit, which I found to be very comfortable and easy to read and find my instruments on.

>>31370199
>the only one that maybe would have a chance is the Tomcat due to the AIM-54C

No. The only things that have a chance are peer 5th gen fighters fighting in an integrated battlespace. F-14s won't be able to calculate a firing solution before it dies, and the 54c won't be able to lock on to an LO platform like the raptor.

It seems you vastly overestimate AND underestimate the entire suite of 5th gen capabilities. Maybe you should do some reading on the technical side of LPI and modern AESA.

>>31370143
Unless other nations start fielding comparable stealth aircraft. Then suddenly neither side can detect each other until they are WVR, assuming advancements in radar technology don't make stealth obsolete. Knife fights then become the standard again.

>>31369952
This.

Back in the '90s, USAF actually tried to use maintenance money to pay for re-engining the B-52s on the reasonable premise that it would be a net savings within 10 years.

Democrats threw a fit about how the AF was trying to bypass the congressional budgeting process (this was back when they still passed budgets), and it got shot down.

That was the closest we've ever come to getting it done; neither party has, for some reason or other, ever gone through with it when they were in power.

It's pretty shortsighted and ridiculous, especially when the AF now officially plans to fly them for at least another 20 years, by which point new engines would have paid for themselves in fuel and maintenance savings (not to mention the vastly increased range they would offer).

>>31370284
>Then suddenly neither side can detect each other until they are WVR

That is not the goal of stealth, nor what it can do right now. The Irbis-E radar of the Su-35BM can detect a F-22 some around 65 to 55 km out if they are flying at each other. Which is rather far out. However the F-22 will detect the Su-35BM at a bit past 90 km, and get a lock for a AIM-120 at around 80 to 83 km out.

>>31370622
>The Irbis-E radar of the Su-35BM can detect a F-22 some around 65 to 55 km out if they are flying at each other.

ACCORDING TO WHOM? You think the Russians had a F-22 to test their doppler shift sensitivity against?

Also, there is a difference between DETECTION and FIRING SOLUTION. Knowing an F-22 is out there just makes your last few minutes as a pilot that much more stressful. You're going to die ANYWAY.

>>31370622
>The Irbis-E radar of the Su-35BM can detect a F-22
russians and others always say this, but they are just making that shit up.
considering the F15 wasn't even able to see a F22 1 mile away, i doubt russian found a way to detect a f22

>>31370622
I'll believe it if they're using leaked data about F-22's with Luneburg lenses on.

File: mig-29smt (4).jpg (394KB, 1500x1013px) Image search: [Google]

394KB, 1500x1013px

>>31368642
>Surprised they didn't try what the USA did with the F-16V & F/A-18ASH, and give it CFT's on the wing shoulders.
See MiG-29SMT (9.17), the most modern upgrade for the original serial MiG-29 (9.13) in service. Not CFTs but a definite humpback nevertheless.

>>31370622
>The Irbis-E radar of the Su-35BM can detect a F-22 some around 65 to 55 km
That would assume F-22 has RCS of less than 0.01m2. Do you have a single fact to back that claim up?

File: su-27 with a conformal fuel tank.jpg (141KB, 808x1000px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 808x1000px

>>31368642
Oh, and speaking of CFTs, here's a Flanker test.

>>31370015
is this a shitpost?

>>31368292
migs are hot anon. pls.

have you seen the ass on the mig-21? pert and perky

What would a mig-29 with western engines and fly by wire be like? They still produce the airframe and they are pretty cheap.

File: mig-29m (2).jpg (92KB, 800x585px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 800x585px

>>31372231
All new Fulcrum models since 1986 have FBW.
>mig-29 with western engines
Overpriced.

File: mig-29 (15).jpg (463KB, 1980x1316px) Image search: [Google]

463KB, 1980x1316px

>>31368433
She's a dirty girl.

File: 142874047.jpg (41KB, 980x705px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 980x705px

>>31368487
It is. And this fully negates somewhat smaller size of MiG-29 for purposes of visual detection.

>>31370140
Go be a vatnik somewhere else

>>31370622
>The Irbis-E radar of the Su-35BM can detect a F-22 some around 65 to 55 km out if they are flying at each other.
Nope. Irbis-E radar could detected 0.01 sq meters target at 90 km, but this is only during special search regime with small 10x10 degrees scan sector. And F-22 RCS is 0.0002 sq. m.

>>31371851
>Do you have a single fact to back that claim up?
BASED Internet Archive, no surprise it is banned in Russia:
http://web.archive.org/web/20070505215853/http://www.niip.ru/main.php?page=library_sky17

is it just me or do the russians have the best looking fighters?

>>31373136
>F-22 RCS is 0.0002 sq. m.
Do you have a single fact to back that claim up?
>http://web.archive.org/web/20070505215853/http://www.niip.ru/main.php?page=library_sky17
Where exactly does that imply anything about F-22 RCS confirming your claim?

>>31368253
Not only off-boresight cability but also, it's just a good handling fighter for withing visual range combat. With a better instantaneous and sustained turn rate than the F-18. It also helps that the German Fulcrums were piloted by some of the best pilots the Germans had to offer.

>>31368253
Even then I'd heard that the HOBS capability was overestimated; ie that the seekers just weren't that great at getting a lock anyway from the side.

>>31373150

during Soviet Union time they had top notch specialist on aerodynamics. TSAGI (Цeнтpáльный aэpoгидpoдинaми́чecкий инcтитýт - Central Institute for Aerodynamic Research) was one of the best R&D center in the world - for example, they library of wing profiles were bigger and better documented than NASA.
Therefore, airframes they build was both beautiful and funcional (shame that everything else, especially avionics and engines was utter crap).
Unfortunately, these times are long gone, since most of the engineers and reseachers from this period are now retired or died from old age and there were next to none to replace them. TSAGI is now just a shadow of its former glory. New generation of engineers are very thin in numbers ans they dont give a shit about working there, because of shit salaries and better oportunities existing in private market. That's why at the end they builded such an abominations like 1.44 and now are struggling to make PAK-FA/T-50 reaching projected performance

>>31373194
>Do you have a single fact to back that claim up?
http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4408

>Where exactly does that imply anything about F-22 RCS confirming your claim?
This link was about Irbis-E capabilities not F-22.

>>31373194
>>31373229
Different anon here but it's also generally thought that the F-22 has a -40dB RCS (0.0001m^2)

>>31367892
>close range interceptor

Interceptor that is shit at intercepting? Nice.

>>31373229
>forum
So nothing then?
>This link was about Irbis-E capabilities
According to which it can detect a target with RCS of 0.01m2 at the range of 90 km. Do you have a single fact to back up your claim that F-22 has RCS even anywhere as small as that, let alone smaller?
>>31373240
People generally think that stealth implementation makes an aircraft invisible. But this doesn't have anything to do with real life. What people generally tend to think in by no means a fact.
>0.0001m^2
Whew, that's some quality communist propaganda. Add another half a dozen zeros there and we'll come closer to where it's at.

Older but it's still a pretty solid aircraft with plenty of room for upgrades where needed. Definitely something you could crap out and sell to friendly countries or throw at countries in need as well.

Don't think 29s will be doing that great against top of the line stuff but it'd certainly help to just have the numbers to fall back on.

We can look at TIE fighters for what older fighters end up as. Cheap yet still useful fighters you can throw up in large numbers.

They get much cheaper as they age and are obviously not going to be the best anymore, but good god can you spam them like each one is a dick pill ad if you've got the production and logistics to back them up. If you've been making them for decades you've probably worked out most of the bugs and got production streamlined.

File: mig-1.44 (1).jpg (378KB, 1688x1180px) Image search: [Google]

378KB, 1688x1180px

>>31373227
>abominations like 1.44
Fuck off, 1.44 is beautiful.
>struggling to make PAK-FA/T-50 reaching projected performance
Is that why the US is struggling to make F-35 reach projected performance for about 16 years by now? Because new generation of engineers is very thin in numbers and doesn't give a shit about the work because of shit salaries and better opportunities existing in private market?

>>31370605
To be fair even with current engines a B-52's range is "pretty much fucking anywhere"

But yeah, it's fucking absurd. A new pair of engines to replace the 8 would massively simplify maintenance and increase capabilities, and be a net savings. Given the performance requirements off-the-shelf commercial solutions would be fine.

>>31373279
>Is that why the US is struggling to make F-35 reach projected performance for about 16 years by now?

It's an absurdly ambitious project with contradictory goals, like high parts commonality between a VTOL and conventional aircraft.

.. and the goals have been met. The F-35 is finished save for final refinement and polishing. It could go to war tomorrow with no problem.

>>31373297
F-35 has been "finished" for years by now. but that's not the point, the point is that it has been 16 years of development by now since its first takeoff, while for T-50 it is as of now only about 6. So talking about them "struggling to make it reach projected performance" is really being the pot calling the kettle black.
>It could go to war tomorrow with no problem.
20 finished operational combat capable units could.

>>31373150
Eh, F-15 is far prettier, especially in the wing trailing edge and the entire after fuselage. Russian designs are boxy in all the wrong places, and when they do curves (e.g., Mi-24 fuselage), they look... off, somehow.

What's funny is that the Mig-29's wings look vaguely like a tiny F-15, and the SU-27's wings look a little vaguely like a scaled-up F-16's.

>>31373297
F-35 is still a decade from being deployed.

Call me when they start using them against ISIS instead of the F-teens.

>>31373667
>Call me when they start using them against ISIS instead of the F-teens.
It's dumb enough we are putting airframe hours on fast jets to fight ISIL. Using new fast jets to do anything but penetrate active air defences and spook Syrian/Russian tactical fighters approaching our own would be kinda dumb.

That said, I bet it starts happening pretty quick.

>>31373608
>What's funny is that the Mig-29's wings look vaguely like a tiny F-15, and the SU-27's wings look a little vaguely like a scaled-up F-16's.


which is funny since the mig is just a scaled down su in real life.

File: 33d[1].jpg (29KB, 600x441px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 600x441px

>>31373267

File: mig-29 prototype.jpg (52KB, 804x540px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 804x540px

>>31373608
One of early Fulcrum design variants kinda looked like MiG-25/F-15.

>>31367707
What purpose does the F-16 (and its various derivatives) serve when the F-15 (and its various derivatives) are better in pretty much any way?

>>31373608
Nigga, you crazy. Look again at the Su-27 planform from the top. It resembles neither an F-16 nor an F-15. It's also much sexier. Notice the tapered curve as the chines blend into the leading edge as well as the angled trailing edge.

File: su-27 & mig-29 (4).jpg (339KB, 1600x1086px) Image search: [Google]

339KB, 1600x1086px

Smoky-smoky.

>>31368253
While they are inferior in many ways to their western contemporaries, calling them terrible only shows how ignorant you are.

>>31374079
BURN THE COAL

File: mig-29ub (1).jpg (787KB, 2250x1500px) Image search: [Google]

787KB, 2250x1500px

>>31374308
Understood.

>>31370206
>Mig-29S
That's why - the MiG-29S featured an updated cockpit. The original MiG-29/MiG-29A had a god awful cockpit layout according to pilots testing East German ones.

File: German Mig-29.jpg (178KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 1280x960px

>>31374088
Terrible from an operational standpoint. They were deadly if you got close, but they had such a pitifully short range and poor ergonomics (on early versions) that they'd be pretty difficult to use effectively.

>>31375096
Plus Russian doctrine is so heavily dependent on GCI that they have retarded avionics.

File: i2r2ub.jpg (67KB, 724x365px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 724x365px

>>31375096
I wouldn't exactly call it pitifully short.

>>31375684
Meanwhile the entire picture is smaller than the B-2's range.

>>31375696
It really isn't. And what does it have to do with bombers?

>>31375684
What model MiG-29s is that picture talking about? What flight profile? What loadout? Because that sure as shit isn't the 150 nmi combat radius pilots flying East German MiG-29s reported.

>>31368674
Do any Mig-29s aside from the Mig-29K have the new engines?

>>31375910
What model MiG-29s is that picture talking about?
9.13, there are no older Fulcrums in Russian service, except for trainers.
>What flight profile? What loadout?
Lo-lo-lo, normal combat load.
>150 nmi combat radius
That's a rather speculative claim.
>East German MiG-29s
Not this shit again. German Fulcrums were 9.12. Downgraded 9.12.
>>31375919
There are no new Fulcrums aside from MiG-29K and MiG-35, hence no. Retrofitting the old ones with new engines is pointless since the airframes are too worn out and they don't plan to keep them for any longer anyway.

>>31375747
B-2s can strike Asia from Iowa.

>>31376221
Sure they can, by ramming it with its own airframe that ran out of fuel. But what does it have to do with MiG-29?

File: 14563147677897.jpg (145KB, 600x850px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 600x850px

>>31376051
>Lo-lo-lo, normal combat load.
No.
vk.com
album-20484353_119663741

Are MiG and Sukhoi now competing?

>>31376617
No, they are in the same corporation. Besides, they cant, Sukhoi already won in everything.

>>31376617
As companies i mean

File: 1.png (916KB, 1133x800px) Image search: [Google]

916KB, 1133x800px

>>31376051
>That's a rather speculative claim.
9-12 has ~1000 km one-way range for high subsonic profile with AA missiles and 20% fuel reserve. Assuming that flight profile can be not so good and this is not just trip that sounds pretty real.
9-13 has only 5% more fuel and SMT has almost half more fuel than 9-12.
>>31376550
There is more representative page.

>>31376630
MiG had a good run. It already has his own section in the history books. If russans had any brain, they would run one as export and the other as domestic.

>>31376662
They have contracts for a couple of dozen 29s in Myanmar and India, plus a nice domestic contract for fifty-ish naval variants. 29s is far from being a bestseller and 35 does not sell at all. Plus they are somewhat into domestic UAV business, maybe will find their niche.

>>31376655
>H-11-2-11.8 km
>lo-lo-lo
No.

And yes this image is very representative of MiG-29 """"range"""". 960 km at max economy cruise with hi-hi-hi profile?

File: 2ibhtfp.jpg (112KB, 846x546px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 846x546px

>>31375684

Now compare it to other planes.

Purple is Fulcrum

Blue is Flanker

Red is Foxhound

>>31376727
I'm not him. Yes, this is flight profile with 0.8 Mach cruise and 11 km altitude.

File: z_5d2307bf.jpg (199KB, 600x850px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 600x850px

>>31376550
>>31376655
You do realize this shows exactly what is pictured on the map, right?
>>31376712
>and 35 does not sell at all
Egypt bought some like a couple of months ago.
>>31376727
>MiG-29 """"range""""
F-16 "range" is 550 km.
>>31376761
I know what that map shows. Now compare sizes and weights of the airframes.

>>31373297
>It could go to war tomorrow with no problem.
be real pham. How drunk are you?

File: 1.png (496KB, 1290x938px) Image search: [Google]

496KB, 1290x938px

>>31376985
>You do realize this shows exactly what is pictured on the map, right?
It's not about map, it's about 150 nm combat radius.
>F-16 "range" is 550 km.
Not really. Block 15 with 6xMk-82 has 350 nm combat radius for CAS mission without loitering.

>>31376985

>Now compare sizes and weights of the airframes.

Foxhound is 21000 kg empty, 893 in. long, with 531 in. wingspan.

Flanker-E is 18400 kg empty, 862 in. long, with 602 in. wingspan.

MiG-29K is 11000 kg empty, 681 in. long, with 472 in. wingspan.

>>31377240
What is it about 150 nm combat radius on a picture that clearly states it is 710 km in full accordance with what is pictured on the map I posted?
>>31377271
Good. Did it drive you to any conclusions?

>>31377350
Your picture has a range and not combat radius. I used mission planning page to show that statement about 150 nmi combat radius is not so speculative and I am not talked about this map.
Range from my pic is different to yours due to larger fuel reserve and payload.

>>31373279
>not comparing the T-50 to the F-22
The F-22 has reached the required performance a long time ago. The F-35 is a project on a much larger scale than the T-50 or F-22.

>>31367707
The flanker can't do multi role, it can't do ground attack, even the SU34, the aircraft made as a strike variant, is not as capable as the MiG 29 or 35.

The flanker is overhyped and trash.

File: not even trying.jpg (48KB, 627x626px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 627x626px

>>31377608

>>31377608

>even the SU34, the aircraft made as a strike variant

Yes, I've seen the video of the Su-34 bombing ISIS in Syria. The bombs seem to have a nasty habit of swerving in their descent to find whatever empty patch of desert they can find, leaving the intended target untouched. However, I feel this has more to do with Russia's general inferiority with guided weapons more than a problem with the Su-34 itself.

>>31377497
There is nothing on that page that makes the statement about 150 mni combat radius any less speculative.
>>31377542
Sure, let's compare it to F-22 too. How long did it take to introduce it? What? I can't hear that. 15 years? Whow. The pot just keeps calling the kettle black.

>>31377700
>Russia's general inferiority with guided weapons
Lol.

>>31377816
If we assume that aircraft just turns back at half range radius is 500 or 700 km, depending on payload and reserve. But combat radius highly depends on mission, which suppose possible speed dash, dive, loitering, etc. When engagement and especially dogfight is possible radius will be little. I think more than a half of radius in ideal conditions is pretty real in this case. So this combat radius is not speculative, it just ambiguous.

>>31378177
>If we assume that aircraft just turns back at half range
That's what happening on a CAS mission without loitering. You go at the target, you release munitions, you return, enjoying a lighter aircraft and the feel of the fulfilled duty on your way back.

File: 1.png (344KB, 1290x938px) Image search: [Google]

344KB, 1290x938px

>>31378251
Is this about F-16? His combat radius assumes that ammunition will be retained.

>>31378372
Care to share the PDF?

>>31378372
Seems I am mistaken, this is 20mm rounds. Anyway practical range will be far greater than 550 km. There is dive to sea level, dash, climb to cruise, and a large payload for half distance.
>>31378450
http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/F-16A_Block_15_Falcon_SAC_-_March_1984.pdf

>>31377700
That's true, the Russians have not invested in precision munitions nearly as much as western countries. I'm extremely certain they've been using Syria as a training and evaluation environment.

The SU34 itself does have design limitations with payload and range, I believe they are still have problems working out a good AB refuel system if any.

>>31377668
>thinking the flanker is good, ever.

File: fishing pole.png (80KB, 500x501px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 500x501px

>>31378616

>>31378664
>thinking the flanker is good, ever.

>>31370140
you mean like the F-15 pilots that smoked them in 1991?

>inb4 monkey models

File: B-47_6.jpg (419KB, 1800x1416px) Image search: [Google]

419KB, 1800x1416px

>>31372975
bitch please

File: Su-30_4.jpg (116KB, 1023x767px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 1023x767px

Is it true
that poo in the loo
is best Su?

The mig-29k is such an embarrassing failure that mig should stop pretending they can just keep "upgrading" that airframe.

>>31380962
That's rocket acceleration though.
>>31381015
The modification itself is great, but production quality for the ones build by Indians is truly poo in the loo tier.

File: need a new one.png (29KB, 500x275px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 500x275px

>>31381276

>>31373706
>>31373667
F-35B is deploying next year, friend.

>>31382952
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/naval/naval-aviation/2016/08/10/india-mig-29k-aircraft-navy-defects/88510782/

Sorry, but it's shit. 20-30 percent reliability due to manufacture defects and it's garbage engine.

File: Crying-Kid.jpg (101KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 500x333px

>>31383247
>india
Top kek. Let me translate this article for you: "Waaa! Waaah! Give technology transfer! Or else! WAAAH!"

Russia is to embarrassed to admit that MiG is bankrupt, so they keep it on a literal IV.

Sukhoil and Yakolev won everything what was to win, MiG can go home.

>>31384587
Except for carrier based aircraft, future interceptor and the fact that Egypt bought MiG-35.

>>31384589
>Egypt
In Russia politicians favor Su over MiG.

To be honest, the current situation is quite similar to how UVZ "killed" KMDB back in the 80's.

>>31384587
The projects you mentioned is the 'IV'
Paper projects with almost non-existent budget and no orders.

In current situation there is no space for both of them. Few days ago MoD literally had a fight with MoF over 10 billion rubles.

File: wwii.jpg (245KB, 600x1214px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 600x1214px

>>31384596
>UVZ "killed" KMDB back in the 80's
Overcomplicated designs is what kept killing KMDB. They never learned.

>>31384708
The overcomplicated prototyped of the 80's looked like that because of the requirements they needed to comply.
KMDB had better know-how, more experienced people than UVZ (their designs were largely based on KMDB achievements).

In the 80's UVZ siphoned people, technology and contracts from KMDB while KMDB evidently went out of favor.

This is how I see it.

>>31370140

Dude, E. Germany pilots who flew them said they would have almost 0 chance vs western planes.

They were better at knife fights and that's it.

>>31384827
>very good maneuverability but bad tactile feedback, making the airplane hard to 'feel' for the pilots
>IRST useless at range
>IRST+radar+decent canon+rather sophisticated gun FCS makes the MiG-29 good gunfighter
>HOBs is not as good as Vatniks think, but still a huge upgrade over AIM-9M
>rather small range
>part of the pilot workload handled by ground control
>decent engines with short life-span

MiG-29 for me is an example of a good airframe, hampered by poor avionics.

>>31384871
>MiG-29 for me is an example of a good airframe, hampered by poor avionics.
And poor engine. You make it sound so trivial as if the avionics and engine aren't big deals. Mig 29 is a poor man's aircraft.

>>31384898
>Mig 29 is a poor man's aircraft.
It is, it just saddens me that it never got full Dassault treatment with new internals.

For the engines I wouldn't say they were poor. Soviets didn't have technology to make engines both durable and powerful, so they opt for high thrust and low life-time.

It was certainly an issue during peacetime, but it's not like that during the wartime MiG-29 will fly more than tenth of it's lifespan before getting blew up.

It's a matter of compromises and if I was Soviet decision maker in the 80's, I would probably do the same.

File: 1779035_original.jpg (677KB, 1400x946px) Image search: [Google]

677KB, 1400x946px

>>31384943
It did. Actually MiG-35 is probably the most western russian military plane ever built since Tu-4, with glass cockpit, MIL-STD-1553 bus, targeting pod and improved engines.

>>31369398
Oh look, Venezuela put it's whole Air Force into the air for a staged photo

Meanwhile it's people dont even have TP because socialism works so great.

>>31384968
But this was waaay after Soviet union collapsed. With this update the MiG 29 went to level comparable to F-16s from mid 90's.

Too little, too late.

File: mig-29m (1).jpg (413KB, 1678x1245px) Image search: [Google]

413KB, 1678x1245px

>>31384968
>Upgrading an aircraft is a western thing to do
Riiight... the amount of uninformed brainwashed bullshitting on this board is truly incredible.

>>31385007
But i never implied that.

>>31385003
Technically MiG-29M/M2 which it is based on is late 80's.

>>31385033
You are right. But it got terribly delayed.

>>31385012
Yes you did, implying that glass cockpit, bus and, lol, the need for a targeting pod somehow makes it western. Now I give you that, the latter is indeed a western thing. Not that it's a good thing though.
>>31385003
>MiG 29 went to level comparable to F-16s from mid 90's
MiG-29M eats F-16 alive.
>>31385033
Mid 80s.

>>31385068
Wut the new engines are unreliable dogshit.

File: 20160919162321_1.jpg (415KB, 1680x1050px) Image search: [Google]

415KB, 1680x1050px

Well the MiG 27 is slightly cheaper and has more availability per card than the Su-27, it also has the cluster bombs along with the long range missiles making it a great early game choice to counter any spammy early pushes with the bombs or to counter an early F-111C or similar aircraft with the missiles

>>31382945
>rocket acceleration

I don't know if you noticed, but the jet engine exhaust looks dirtier than the RATO packs exhaust.

>>31376761
What would be the Su-34 Fullback circles on there?
I believe it has more range if I'm remembering right.

>that area of Russia that has zero air coverage, that's probably where B2's would enter to strike Ivan from the inside.

>>31385068
>Yes you did, implying that glass cockpit, bus and, lol, the need for a targeting pod somehow makes it western.
Yes, glass cockpit is a western thing, yes, bus is a western thing and yes, targeting pod is a western thing. Wtf are you talking about?

>>31385545
They are not though.
>>31386102
>Upgrading an aircraft is a western thing to do
Kek.

>>31386447
He's saying the equipment is Western concepts. Hell the bus standard is literally American.

>>31386447
Upgrading aircraft in a way they upgraded it is western. Ffs you are dumb.

File: chukotka.jpg (163KB, 1029x1372px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 1029x1372px

>>31386077
Depends on payload, but Su-34 is generally heavier and has smaller combat radius than Su-27 despite having larger internal fuel capacity.
>that's probably where B2's would enter
Into frozen emptiness of death and desolation.

>>31386466
Spaceflight is a Russia concept. Flying to space is a Russian thing to do.
>Hell the bus standard is literally American.
Except Russia had one since the USSR.
>>31386490
>Upgrading an aircraft is a western thing to do
Kek. these upgrades were around since the USSR. There's nothing western about them, dumbass.

>>31386507
Yeah, like I said, the perfect entry point.

>smaller combat radius
Well that's a letdown, being the fat bitch she is I thought it would have some range.

I blame all the rivets.

>>31386594
Yes, if US would use russian approach to design a rocket and spaceship, they will end up going to space the Russia way.

>>31386594
>There's nothing western about them, dumbass.
Targeting pod. MIL-STD-1553 bus. Glass cockpit that is even built from western components. Not enough?

>>31386658

Right now the US needs help from Russia just to get to space at all.

>>31386447
Yeah, the engines are. The RD-33 was already dogshit and they did nothing to improve it's reliability. India is reporting massive defects in it.

India, who has no issues with their GE engines...

>>31386665
>targeting pod
Anyone can build and use

>MIL-STD-1553
Military Standard #1553, western standard yes, helps with export sales. The bus can be made by anyone.

>Glass cockpit
Developed by a Canadian company for NASA and then the USAF originally, now everyone and their mothers can make it. Nothing special.

>>31386885
That's a lie, the RD-33 has a pair of updated engine variants now that are far better than the Soviet original..

But as stated up high in the thread, no one is buying because standard RD-33's are just cheaper.
(if I was the engine company, I'd list the original as "obsolete" and just discontinue servicing once their contracts are up.. just like AGCO or John Deere.. force the MiG-29 users upgrade)

>>31387129
Um no. India is using those upgraded engines and have said they are garbage.

Once egypt gets it's upgraded migs, they will be saying the same thing.

Russia can't keep lying about the state of it's jet engine industry, the word is getting out that it's all but dead.

>>31387085
>Anyone can build and use
Russians dont. Because it is not their design philosophy.
>The bus can be made by anyone.
But it will remain western nonetheless.
>Developed by a Canadian company for NASA and then the USAF originally
NDeveloped by a Canadian company for NASA and then the USAF originally
Totally not western, ok.
>>31387153
> India is using those upgraded engines and have said they are garbage.
>india
Not this shit again.

>>31387168
When India has no problems with it's GE engines you can't keep blaming the Indians for what is obviously a problem with Russian made engines.

File: image.jpg (286KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

286KB, 800x600px

Das fulcrum, I didn't know the Russians still cared about this little bird, thousands of these jets just seem to decay withou a single Russian fuck given

File: image.jpg (244KB, 800x595px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 800x595px

Fuel for bonfires, what an excellent plane to bring the family together

>>31387321
>>31387341
Fuck, do you need to be a midget to fly that?

File: fulcrm.jpg (28KB, 564x757px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 564x757px

>>31387341
>>31387703
Please don't bully the Fulcrum.

>>31387192
>When India has no problems with it's GE engines
All three of them? I am pretty sure guys from designated shitting street can handle three engines.

>>31373285
It would be a straight replacement of 1:1 for each engine. Analysis has concluded that an engine out (outboard) on a 4 engine configuration would result in a crash as the rudder moment wouldn't be large enough. Still would save a shit ton of money though

File: mig-29 serbio y portavaiones.jpg (201KB, 1280x959px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 1280x959px

>>31387321
>>31387341
That's not even a MIg-29 it's a mini SU-27 :)

>>31368433

It's the option for a smokescreen to cover your tracks. Didn't you know, senpai?