PDA

View Full Version : F-16 FALCON vs. MIG-29 FULCRUM



Tronic
25 Jan 05,, 00:01
ok people... take a deep breath, lol. I know that Mig-29 and F-16 topics have always been sensitive ones but what I realized most is that people just threw out numbers without even doing some research on these two planes statistics. I seriously suggest that you guys read this before you start tossing numbers around. Ok, one thing has been said over and over and over again, and that has been that the F-16 has taken down Mig-29's in combat... well, the thing about that is that you have to see the difference on who's fighting. Yes it is true that F-16's have downed Mig-29's but those F-16's always had an advantage over the Migs... for example the F-16's that flew over Iraq in the first gulf war were upgraded versions where else the Iraqi Mig's weren't... Just to let you know a PAF F-16 was shot down by Russian Mig-23 or a Mig-27 with UNGUIDED BOMBS... the Pakistani's claim that the F-16 was shot down by it's own wingmen who freaked out after seeing the Migs... but does this mean that the F-16 is not a good plane? wrong, the F-16 flown by the Pakistani's are older models and like they said, the F-16 could've been shot down by pilot error because of lack of training. The Mig-29's that were shot down faced similar difficulties. Now... Here's an article on the Mig-29 and the F-16 and I hope you read it and learn the goods and bads of both planes...
************************************************** ***************
http://www.topfighters.com/groot/003.jpg
F-16


vs.



http://www.topfighters.com/images/mig29.jpg
Mig-29




Both the F-16 and the MiG-29 were designed to correct mistakes and shortcomings of previous aircraft. With the USAF it was the low kill ratios over Vietnam as well as the lack of complete air superiority over the battle field a feat that was achieved with great success both over the battlefield's of Europe and Korea where the US Army was able to operate under little threat of air attack. With the Russians they wanted an aircraft that would perform the same roles as the MiG-25 and the Su-27 but at a shorter range. As well as an aircraft that for the first time could match Western fighters in ACM, while maintaining the ability to operate as an interceptor. Thus the MiG-29 became a smaller and shorter range F-15 while the F-16 became a larger and longer range F-5.

Both teams designed craft that were cleared to operations of 9g and made use of wing-body blending to increase internal volume , reduce weight and improve maneuverability. They both located the intakes close to structures to reduce the AoA (angle of attack) sensed at the face of the intake/s thus increasing the AoA that the aircraft could take in comparison to other aircraft of their day. With the F-16A the AoA limit is 25deg where as the MiG-29 has been cleared of an AoA of up to 45deg.

One of the major differences was in the engine arrangement with the General Dynamics team choosing a single P&W F100 this gave commonality with the F-15 and lower fuel consumption. In contrast the Mikoyan team choose a twin arrangement of the RD-33 with no thought give to using the Saturn/Lyulka AL-31F as used in the Su-27. The reasoning being that the use of two engines gave the aircraft greater survivability as the MiG-23/27's suffered a greater attrition ratio then the MiG-25. With the intakes the GD team adopted a fixed geometry intake as high mach number capability was not required for the role that the F-16 was to fill, while the requirement for a dash speed of mach 2.3+ led Mikoyan to adopt a two dimensional , four shock , variable geometry intake with one fixed ramp and two moving ramps.

In regard to FOD (foreign object damage) the GD team took the position that FOD would not be a problem as the F-16 would operate form swept, paved runways. Where as the Russians felt that a rough field capability was an important capability and as such devised two movable ramps over the intakes to prevent FOD while on the ground or at low speed at low level. When the intakes are closed the engines breath via auxiliary intakes on the upper surface of the wing.

The F-16 has incorporated a number of features that are intended to enhance combat effectiveness. The pilot's seat is inclined at 30deg rather than the normal 13deg , he also has a side stick controller which allows the pilots arm to be supported this has not met with universal approval as some pilots prefer to be able to fly with either hand. The F-16 also for the first time incorporated a Fly-By-Wire flight control system, this allowed the aircraft to be made inherently unstable and would greatly improve maneuverability in air-combat. While the MiG introduced the first HMS (helmet-mounted sight) and IRST (infra-red search and track) sensor with a laser range finder for passive attacks and missile engagements up to 45deg off-borsight but maintained a conventional flight control system and achieved high maneuverability mainly due advanced aerodynamics. i.e. The tail of the MiG-29 is said to have been positioned to take advantage of the four vortices by the wing and fuselage.

In combat provided that the MiG-29's 7.5g above 0.85 mach can be avoided it should beat any F-16 due to its BVR capability , higher thrust/weight ratio and lower wing loading. While in recent exercises between USAF F-16 and German MiG-29A's showed that in ACM the greatest advantage the MiG-29 had was it's helmet mounted sight coupled with the AA-11 Archer which gives it a kill zone greater than any aircraft serving. F-16 pilots found that any aircraft within 45deg's of the nose of a MiG-29 was always under grave threat. The ability to target aircraft well of boresight has proved to be such a success that helmet mounted sights have become requirements on any new fighter program.

While both aircraft have short-commings those of the MiG-29 have effectively been solved with newer versions ( MiG-29 S/M/K and MiG-33 ) which have increased the fuel capacity of the MiG as well as adding an in-flight refueling system. The number of hard points has also been increased by two and the max warload has been doubled, along with the inclusion of a fly-by-wire flight control system and a new radar that allowed two targets to be engaged simultaneously with the new AA-12 Adder active radar missile as well as full clearance for flight at 9 g's . Most of these upgrades have been offered to current users of the MiG-29 with the Russian and Indian airforces conducting some upgrades.

The F-16 by comparison has had few of it's problems solved in the past few years. One of it's greatest drawbacks the lack of a BVR capability was solved with the clearance of the AMRAAM for use on the F-16 but the second major problem of insufficient wing area on the F-16C has never been solved.

http://www.topfighters.com/images/f16mig29.gif




ok... read this before posting anything...

troung
25 Jan 05,, 00:28
God what a waste of time. That article was written before the MiG-29 slaughters over the skies of Serbia and Eritrea and of course leaves out the MiG-29 was totally unable to bring down low flying F-4Ds in Iran as the plane had zero LD/SD ability.

It's easy to figure out thistopic is an extension of the India Pakistan thingy.....

"Just to let you know a PAF F-16 was shot down by Russian Mig-23 or a Mig-27 with UNGUIDED BOMBS... the Pakistani's claim that the F-16 was shot down by it's own wingmen who freaked out after seeing the Migs... but does this mean that the F-16 is not a good plane?"

The PAF F-16 was shot down with an AIM-9 fired by his flight leader. The PAF F-16s also tore apart the VVS/DRAAF units they faced on the border shooting down Su-25s, Su-22s, MiG-23MLDs and MiG-21s along with cargo planes and helicopters.

-----

F-16s and MiG-29s have tangled in real life and the F-16 came out ahead.

More F-16 users have an ARH BVR missile then do MiG-29 users.

Thailand (facing R-27R armed Burmese MiG-29As)
Israel (facing R-27R armed Syrian MiG-29As)
Jordan (facing R-27R armed Syrian MiG-29As)
Greece (closest MiG-29s are in Serbia)
Portugal
Norway
Netherlands
Belgium
Denmark
Turkey (facing R-27R armed Syrian MiG-29As)
Singapore (facing R-27R and possible R-77E armed MiG-29Ns)
South Korea (facing R-27R armed Northern Korean MiG-29s)
Taiwan
America
UAE (facing R-27R armed Iranian MiG-29As)

In fact only 3 F-16 users lack BVR and those are Indonesia, Venezuela and Pakistan as even Egypt has the AIM-7M on thier F-16C B-40s. The AIM-7M works in combat a lot better then the R-27R which is closer in effect to the AIM-7E-2. Only India, Peru and Malaysia are in theory fitted for the R-77E and only India has the missile active on thier planes.

The F-16 has a better view out the cockpit, is far more user friendly, easier to support and keep in the air, has longer range, greater SA, and has a greater external payload.

So pretty much every MiG-29 which could tangle with an F-16 would be out classed. And that is leaving out that only two MiG-29 users (Russia/Iran) has AWACs in operation while America (E-3), Greece (Eireye) Singapore (E-2C), Israel (Phalcon) and Taiwan (E-2C) have operational AWACs (the NATO nations would not enter without AWACs but those are not techically in thier service). Chile is getting thier F-16s and already has the Phalcon. The UAE, South Korea and Turkey are all getting AWACs.

So lets be honest other then two theatres the F-16 totally outclasses the likely MiG-29 oppostion... and of course you would only want to talk about one of those areas.

Tronic
25 Jan 05,, 05:24
oh please troung... I'm here to discuss the two planes not the users... About the extension being "Pakistan", I was just giving an example on how poor pilot training can give a bad reputation to the plane; what the Mig-29 suffered... you go on to talk about users of the F-16 like America, but lets switch the planes around... during the Iraqi war... lets imagine the Iraqi's were flying the F-16's and the American's were flying the Mig-29's... do you really believe that Iraqi pilots would be able to take out the Americans with ease if they flew in F-16's??? The thing is we are here to compare the planes not who flies them... Just because American pilots with much upgraded F-16's with the support of AWACS can take down older Serbian or Iraqi Mig-29's with no such support doesn't mean the F-16 is superior...



God what a waste of time. That article was written before the MiG-29 slaughters over the skies of Serbia and Eritrea and of course leaves out the MiG-29 was totally unable to bring down low flying F-4Ds in Iran as the plane had zero LD/SD ability.
MiG-29B (Fulcrum-A) is fitted with the N-109 radar that has a look-down/shoot-down capability and can display ten targets in search and lock-on to one of the highest priority assigned by the computer. And thats one of the first Mig-29's in production so I don't know what you mean when you say the Mig-29 has no LD/SD capability...

Also, the "Mig-29 slaughter" took place between the F-16's which recieved AWACS support and the Mig's over Serbia were outnumbered in all the incidents they were
shot down. Also, the Serbs operated only about 10-15 Mig-29's...



It's easy to figure out thistopic is an extension of the India Pakistan thingy.....
why? How is it possible for you to give an example of Serbian Mig's getting shot down but I can't even give an example of Pakistani F-16's shot down???



The PAF F-16 was shot down with an AIM-9 fired by his flight leader. The PAF F-16s also tore apart the VVS/DRAAF units they faced on the border shooting down Su-25s, Su-22s, MiG-23MLDs and MiG-21s along with cargo planes and helicopters.
The thing is that an F-16 was shot down... so my point was that inferior pilot training usually results in the plane getting a bad reputation? I mean how many flying hours do you think the Iraqi's and the Serb's got compared to most NATO forces???


-----


F-16s and MiG-29s have tangled in real life and the F-16 came out ahead.
Because, the Mig-29 always had the odds against it. Lack of support, poor pilot training and low maintanence resulted in Mig's falling from the sky...



More F-16 users have an ARH BVR missile then do MiG-29 users.

Thailand (facing R-27R armed Burmese MiG-29As)
Israel (facing R-27R armed Syrian MiG-29As)
Jordan (facing R-27R armed Syrian MiG-29As)
Greece (closest MiG-29s are in Serbia)
Portugal
Norway
Netherlands
Belgium
Denmark
Turkey (facing R-27R armed Syrian MiG-29As)
Singapore (facing R-27R and possible R-77E armed MiG-29Ns)
South Korea (facing R-27R armed Northern Korean MiG-29s)
Taiwan
America
UAE (facing R-27R armed Iranian MiG-29As)

It's not about if most of the "users" have BVR capabilities, its if the planes have BVR capabilities and both the Mig-29 and the F-16 have BVR capabilities... The Mig-29 infact had the BVR capabilities much earlier than the F-16's got it from their first flight.



In fact only 3 F-16 users lack BVR and those are Indonesia, Venezuela and Pakistan as even Egypt has the AIM-7M on thier F-16C B-40s. The AIM-7M works in combat a lot better then the R-27R which is closer in effect to the AIM-7E-2. Only India, Peru and Malaysia are in theory fitted for the R-77E and only India has the missile active on thier planes.
Ok... again it's not about the users... It's more to do about the plane and the fact that the R-77E is at present equipped on the Mig's...



The F-16 has a better view out the cockpit, is far more user friendly, easier to support and keep in the air, has longer range, greater SA, and has a greater external payload.
1.) "The F-16 has a better view out the cockpit" -true, point given.
2.) "is far more user friendly" -true, point given.
3.) "easier to support and keep in the air" -amplify this please... explain.
4.) "has longer range" -true... but the Mig-29's were designed to be a short range fighter.
5.) "greater SA" -again amplify please... SA?
6.) "has a greater external payload" wrong... the small external payload is actually a big problem that the F-16 is facing till now. The Mig-29 has a much larger external payload then the F-16


Some points on the Mig-29:
Performance
- Good Aerodynamics - But Compromised by Construction
- Inferior to F-16 Supersonically, Mig-29 Superiority at Slow Speeds

Flight Controls
- Manual System Limits Use of Full Capabilities But Allows for Superior Pilot Individualized Capabilities

Avionics
- Look-Down, Shoot-Down Radar.
- State-of-the-Art INS
- Radar Warning Receiver - Low Technology But Good Coverage
- IRST
- Helmet-Mounted Sight System
NOTE: These specs are of Mig-29A Fulcrums. Mig-29K's and M's are much more advanced... something the Iraqis and the Serbs didn't fly...



So pretty much every MiG-29 which could tangle with an F-16 would be out classed. And that is leaving out that only two MiG-29 users (Russia/Iran) has AWACs in operation while America (E-3), Greece (Eireye) Singapore (E-2C), Israel (Phalcon) and Taiwan (E-2C) have operational AWACs (the NATO nations would not enter without AWACs but those are not techically in thier service). Chile is getting thier F-16s and already has the Phalcon. The UAE, South Korea and Turkey are all getting AWACs.

Jeezes... if the topic was... "MIG-29 FULCRUM USERS vs. F-16 FALCON USERS" than maybe it would have actually mattered to put these specs down... again, we are comparing planes not countries and their tactics and equipment...



So lets be honest other then two theatres the F-16 totally outclasses the likely MiG-29 oppostion... and of course you would only want to talk about one of those areas.
outclassed??? omg... if you don't have any specs on the F-16 or the Mig-29, do some research and come back, i don't wanna know which country flies the E-3's or which country maintains their F-16's better...

troung
25 Jan 05,, 14:26
"3.) "easier to support and keep in the air" -amplify this please... explain."

MiG-29s are hard and more expensive to keep flight worthly much less keep mission worthly. Several MiG-29 users have retired thier planes because they cost to much to keep in the air much less ready for combat.

"4.) "has longer range" -true... but the Mig-29's were designed to be a short range fighter."

Don't matter it has a shorter range.

"6.) "has a greater external payload" wrong... the small external payload is actually a big problem that the F-16 is facing till now. The Mig-29 has a much larger external payload then the F-16"

BS. The F-16 carries over 12,000lbs of weapons while the Mig-29 plays with 8,000.

"why? How is it possible for you to give an example of Serbian Mig's getting shot down but I can't even give an example of Pakistani F-16's shot down???"

One was an accident in the otherwise slaughter of the VVS/DRAAF and the other is part of a trend.... and of course you mentioned it to try and insult Pakistan by using the silly claim about the plane hitting a bomb... Of course seeing as the only plane to shoot down an F-16 was a HAF Mirage 2000EG taking out a THK F-16D...

"but lets switch the planes around... during the Iraqi war... lets imagine the Iraqi's were flying the F-16's and the American's were flying the Mig-29's... "

America would never build a plane like the MiG-29 and sent pilots into combat with it.

" The thing is we are here to compare the planes not who flies them..."

Users decide if the plane if a legend and the MiG-29 has gotten a better rep then it earned.

"MiG-29B (Fulcrum-A) is fitted with the N-109 radar that has a look-down/shoot-down capability and can display ten targets in search and lock-on to one of the highest priority assigned by the computer"

Actually the radar is quite bad/unrealible and lacks real LD/SD in practice (its not LD/SD because the Russians say so) and is quite easy to jam. IRIAF F-4s were able to easily jam the radars during the 1980s.

"Also, the Serbs operated only about 10-15 Mig-29's..."

And generally it was 2 on 1 or 2 on 2 or 4 on 2... the numbers did not factor in...

"It's not about if most of the "users" have BVR capabilities, its if the planes have BVR capabilities and both the Mig-29 and the F-16 have BVR capabilities... The Mig-29 infact had the BVR capabilities much earlier than the F-16's got it from their first flight."

And more F-16s carry advanced BVR systems. I rattled off the long list of F-16 users that use the AIM-120 and the very short list of R-77E users.

"Ok... again it's not about the users..."

Actually when you compare planes you do compare the users.

"It's more to do about the plane and the fact that the R-77E is at present equipped on the Mig's..."

On a handful compared to the AIM-120s mounted on F-16s.

"- Look-Down, Shoot-Down Radar."

That is easy to jam and in reality lacks LD/SD and of course the plane lacks the SA of an F-16 making it impossible to do much on its own...

"IRST - Helmet-Mounted Sight System"

But of course if you are going to bring up planes not in service I could put out that the F-16E/F B-60/62 has an IRST and a HMS. IDF-AF/RSAF/USAF/HAF F-16s all have a HMS along with other nations.

"Mig-29K's and M's are much more advanced... something the Iraqis and the Serbs didn't fly..."

FYI no one actually currently flies the MiG-29K/M. It's vapor wave until in sees action.

"... "MIG-29 FULCRUM USERS vs. F-16 FALCON USERS" than maybe it would have actually mattered to put these specs down... again, we are comparing planes not countries and their tactics and equipment..."

The only way to see that is through combat and comparing the users.

"outclassed??? omg... if you don't have any specs on the F-16 or the Mig-29, do some research and come back, i don't wanna know which country flies the E-3's or which country maintains their F-16's better..."

You posted this thread in hopes you would hear the MiG-29 was so much better so you could push the nationalistic agenda you are trying to push. I have seen it all before.

I know easily more about the planes, thier users and thier records then you do and it shows... you are desperate to push the MiG-29 and it shows....

I'm not saying every single situation/war they will meet the F-16 will win ;) just do the balance and the F-16 comes out way ahead as a fighter.

And it is "MiG" not "Mig"....

--------------------

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/1995/articles/jul_95/july2a_95.html
Schlemming with the Fulcrums,
F-16/MiG-29 Training in Italy
Article by Eric Hehs

Four Cyrillic letters adorn a toggle switch in the MiG-29 cockpit. The letters spell a word that sounds like schlemm. The switch activates a helmet-mounted sight system used to designate targets for one of the most formidable air-to-air missiles any USAF fighter pilot may ever face, and actually ever face-the AA-11 Archer.

The system allows pilots the MiG-29 to shoot the thrust-vectored Archer where their planes are not pointing. With a turn of the head, they can target opposing aircraft up to forty-five degrees off the nose of the MiG. When MiG-29 pilots of Germany's Jagdgeschwader 73 (Fighter Wing 73) use the helmet-mounted sight system in simulated engagements, they call it a schlemm shot . (Not surprising, schlemm means grand slam in German.)

Only a handful of USAF fighter pilots have ever been schlemmed. Those who have, though, consider themselves lucky. They have experienced what others have only read about or encountered in simulations. With experience comes credibility. And as of last May 1995, the most credible squadron when it comes to fighting the MiG-29 is the 510th Fighter Squadron from Aviano Air Base in northern Italy.

Most people associate Aviano with Deny Flight Operations over Bosnia. Many pilots of the 510th and its sister F-16 squadron, the 555th, have been flying over Bosnia from Aviano for most three years without much attention. Until recently, that is. These days, the squadrons fly these missions for two-month shifts every six months. The units spend two of the remaining four months training at Aviano and two months deployed. On one such deployment last year to Decimomannu Air Base on the southern tip of Sardinia, Capt. Will Sparrow of the 510th learned about an upcoming German MiG-29 visit to the island. The Fulcrums, he heard, were looking for aerial adversaries. "We were on the phone about thirty seconds later getting our name on the books to come back down here," Sparrow recalled.

A few months after that call, the 510th headed back to Sardinia with ten F-16s and an able support team for a four-week MiG-29 Fest. The JG 73 sent ten Fulcrums and fifteen air-to-air German F-4Fs. The pilots flew a variety of setups, from simple one F-16 flying basic fighter maneuvers against one MiG-29, to more complex encounters of four F-16s teamed against four MiG-29s. Two F-16s also flew against two MiG-29s and two F-4Fs. 'We called that two v two plus two," explained Sparrow. "The MiGs practice a lot of tactics with the F-4s to make use of the F-4's radar."

The more complex engagements were simultaneously monitored by ground controllers who used the air combat maneuvering instrumentation facilities at Decimomannu to guide the aerial combatants. The ACMI facilities were also used by the aircrews to review the engagements. "Decimomannu is a fantastic place to train," said Sparrow, who was in charge of the deployment for the 510th. "The base has an ACMI that can't be beat for debriefing. And they have a bombing range nearby at Cappa Frasca.

"I hope this deployment receives a lot of attention because it deserves a lot," Sparrow continued. "Not because we're here, but because we're learning about aircraft very similar to the German MiGs, aircraft that could cause us a lot of problems. As for what we expected before coming down here, we would get ten different answers from ten different pilots. We've heard a lot of things about the MiG-29. We all read the same stuff and get the same information. But we never really know what to believe. We now know they are a great adversary. They were everything I expected and more. Nothing can substitute for training like this. We go out and fight ourselves a lot and we try to make those encounters as realistic as possible. But this is the real thing. And these MiG pilots are really well trained."

Germany's MiG-29 unit is based at Laage Air Base near Rostock on the Baltic coast. Before German reunification in 1990, the aircraft flew for the former East Germany and the Warsaw Pact. After reunification, the Fulcrums became a test wing for the German Air Force. In 1993, the unit became an operational wing. Its twenty-four Fulcrums and twenty-eight pilots officially became a combined wing with an F-4 unit from Pferdsfeld Air Base in 1994. The unit formally maintains an alert role and polices the air over the five republics that comprise the former East Germany. Many of Germany's MiG-29 pilots are former F-4 pilots who were trained in the United States. These pilots volunteered to convert to the Fulcrum, which currently represents the most advanced fighter in the German Luftwaffe.

The JG-73 has also retained a number of former East German MiG-29 pilots who have had to tailor their knowledge of the airplane to fit western style tactics. Most of the Fulcrum pilots have fewer than 300 hours in the aircraft. Only a few have over 400 hours. No one in the unit, including former East German pilots, has over 500 hours in the MiG-29.

This was not the JG 73's first encounter with advanced western aircraft. The wing flew against Dutch F-16s at Decimomannu last year and against Spanish F-18s for two weeks in 1993. The Germans deploy to Sardinia because the ACMI facilities are there and because air-to-air combat training is restricted over the former East Germany, which covers Laage Air Base. The restriction, however, may be dropped later this year.

"The highlight of this deployment for me has been the BFM (basic fighter maneuvering, i.e., modern dogfighting) against a clean F-16C," explained Capt. Oliver Prunk, the operations officer for JG 73. "The F-16C performs significantly better in terms of power when compared with the F-16A. I was also pleased with the proficiency of the American pilots. They take their jobs very seriously. We try to be the best adversary we can. I think they were surprised with the performance of the MiG-29 and with what we can do with it."

The most impressive aspect of the Fulcrum's performance for the American pilots was its low-speed maneuverability. "In a low-speed fight, fighting the Fulcrum is similar to fighting an F-18 Hornet," explained Capt. Mike McCoy of the 510th. "But the Fulcrum has a thrust advantage over the Hornet. An F-18 can really crank its nose around if you get into a slow-speed fight, but it has to lose altitude to regain the energy, which allows us to get on top of them. The MiG has about the same nose authority at slow speeds, but it can regain energy much faster. Plus the MiG pilots have that forty-five-degree cone in front of them into which they can fire an Archer and eat you up."

The off-boresight missile, as described in the opening scenario, proved to be a formidable threat, though not an insurmountable one. "Some of their capabilities were more wicked than we originally thought," said McCoy. "We had to respect the helmet-mounted sight, which made our decisions to anchor more difficult. In other words, when I got close in, I had to consider that helmet-mounted sight. Every time I got near a Fulcrum's nose, I was releasing flares to defeat an Archer coming off his rail."

"Before coming here, some of our pilots may have thought of the MiG's helmet-mounted sight as an end-all to a BFM fight," explained Lt. Col. Gary West, commander of the 510th. "We have found that it is not as lethal as we had expected.

We encountered some positions-particularly in an across-the-circle shot or a high-low shot and in a slow-speed fight-where a Fulcrum pilot can look up forty-five degrees and take a shot while his nose is still off. That capability has changed some of the pilots' ideas on how they should approach a MiG-29 in a neutral fight. Below 200 knots, the MiG-29 has incredible nose-pointing capability down to below 100 knots. The F-16, however, enjoys an advantage in the 200 knot-plus regime. At higher speeds, we can power above them to go to the vertical. And our turn rate is significantly better. By being patient and by keeping airspeed up around 325 knots, an F-16 can bring the MiG-29 to its nose. But the pilot must still be careful of the across-the-circle shot with that helmet-mounted sight.

"We have done very well on neutral BFM engagements," continued West. "We have tried single and two-circle fights, depending on how much lead turn we had at the merge. Without exception, we have been able to use finesse or power to an advantage after at least a couple of turns. I don't think any F-16 pilot has gotten defensive and stayed there. As always, and this applies to any airplane, success depends on who is flying."

Three pilots from the 510th received backseat rides in one of the JG-73's two-seat MiG-29 trainers. Capt. Sparrow was one of them. "The MiG is harder to fly than the F-16," said Sparrow. "The Soviet airframe is great, but the avionics are not user friendly. After flying in the backseat of the Fulcrum, I got a feel for how spoiled we are in the F-16. I always felt good about the F-16, but I wouldn't trade flying the F-16 for any other aircraft, foreign or domestic.

"The Fulcrum doesn't have the crisp movements of an F-16," Sparrow continued. "You need to be an octopus in the MiG-29 to work the avionics. Those German pilots have it tough. Just to get a simple lock on and fire a missile may take a half dozen hands-off switches or so. We can do the same with a flick of the thumb while we are looking at the HUD. F-16 pilots also have a significant sight advantage. A couple of hundred feet advantage can make a difference in air-to-air combat; the actual difference is more significant than that. MiG-29 pilots have a tough time checking their six o'clock. Their canopy rail is higher. They can lose sight of us even when flying BFM."

"Their visibility is not that good," agreed McCoy, one of the other two pilots who enjoyed a spin in the Fulcrum. "Their disadvantage is a real advantage for us. F-16 pilots sit high in the cockpit. All the MiG-29 pilots who sat in our cockpit wanted to look around with the canopy closed. They were impressed that they could turn around and look at the tail and even see the engine can."

"Besides visibility, I expected better turning performance," McCoy continued. "The MiG-29 is not a continuous nine-g machine like the F-16. I tried to do some things I normally do in an F-16. For example, I tried a high-AOA guns jink. I got the Fulcrum down to about 180 knots and pulled ninety degrees of bank and started pulling heavy g's. I then went to idle and added a little rudder to get the jet to roll with ailerons. The pilot took control away from me in the middle of these maneuvers because the airplane was about to snap. I use the F-16's quick roll rate like this all the time with no problem.

"I also tried to do a 250-knot loop," McCoy recalled. "I went to mil power and stabilized. As I went nose high, I asked for afterburner. I had to hamfist the airplane a little as I approached the top of the loop. I was still in afterburner at about 15,000 feet and the jet lost control. The nose started slicing left and right. I let go of the stick and the airplane righted itself and went down. It couldn't finish the loop. In the F-16, we can complete an entire loop at 250 knots."

Like Sparrow, McCoy climbed out of the MiG-29 cockpit feeling better about the F-16, especially its automation. "The biggest instrument in the MiG-29 cockpit is the clock," McCoy said. "It took me a while to understand this. But a large clock is needed to keep track of the time after launching a missile. When they launch a missile, they have to consider their shot range and the type of missile they are shooting and estimate how long it will take to impact before firing. When they take a five-mile Alamo shot, for example, they have to calculate mentally the time required for the missile to reach its target so their radar can illuminate it for the duration. They fire and watch until they know when they can turn away. That procedure is a real disadvantage if they're flying against someone who shot a missile at them at about the same time.

"F-16 pilots don't have to think about these things," McCoy continued. "We have great automation. When we launch a missile, the airplane performs all the calculations and displays a countdown on the head-up display for us. When we're within ten miles, we want our eyes out of the cockpit looking for flashes or smoke from an adversary. That's why our head-up display is focused to infinity. We can view information without refocusing our eyes to scan the horizon. Inside of ten miles, Fulcrum pilots are moving their hands around flipping about six switches, some they have to look at. I am moving one, maybe two switches, without taking my hands off the throttle and stick."

German Fulcrum pilots realize the limitations, and advantages, of their aircraft. "If you define an F-16 as a third-generation fighter, it is not fair to speak of the MiG-29 as a third-generation aircraft because of its avionics," said Lt. Col. Manfred Skeries, the deputy commander of the JG-73. "Aerodynamics, now, are something different." Skeries is the former commander of all East German fighter forces and the first German pilot to fly the MiG-29. His comments came after he received his first flight in the F-16.

"The MiG-29's avionics are a shortcoming," admitted Capt. Michael Raubbach, a Fulcrum pilot of the JG 73. "Its radar-warning and navigational equipment are not up to Western standards. The Russian idea of hands-on throttle and stick is not the same as it is in the West. It is true that we have to look in the cockpit a lot to flip switches. And the way information is provided and the accuracy with which it is provided-in the navigational equipment in particular-doesn't allow full employment in the Western concept.

"Our visibility is not as good as an F-16 or even an F-15," Raubbach continued. "We can't see directly behind us. We have to look out the side slightly to see behind us, which doesn't allow us to maintain a visual contact and an optimum lift vector at the same time. This shortcoming can be a real problem, especially when flying against an aircraft as small as the F-16. But as a German, I can't complain about the MiG's visibility. The aircraft offers the greatest visibility in our air force."

Raubbach is one of many Western-trained pilots who volunteered for the first five MiG-29 slots that became available after Germany made the JG 73 an operational wing. He is now an instructor pilot for the unit. "The helmet-mounted sight is a real advantage when it comes to engagements requiring a visual identification," Raubbach said. "It offers no advantage in a BVR engagement, however, unless you enter a short-range fight, which is not very likely against an AMRAAM-equipped opponent like we are facing here."

The Westernization of an Eastern aircraft has presented its own problems. The MiG-29's powerful Isotov RD-33 engines, designed as disposable commodities for a mass force, were intended to run about 400 hours before they had to be replaced. (By comparison, F-16 engines can run about 4,000 hours between overhauls.) The Germans have managed almost to double the RD-33's lifespan by detuning the engines by ten percent. Besides lowering thrust, the cost-saving fix has reduced range and dirtied the exhaust at lower altitudes. The move from JP-4 to NATO's standard fuel JP-8 has also hurt engine performance.

"The engines have been extremely reliable," commented Raubbach. "It goes from afterburner to military power, without problems, at various speeds and under varying g conditions. I can feel the difference detuning makes only at higher speeds. We have many spare engines. We had a shortage at one time, but we now have a big supply. Engines do not represent a shortcoming for us."

Though aerodynamically adept, the MiG-29's performance is constrained by avionics conforming to Soviet tactical doctrine. The aircraft was designed to rely heavily on a centralized system of ground controllers, which could take control of the aircraft's radar. The system could also land the plane if necessary. "Warsaw Pact pilots were not taught to evaluate a situation as it occurs in the air," Prunk explained. "Pilots were used to a system that made many decisions for them. The aircraft's guidance system had room for only six preprogrammed steerpoints, including three targets. The radio had twenty preselected channels at frequencies unknown to the pilot.

"The aircraft was not built for close-in dogfighting, though it is aerodynamically capable of it," Prunk continued. "The East Germans flew it as a point-defense interceptor, like a MiG-21. They were not allowed to max perform the airplane, to explore its capabilities or their own abilities. Sorties lasted about thirty minutes. The airplane was designed to scramble, jettison the tank, go supersonic, shoot its missiles, and go home." This relatively strict operational scenario presents its own limitations. Many of these involve the aircraft's centerline fuel tank. The MiG-29 cannot fly supersonic with the tank attached. Nor can pilots fire the aircraft's 30mm cannon (the tank blocks the shell discharge route) or use its speed brakes. The aircraft is limited to four g's when the tank has fuel remaining. The tank creates some drag and is also difficult to attach and remove. The MiG-29 can carry wing tanks that alleviate many of these shortcomings, but the Luftwaffe has no plans to purchase them from Russia.

Even given its drawbacks, the MiG-29 remains a formidable foe. "This deployment answered so many questions I had in my mind about the MiG-29," said McCoy, who flew in eight sorties against the Fulcrum and in one with it. "The experience confirmed what I knew about the MiG-29's ability to turn and to fight in the phonebooth. It is an awesome airplane in this regime. The awe, though, fades away after that first turn in. The biggest adrenaline rush was getting to that point. After that, I started evaluating it as a weapon. The German MiG-29 pilots represent a worst-case threat for us because their skills are so good."

"When Western pilots merge with a MiG for the first time, they tend to stare at it in awe," said West, who flew in three sorties against the Fulcrum. "Instead of flying their jets and fighting, they are enamored by this Soviet-built aircraft that they have spent their lives learning about. Pilots lose this sense of wonder after a first encounter. It is no longer a potential distraction. They are going to know what type of fight to fight and exactly where they may be in trouble. No one can learn these things by reading reports. Air-to-air fighting is a perishable skill. But the lessons we learned here won't be forgotten. These pilots will know at the merge exactly what they are up against. They will have more confidence. And they know they are flying an aircraft that is superior in maneuverability, power, and avionics.

"When our pilots first arrived here, they almost tripped over themselves because their eyes were glued to the ramp and those MiG-29s," West continued. "After a few days, though, those MiGs became just like any other aircraft. And that's the way it should be."

Tronic
25 Jan 05,, 16:05
MiG-29s are hard and more expensive to keep flight worthly much less keep mission worthly. Several MiG-29 users have retired thier planes because they cost to much to keep in the air much less ready for combat.
The Mig-29 is more cost-effecient in terms of maintanence... The Mig-29 can't fly because it's in the hands of governments who don't have the money. If these same countries held the F-16, that too would be grounded.




BS. The F-16 carries over 12,000lbs of weapons while the Mig-29 plays with 8,000.
oh please... the Migs can carry many more bombs and missiles than the F-16 can... it has more external points because of it's greater wing area... And by the way the Block 50/52 F-16's have a thrust of 30,000lbs and the Mig-29 has a thrust greater than 18,000 lbs so I don't know where you're getting your figures from... The Mig-29 can carry more AMRAAMS than the F-16...




One was an accident in the otherwise slaughter of the VVS/DRAAF and the other is part of a trend.... and of course you mentioned it to try and insult Pakistan by using the silly claim about the plane hitting a bomb... Of course seeing as the only plane to shoot down an F-16 was a HAF Mirage 2000EG taking out a THK F-16D...
Oh please... read the post again, i said that it hit the bomb OR it was shot down by his wingmen... I stated both reasons which have been claimed... And I mean, a Pakistani F-16 got shot down? But I can't say that so not to insult Pakistan??? it is a fact! and I said it. Sure if I made it up you had the right to correct me...



America would never build a plane like the MiG-29 and sent pilots into combat with it.
Oh please... America has built much sh*ttier planes like the F-104 and the F-4 (which got raped in Vietnam). And besides if the Russians had the money like the Americans do, the Mig would've been much more advanced electronically than present...


Users decide if the plane if a legend and the MiG-29 has gotten a better rep then it earned.
No, we are not here to discuss if the plane is a legend or not, we are here to discuss it's specs... I mean, the Spitfire was a legend at it's time but do you think that it could beat all the other planes hands down???
Oh yeah and maybe you didn't know but the Mig-29's have a much longer tracking range than the F-16.


Actually the radar is quite bad/unrealible and lacks real LD/SD in practice (its not LD/SD because the Russians say so) and is quite easy to jam. IRIAF F-4s were able to easily jam the radars during the 1980s.
Maybe you're forgetting the USAF-Luftwaffe excercise... even though the Germans had much less flight training they still proved that the Mig-29's were a deadly weapon, because of it HMD. The Mig-29's Look-And-Shoot Helmet Mounted Cueing System proved to be very deadly in the excersises. The Mig pilots can target enemy planes just by turning their heads in the direction of the enemy plane and locking on... something the F-16 doesn't have...



And generally it was 2 on 1 or 2 on 2 or 4 on 2... the numbers did not factor in...
The numbers were always about 3-4 F-16's taking down a lone Serbian Migs...


And more F-16s carry advanced BVR systems. I rattled off the long list of F-16 users that use the AIM-120 and the very short list of R-77E users.

Like i said, the Russians need money bad so they sell to countries who can't affors all the advanced avionic and EW suites that America sells to. The bottom line is that the Mig-29 is capable of BVR engagements...


Actually when you compare planes you do compare the users.
no not really... you compare what that plane is capable of, not the users that it is sold too... cuz that would mean that if the F-16 was in those nations hand and they couldn't afford the advanced systems that America can afford, does that mean that the F-16 is a sh*tty plane? no, it means it's sold to users who don't got the money. Example, Iranian F-14's...




That is easy to jam and in reality lacks LD/SD and of course the plane lacks the SA of an F-16 making it impossible to do much on its own...
Easy to Jam??? I believe you're talking about users again... Only easy to jam for users that have the jamming capability opposed to users that don't have anti-jamming devices... The bottom line is that you need to have your jammers set at the same band as the planes radar to jam... which the Americans can do with ease because of AWACS support and advanced EW... The Mig-29's operational with InAF has anti-jamming capabilities which the Iraqi's and the Serbs didn't have... If you know the correct radar bands, all aircraft are easy to jam...



But of course if you are going to bring up planes not in service I could put out that the F-16E/F B-60/62 has an IRST and a HMS. IDF-AF/RSAF/USAF/HAF F-16s all have a HMS along with other nations.
they are developing HMS, they don't have it at present. Now these are future F-16's, if you look back, the first Mig-29's that rolled out had HMS...



FYI no one actually currently flies the MiG-29K/M. It's vapor wave until in sees action.
India has just ordered the Mig-29K's to operate on their carriers...




The only way to see that is through combat and comparing the users.
No not in comparing the users...if you take an upgraded F-16 facing an old, ruting Mig-29, that is being very unfair... To compare the planes, an equally upgraded Mig-29 has to be in combat with an equally upgraded F-16 with no outside support like AWACS...



You posted this thread in hopes you would hear the MiG-29 was so much better so you could push the nationalistic agenda you are trying to push. I have seen it all before.
No I posted this thread to hope that someone would actually take the time to do research before runnig his/her mouth off, but sadly I hoped wrong... It seems you keep comparing obsolete old Mig-29's with upgraded block50 F-16's... comparing an F-16 block 50 and a Mig-29 Fulcrum A Is not really a fair comparison...


I know easily more about the planes, thier users and thier records then you do and it shows... you are desperate to push the MiG-29 and it shows....
oh please... i'm desperate? look at you... comparing obsolete fighters to the F-16. Try doing some research before posting... You might have knowledge about Mig's getting pulled out of the sky but you don't have a clue as to the difference in these Mig's or F-16's... Do some research, before posting, please...


I'm not saying every single situation/war they will meet the F-16 will win ;) just do the balance and the F-16 comes out way ahead as a fighter.
No, thats what you're not doing the "balance". Don't you think it would be more interesting if you posted F-16 radar vs. Mig-29 radar, F-16 range vs. Mig-29 range... and actually post FACTS, don't just say, oh the F-16 has better radar than the Mig-29 because of past conflicts... I mean i'm guessing that you don't even know the different radars on these two planes... The improved ZHUK radar on the newer Mig-29's is much more advanced than the radars that the Iraqi or the Serbian migs had...


And it is "MiG" not "Mig"....
wow!!! seriously!!! you know a lot about planes man!!! lol... please... does it matter as long as they both pronounce the same???

--------------------


http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/1995/articles/jul_95/july2a_95.html
Schlemming with the Fulcrums,
F-16/MiG-29 Training in Italy
Article by Eric Hehs

Four Cyrillic letters adorn a toggle switch in the MiG-29 cockpit. The letters spell a word that sounds like schlemm. The switch activates a helmet-mounted sight system used to designate targets for one of the most formidable air-to-air missiles any USAF fighter pilot may ever face, and actually ever face-the AA-11 Archer.

The system allows pilots the MiG-29 to shoot the thrust-vectored Archer where their planes are not pointing. With a turn of the head, they can target opposing aircraft up to forty-five degrees off the nose of the MiG. When MiG-29 pilots of Germany's Jagdgeschwader 73 (Fighter Wing 73) use the helmet-mounted sight system in simulated engagements, they call it a schlemm shot . (Not surprising, schlemm means grand slam in German.)

Only a handful of USAF fighter pilots have ever been schlemmed. Those who have, though, consider themselves lucky. They have experienced what others have only read about or encountered in simulations. With experience comes credibility. And as of last May 1995, the most credible squadron when it comes to fighting the MiG-29 is the 510th Fighter Squadron from Aviano Air Base in northern Italy.

Most people associate Aviano with Deny Flight Operations over Bosnia. Many pilots of the 510th and its sister F-16 squadron, the 555th, have been flying over Bosnia from Aviano for most three years without much attention. Until recently, that is. These days, the squadrons fly these missions for two-month shifts every six months. The units spend two of the remaining four months training at Aviano and two months deployed. On one such deployment last year to Decimomannu Air Base on the southern tip of Sardinia, Capt. Will Sparrow of the 510th learned about an upcoming German MiG-29 visit to the island. The Fulcrums, he heard, were looking for aerial adversaries. "We were on the phone about thirty seconds later getting our name on the books to come back down here," Sparrow recalled.

A few months after that call, the 510th headed back to Sardinia with ten F-16s and an able support team for a four-week MiG-29 Fest. The JG 73 sent ten Fulcrums and fifteen air-to-air German F-4Fs. The pilots flew a variety of setups, from simple one F-16 flying basic fighter maneuvers against one MiG-29, to more complex encounters of four F-16s teamed against four MiG-29s. Two F-16s also flew against two MiG-29s and two F-4Fs. 'We called that two v two plus two," explained Sparrow. "The MiGs practice a lot of tactics with the F-4s to make use of the F-4's radar."

The more complex engagements were simultaneously monitored by ground controllers who used the air combat maneuvering instrumentation facilities at Decimomannu to guide the aerial combatants. The ACMI facilities were also used by the aircrews to review the engagements. "Decimomannu is a fantastic place to train," said Sparrow, who was in charge of the deployment for the 510th. "The base has an ACMI that can't be beat for debriefing. And they have a bombing range nearby at Cappa Frasca.

"I hope this deployment receives a lot of attention because it deserves a lot," Sparrow continued. "Not because we're here, but because we're learning about aircraft very similar to the German MiGs, aircraft that could cause us a lot of problems. As for what we expected before coming down here, we would get ten different answers from ten different pilots. We've heard a lot of things about the MiG-29. We all read the same stuff and get the same information. But we never really know what to believe. We now know they are a great adversary. They were everything I expected and more. Nothing can substitute for training like this. We go out and fight ourselves a lot and we try to make those encounters as realistic as possible. But this is the real thing. And these MiG pilots are really well trained."

Germany's MiG-29 unit is based at Laage Air Base near Rostock on the Baltic coast. Before German reunification in 1990, the aircraft flew for the former East Germany and the Warsaw Pact. After reunification, the Fulcrums became a test wing for the German Air Force. In 1993, the unit became an operational wing. Its twenty-four Fulcrums and twenty-eight pilots officially became a combined wing with an F-4 unit from Pferdsfeld Air Base in 1994. The unit formally maintains an alert role and polices the air over the five republics that comprise the former East Germany. Many of Germany's MiG-29 pilots are former F-4 pilots who were trained in the United States. These pilots volunteered to convert to the Fulcrum, which currently represents the most advanced fighter in the German Luftwaffe.

The JG-73 has also retained a number of former East German MiG-29 pilots who have had to tailor their knowledge of the airplane to fit western style tactics. Most of the Fulcrum pilots have fewer than 300 hours in the aircraft. Only a few have over 400 hours. No one in the unit, including former East German pilots, has over 500 hours in the MiG-29.

This was not the JG 73's first encounter with advanced western aircraft. The wing flew against Dutch F-16s at Decimomannu last year and against Spanish F-18s for two weeks in 1993. The Germans deploy to Sardinia because the ACMI facilities are there and because air-to-air combat training is restricted over the former East Germany, which covers Laage Air Base. The restriction, however, may be dropped later this year.

"The highlight of this deployment for me has been the BFM (basic fighter maneuvering, i.e., modern dogfighting) against a clean F-16C," explained Capt. Oliver Prunk, the operations officer for JG 73. "The F-16C performs significantly better in terms of power when compared with the F-16A. I was also pleased with the proficiency of the American pilots. They take their jobs very seriously. We try to be the best adversary we can. I think they were surprised with the performance of the MiG-29 and with what we can do with it."

The most impressive aspect of the Fulcrum's performance for the American pilots was its low-speed maneuverability. "In a low-speed fight, fighting the Fulcrum is similar to fighting an F-18 Hornet," explained Capt. Mike McCoy of the 510th. "But the Fulcrum has a thrust advantage over the Hornet. An F-18 can really crank its nose around if you get into a slow-speed fight, but it has to lose altitude to regain the energy, which allows us to get on top of them. The MiG has about the same nose authority at slow speeds, but it can regain energy much faster. Plus the MiG pilots have that forty-five-degree cone in front of them into which they can fire an Archer and eat you up."

The off-boresight missile, as described in the opening scenario, proved to be a formidable threat, though not an insurmountable one. "Some of their capabilities were more wicked than we originally thought," said McCoy. "We had to respect the helmet-mounted sight, which made our decisions to anchor more difficult. In other words, when I got close in, I had to consider that helmet-mounted sight. Every time I got near a Fulcrum's nose, I was releasing flares to defeat an Archer coming off his rail."

"Before coming here, some of our pilots may have thought of the MiG's helmet-mounted sight as an end-all to a BFM fight," explained Lt. Col. Gary West, commander of the 510th. "We have found that it is not as lethal as we had expected.

We encountered some positions-particularly in an across-the-circle shot or a high-low shot and in a slow-speed fight-where a Fulcrum pilot can look up forty-five degrees and take a shot while his nose is still off. That capability has changed some of the pilots' ideas on how they should approach a MiG-29 in a neutral fight. Below 200 knots, the MiG-29 has incredible nose-pointing capability down to below 100 knots. The F-16, however, enjoys an advantage in the 200 knot-plus regime. At higher speeds, we can power above them to go to the vertical. And our turn rate is significantly better. By being patient and by keeping airspeed up around 325 knots, an F-16 can bring the MiG-29 to its nose. But the pilot must still be careful of the across-the-circle shot with that helmet-mounted sight.

"We have done very well on neutral BFM engagements," continued West. "We have tried single and two-circle fights, depending on how much lead turn we had at the merge. Without exception, we have been able to use finesse or power to an advantage after at least a couple of turns. I don't think any F-16 pilot has gotten defensive and stayed there. As always, and this applies to any airplane, success depends on who is flying."

Three pilots from the 510th received backseat rides in one of the JG-73's two-seat MiG-29 trainers. Capt. Sparrow was one of them. "The MiG is harder to fly than the F-16," said Sparrow. "The Soviet airframe is great, but the avionics are not user friendly. After flying in the backseat of the Fulcrum, I got a feel for how spoiled we are in the F-16. I always felt good about the F-16, but I wouldn't trade flying the F-16 for any other aircraft, foreign or domestic.

"The Fulcrum doesn't have the crisp movements of an F-16," Sparrow continued. "You need to be an octopus in the MiG-29 to work the avionics. Those German pilots have it tough. Just to get a simple lock on and fire a missile may take a half dozen hands-off switches or so. We can do the same with a flick of the thumb while we are looking at the HUD. F-16 pilots also have a significant sight advantage. A couple of hundred feet advantage can make a difference in air-to-air combat; the actual difference is more significant than that. MiG-29 pilots have a tough time checking their six o'clock. Their canopy rail is higher. They can lose sight of us even when flying BFM."

"Their visibility is not that good," agreed McCoy, one of the other two pilots who enjoyed a spin in the Fulcrum. "Their disadvantage is a real advantage for us. F-16 pilots sit high in the cockpit. All the MiG-29 pilots who sat in our cockpit wanted to look around with the canopy closed. They were impressed that they could turn around and look at the tail and even see the engine can."

"Besides visibility, I expected better turning performance," McCoy continued. "The MiG-29 is not a continuous nine-g machine like the F-16. I tried to do some things I normally do in an F-16. For example, I tried a high-AOA guns jink. I got the Fulcrum down to about 180 knots and pulled ninety degrees of bank and started pulling heavy g's. I then went to idle and added a little rudder to get the jet to roll with ailerons. The pilot took control away from me in the middle of these maneuvers because the airplane was about to snap. I use the F-16's quick roll rate like this all the time with no problem.

"I also tried to do a 250-knot loop," McCoy recalled. "I went to mil power and stabilized. As I went nose high, I asked for afterburner. I had to hamfist the airplane a little as I approached the top of the loop. I was still in afterburner at about 15,000 feet and the jet lost control. The nose started slicing left and right. I let go of the stick and the airplane righted itself and went down. It couldn't finish the loop. In the F-16, we can complete an entire loop at 250 knots."

Like Sparrow, McCoy climbed out of the MiG-29 cockpit feeling better about the F-16, especially its automation. "The biggest instrument in the MiG-29 cockpit is the clock," McCoy said. "It took me a while to understand this. But a large clock is needed to keep track of the time after launching a missile. When they launch a missile, they have to consider their shot range and the type of missile they are shooting and estimate how long it will take to impact before firing. When they take a five-mile Alamo shot, for example, they have to calculate mentally the time required for the missile to reach its target so their radar can illuminate it for the duration. They fire and watch until they know when they can turn away. That procedure is a real disadvantage if they're flying against someone who shot a missile at them at about the same time.

"F-16 pilots don't have to think about these things," McCoy continued. "We have great automation. When we launch a missile, the airplane performs all the calculations and displays a countdown on the head-up display for us. When we're within ten miles, we want our eyes out of the cockpit looking for flashes or smoke from an adversary. That's why our head-up display is focused to infinity. We can view information without refocusing our eyes to scan the horizon. Inside of ten miles, Fulcrum pilots are moving their hands around flipping about six switches, some they have to look at. I am moving one, maybe two switches, without taking my hands off the throttle and stick."

German Fulcrum pilots realize the limitations, and advantages, of their aircraft. "If you define an F-16 as a third-generation fighter, it is not fair to speak of the MiG-29 as a third-generation aircraft because of its avionics," said Lt. Col. Manfred Skeries, the deputy commander of the JG-73. "Aerodynamics, now, are something different." Skeries is the former commander of all East German fighter forces and the first German pilot to fly the MiG-29. His comments came after he received his first flight in the F-16.

"The MiG-29's avionics are a shortcoming," admitted Capt. Michael Raubbach, a Fulcrum pilot of the JG 73. "Its radar-warning and navigational equipment are not up to Western standards. The Russian idea of hands-on throttle and stick is not the same as it is in the West. It is true that we have to look in the cockpit a lot to flip switches. And the way information is provided and the accuracy with which it is provided-in the navigational equipment in particular-doesn't allow full employment in the Western concept.

"Our visibility is not as good as an F-16 or even an F-15," Raubbach continued. "We can't see directly behind us. We have to look out the side slightly to see behind us, which doesn't allow us to maintain a visual contact and an optimum lift vector at the same time. This shortcoming can be a real problem, especially when flying against an aircraft as small as the F-16. But as a German, I can't complain about the MiG's visibility. The aircraft offers the greatest visibility in our air force."

Raubbach is one of many Western-trained pilots who volunteered for the first five MiG-29 slots that became available after Germany made the JG 73 an operational wing. He is now an instructor pilot for the unit. "The helmet-mounted sight is a real advantage when it comes to engagements requiring a visual identification," Raubbach said. "It offers no advantage in a BVR engagement, however, unless you enter a short-range fight, which is not very likely against an AMRAAM-equipped opponent like we are facing here."

The Westernization of an Eastern aircraft has presented its own problems. The MiG-29's powerful Isotov RD-33 engines, designed as disposable commodities for a mass force, were intended to run about 400 hours before they had to be replaced. (By comparison, F-16 engines can run about 4,000 hours between overhauls.) The Germans have managed almost to double the RD-33's lifespan by detuning the engines by ten percent. Besides lowering thrust, the cost-saving fix has reduced range and dirtied the exhaust at lower altitudes. The move from JP-4 to NATO's standard fuel JP-8 has also hurt engine performance.

"The engines have been extremely reliable," commented Raubbach. "It goes from afterburner to military power, without problems, at various speeds and under varying g conditions. I can feel the difference detuning makes only at higher speeds. We have many spare engines. We had a shortage at one time, but we now have a big supply. Engines do not represent a shortcoming for us."

Though aerodynamically adept, the MiG-29's performance is constrained by avionics conforming to Soviet tactical doctrine. The aircraft was designed to rely heavily on a centralized system of ground controllers, which could take control of the aircraft's radar. The system could also land the plane if necessary. "Warsaw Pact pilots were not taught to evaluate a situation as it occurs in the air," Prunk explained. "Pilots were used to a system that made many decisions for them. The aircraft's guidance system had room for only six preprogrammed steerpoints, including three targets. The radio had twenty preselected channels at frequencies unknown to the pilot.

"The aircraft was not built for close-in dogfighting, though it is aerodynamically capable of it," Prunk continued. "The East Germans flew it as a point-defense interceptor, like a MiG-21. They were not allowed to max perform the airplane, to explore its capabilities or their own abilities. Sorties lasted about thirty minutes. The airplane was designed to scramble, jettison the tank, go supersonic, shoot its missiles, and go home." This relatively strict operational scenario presents its own limitations. Many of these involve the aircraft's centerline fuel tank. The MiG-29 cannot fly supersonic with the tank attached. Nor can pilots fire the aircraft's 30mm cannon (the tank blocks the shell discharge route) or use its speed brakes. The aircraft is limited to four g's when the tank has fuel remaining. The tank creates some drag and is also difficult to attach and remove. The MiG-29 can carry wing tanks that alleviate many of these shortcomings, but the Luftwaffe has no plans to purchase them from Russia.

Even given its drawbacks, the MiG-29 remains a formidable foe. "This deployment answered so many questions I had in my mind about the MiG-29," said McCoy, who flew in eight sorties against the Fulcrum and in one with it. "The experience confirmed what I knew about the MiG-29's ability to turn and to fight in the phonebooth. It is an awesome airplane in this regime. The awe, though, fades away after that first turn in. The biggest adrenaline rush was getting to that point. After that, I started evaluating it as a weapon. The German MiG-29 pilots represent a worst-case threat for us because their skills are so good."

"When Western pilots merge with a MiG for the first time, they tend to stare at it in awe," said West, who flew in three sorties against the Fulcrum. "Instead of flying their jets and fighting, they are enamored by this Soviet-built aircraft that they have spent their lives learning about. Pilots lose this sense of wonder after a first encounter. It is no longer a potential distraction. They are going to know what type of fight to fight and exactly where they may be in trouble. No one can learn these things by reading reports. Air-to-air fighting is a perishable skill. But the lessons we learned here won't be forgotten. These pilots will know at the merge exactly what they are up against. They will have more confidence. And they know they are flying an aircraft that is superior in maneuverability, power, and avionics.

"When our pilots first arrived here, they almost tripped over themselves because their eyes were glued to the ramp and those MiG-29s," West continued. "After a few days, though, those MiGs became just like any other aircraft. And that's the way it should be."


Four Cyrillic letters adorn a toggle switch in the MiG-29 cockpit. The letters spell a word that sounds like schlemm. The switch activates a helmet-mounted sight system used to designate targets for one of the most formidable air-to-air missiles any USAF fighter pilot may ever face, and actually ever face-the AA-11 Archer.

The system allows pilots the MiG-29 to shoot the thrust-vectored Archer where their planes are not pointing. With a turn of the head, they can target opposing aircraft up to forty-five degrees off the nose of the MiG. When MiG-29 pilots of Germany's Jagdgeschwader 73 (Fighter Wing 73) use the helmet-mounted sight system in simulated engagements, they call it a schlemm shot . (Not surprising, schlemm means grand slam in German.)



Here are some stats for the Mig-29's HMD i'd like to point out to you from your own article... also, I already said that the F-16 has a more user-freindly cockpit, better view, than the Mig-29.

And for the Aerodynamics part, I already stated that the Mig-29 has:
Good Aerodynamics - But Compromised by Construction

So please... I have already done my research on the facts of these two planes, I think you should do the same...

troung
25 Jan 05,, 16:53
"oh please... the Migs can carry many more bombs and missiles than the F-16 can... it has more external points because of it's greater wing area... And by the way the Block 50/52 F-16's have a thrust of 30,000lbs and the Mig-29 has a thrust greater than 18,000 lbs so I don't know where you're getting your figures from... The Mig-29 can carry more AMRAAMS than the F-16..."

You have proven you don't know what you are talking about.

The MiG-29 has 7 external loading points while the F-16 has 9, two more in other words and that is not including the "chin" points which are used for LDPs like the Sharpshooter/Pathfinder, ATLIS II, LITENING II, Lantrin and others.

F-16s have dropped 2000lb laser guided bombs in live combat along with being able to carry 4 AIM-120s, 2 fuel tanks, an external jammer and the LITENING II. The F-16 is able to carry a payload of over 12,000lbs of dispobable equipment. which includes JDAMs, GBU-10/12/22/24s, Popeyes, AS-30Ls, AGM-65s, AGM-84s, AGM-88s, SPICE, Opher, Lizard, Griffin laser guided bombs and many other types of weapons.

The MiG-29 can only do 8000lbs on its 7 external hardpoints and can at best currently (we are only talking operational models) carry rockets and dumb bombs.

The MiG-29 with R-27s can only carry 2 and could in theory take up 4 R-77Es the balance of R-73Es would be 4 and 2 respectively. And F-16 could carry up 6 AIM-120s and still out CAP the MiG-29.

And of course the F-16 is a far more offensive plane with the range, payload and SA to carry the war into enemy air space.

"Oh please... read the post again, i said that it hit the bomb OR it was shot down by his wingmen... I stated both reasons which have been claimed... And I mean, a Pakistani F-16 got shot down? But I can't say that so not to insult Pakistan??? it is a fact! and I said it."

The bomb story was fake.

"Like i said, the Russians need money bad so they sell to countries who can't affors all the advanced avionic and EW suites that America sells to."

:rolleyes:

"The bottom line is that the Mig-29 is capable of BVR engagements..."

Rather limited compared to the fact most F-16s carry around the AIM-120. The R-27R has a PK similar to the AIM-7E-2 from the Vietnam War.

"Easy to Jam??? I believe you're talking about users again... Only easy to jam for users that have the jamming capability opposed to users that don't have anti-jamming devices... The bottom line is that you need to have your jammers set at the same band as the planes radar to jam... which the Americans can do with ease because of AWACS support and advanced EW... "

Iran did it to Iraq in the 1980s. We are talking F-4s going on a mission jamming the MiG-29s, bombing the target then flying under the same MiG-29s on the way home.

"they are developing HMS, they don't have it at present. Now these are future F-16's, if you look back, the first Mig-29's that rolled out had HMS..."

The IDF/AF has had a HMS for quite a while. The HAF has a HSM.

"India has just ordered the Mig-29K's to operate on their carriers..."

And zero are in service...

"No not in comparing the users...if you take an upgraded F-16 facing an old, ruting Mig-29, that is being very unfair... "

Ok you know nothing about modern combat. And of course seeing as practically every MiG-29 that one will see is old... even Russian ones...

"To compare the planes, an equally upgraded Mig-29 has to be in combat with an equally upgraded F-16 with no outside support like AWACS..."

Maybe because you are repping a nation with a primative air force, real air wars are decided by AWACs, jamming, EW at stand off and BVR ranges.

" America has built much sh*ttier planes like the F-104 and the F-4 (which got raped in Vietnam). And besides if the Russians had the money like the Americans do, the Mig would've been much more advanced electronically than present..."

More MiGs have been shot down then anyother type of plane in the world since the end of WW2. The USAF/USN actually had a kill ratio in thier favor in Vietnam. Russian planes have been generally low tech, hard to maintain and prone to failure.

Syria refused to pay Russia because they thought rather correctly that Russian equipment was junk compared to the high standard American equipment the Israelis get.

"Example, Iranian F-14's..."

Bad example. The Iranians scored over 100 kills in the Iran Iraq war. 58 are still in service and fully combat ready and can use the AIM-54A. Iran scored the first F-14 kills and the only ones with AIM-54s. The majority of thier victims were Russian planes (Tu-22, MiG-25, MiG-23, MiG-21, Su-22, MiG-27 (flown by Russians), Su-20, Su-7). And they had an exllecent kill when one shot down a C-601 missile and then the H-6D which fired it within seconds of each other.

"It seems you keep comparing obsolete old Mig-29's with upgraded block50 F-16's... comparing an F-16 block 50 and a Mig-29 Fulcrum A Is not really a fair comparison..."

This is the real world the majority of MiG-29s flying around are old MiG-29A/UBs.

"The Mig pilots can target enemy planes just by turning their heads in the direction of the enemy plane and locking on... something the F-16 doesn't have..."

Several F-16s already have it but the most important thing is the fact so many F-16s have an ARH BVR missile which kinda means you don't have to get up close. In air combat one does not want to get up close and turn.

"i'd like to point out to you from your own article... also, I already said that the F-16 has a more user-freindly cockpit, better view, than the Mig-29."

You didn't read the article more or less it settled the issue the F-16 was the more capable plane...

Might as well lock this topic seeing as you have shown you know nothing about either plane and are carrying around a bias.

lulldapull
25 Jan 05,, 19:02
:biggrin: :biggrin:

Let this baby "Tonic" go Troung :biggrin:

The problem with him is that despite the IAF having 75 mig-29A's and 50 or so Su-30's they cant challenge the PAF because of nukes! :biggrin:

Also the funny thing is that the fulcrums pathetic combat record is bothering him! :biggrin: Its fairly obvious.

But i'd give this Indian "Tonic" this that in hypothetical combat against the heavily outnumbered PAF, the IAF's mig-29's will be a threat. Solely due to the PAF being fairly ill-equipped currently.

The PAF's A-5's and MirageIII/V's and to some extent the F-7's will be at a distinct disadvantage when confronting these Fulcrums.

Jay
25 Jan 05,, 20:42
Well IAF Vs PAF will not be a even fight at this juncture. So lets lay it off. :rolleyes:

Tronic
25 Jan 05,, 21:08
ok, troung... I agree, the F-16 can carry more missiles... just found out, seriously.... And yes MOST of the Mig's in service today are old models but we are not talking about old Mig fighters, what we are talking about are the two planes and comparing the designs and capabilities. IF both planes recieved the same treatment, what one would be better??? For example the Mig-29's designers were the first to use HMD, an innovation which came with the Mig-29... so it defenitely recieves credit. Also, the R-77E missile enchances the Mig-29's BVR capabilities, so you can't say that the Mig-29 doesn't have BVR capabilities... Also you say that more Mig's have been downed than any other plane... well you should also take into account that more Migs have been flown around the world than American planes...


And lulldapull, take your little p@ki airforce somewhere else, no one wants to talk about it here...

Tronic
25 Jan 05,, 21:10
:But i'd give this Indian "Tonic" this...

yeah I am Indian, and quite proud to be... so what?

troung
25 Jan 05,, 23:53
"The PAF's A-5's and MirageIII/V's and to some extent the F-7's will be at a distinct disadvantage when confronting these Fulcrums."

Well really much of the PAF would be at a disadvantage against the MiG-29s provided they did really go into India. Lets be honest the MiG-29 although totally better armed then PAF planes (Pakistan lacks BVR weapons on anything) lacks the range to put up a CAP of any really worth or duration. So really the MiG-29 is for home defense and covering the front lines on quick intercepts backed with GCI and not patrolling overhead on its own looking for trouble.

That said two nations MiG-29s do out gun their F-16 neighbors in an air to air sense, Malaysia (MiG-29N) and India (MiG-29SE). The funny thing is both of the F-16A/B B-15 fleets they out gun have been more or less sanctioned for years and not cleared for new weapons and have suffered from lack of spare… there I said it…

"Also the funny thing is that the fulcrums pathetic combat record is bothering him! Its fairly obvious."

I would imagine it would bother most if a plane, which was bought due to low cost and arm twisting in the face of a better plane which cost more, developed a horrible combat record afterwards around the world. It would be hard to defend to purchase of a plane which in many ways was a very short sided purchase and a waste of money…

" well you should also take into account that more Migs have been flown around the world than American planes..."

Doesn't really matter that there are more seeing as the kill ratio in these air wars are generally lop sided. The F-4 Phantom got the nickname as the biggest distributor of MiG parts in the world...

Israel (vs. Arabs)
South Africa (vs. Angolans/Cubans)
Ethiopia (vs. Somalia)
America (Korea/Russia/China/Vietnam/Libya/Iraq/Serbia)
Iran (vs. Iraq)
Taiwan (vs. China)
Pakistan (vs. Afghanistan)

All of those nations inflicted kill ratios drastically in their favor fighting MiG/Sukhois... and that is leaving out smaller conflicts where Russian planes have been shot down for little success... we'll leave out the MiG vs. MiG kills...

"IF both planes recieved the same treatment, what one would be better"

So what if LM decided to offer a MiG-29 upgrade?

The F-16 does have inherent advantages already. That's ridiculous to say the only way to compare them (when you opened the damn thread) is to give them equal equipment.

"And lulldapull, take your little p@ki airforce somewhere else, no one wants to talk about it here..."

That's rather offensive...

That said at least the MiG-29 looks nice….

Tronic
26 Jan 05,, 05:09
ok troung, thanx for the info... but how about a F-16A Block 15 vs. Mig-29A Fulcrum?

troung
26 Jan 05,, 05:17
Answer me this and I will answer 2morrow I guess...

When? Where? And for what?

Are we talking about a MiG-29A with 2 R-27Rs and 4 R-60MKs facing down a F-16A with 2 AIM-9Ls and 2 R-550 Mk.2s in 1999 over the mountians in some nation... ;)

Bill
26 Jan 05,, 07:37
The only question an Indian needs to know about a Blk 15 F-16 is can one get under the Indian radar net and nuke an Indian target.

The answer is almost certainly yes.

ASG
26 Jan 05,, 09:28
The only question an Indian needs to know about a Blk 15 F-16 is can one get under the Indian radar net and nuke an Indian target.

The answer is almost certainly yes.

Easier said than done.
*********

And LULLDAPULL..

Under any given scenario, PAF never was, and never will be a match against the IAF.
Same goes for the Army and the Navy as well.
And BTW, the less I say about how Pakistan wages war, the better it will be for you.

Bill
26 Jan 05,, 16:36
In air warfare, the bomber always has the advantadge...especially in a nuclear conflict.

The PAF needs only get through with a handful of aircraft. If the IAF shoots down 90% of the attacking planes, the other 10% still nuke their targets.

Swell, eh?

lulldapull
26 Jan 05,, 18:40
Easier said than done.
*********

And LULLDAPULL..

Under any given scenario, PAF never was, and never will be a match against the IAF.
Same goes for the Army and the Navy as well.
And BTW, the less I say about how Pakistan wages war, the better it will be for you.


Okay man! :biggrin: I wont say anything anymore. I am already scared! :biggrin:

troung
26 Jan 05,, 20:16
"Under any given scenario, PAF never was, and never will be a match against the IAF. Same goes for the Army and the Navy as well. And BTW, the less I say about how Pakistan wages war, the better it will be for you."

Cut it out.

Mr_Vastu
27 Jan 05,, 13:02
The only question an Indian needs to know about a Blk 15 F-16 is can one get under the Indian radar net and nuke an Indian target.

The answer is almost certainly yes.

Actually the answer is no, because before a PAF F-16 intrudes India an IAF Plasma Stealth MiG-29 SMT would sneak into Pakistan and nuke all its airbases :eek: :eek: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:

Mr_Vastu
27 Jan 05,, 13:04
yeah I am Indian, and quite proud to be... so what?

We're Aryans all haha :) ;) Jai Hind!

jgetti
27 Jan 05,, 16:52
Actually the answer is no, because before a PAF F-16 intrudes India an IAF Plasma Stealth MiG-29 SMT would sneak into Pakistan and nuke all its airbases :eek: :eek: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:


Wow, now that's a sound arguement........

jgetti
27 Jan 05,, 16:58
We're Aryans all haha :) ;) Jai Hind!


I'm an american of 100% german dissent, 6 feet tall with blond hair and blue eyes. However, the whole Aryan bigotry farce died a long time ago along with the holocaust. Why don't you save your prejudise comments for somewhere else. If you want to argue that he's bias because he's from India, that's fine, but save your racial slurs for somewhere else.

ajaybhutani
27 Jan 05,, 17:13
jgetti i think Mr Vastu didnt intend to use aryans as a racial slur. Teh indians fro north india are primarily aryans in origin mixed with others and we are now indistinguishable. So we indians use aryans term a lot not as a slur but to represent the fact that we belong to a set of people called aryans who came to india a few thousand years ago and settled here .Not that is no way related to teh holocaust and shouldnt be in any way related to the ww2. And i believe that even Mr_ vastu ( as his name sounds ) is an indian.

dtmfreak
27 Jan 05,, 17:24
all the real encounters between F-16s and MIG-29s were usually between the modified F-16C and the basic MIG-29A. Compare against MIG-29SMT please.

jgetti
27 Jan 05,, 18:03
jgetti i think Mr Vastu didnt intend to use aryans as a racial slur. Teh indians fro north india are primarily aryans in origin mixed with others and we are now indistinguishable. So we indians use aryans term a lot not as a slur but to represent the fact that we belong to a set of people called aryans who came to india a few thousand years ago and settled here .Not that is no way related to teh holocaust and shouldnt be in any way related to the ww2. And i believe that even Mr_ vastu ( as his name sounds ) is an indian.


I stand corrected, thanks for the info.

ASG
27 Jan 05,, 18:19
In air warfare, the bomber always has the advantadge...especially in a nuclear conflict.


Wellll.............. I don't think so. First of all I dont think airplanes will be used to nuke targets if you're talking about an Indo Pak conflict. I don't want to elaborate because if you give it a thought you'll get what I am saying.


The PAF needs only get through with a handful of aircraft. If the IAF shoots down 90% of the attacking planes, the other 10% still nuke their targets.


Really?? DO you really think that IAF will scramb only a handful of aircraft when it sees a number of bombers entering its airspace. And seriously, how many nuclear delivery capable aircraft does PAF has?? 10-20 or maybe 30. Do you really think that out of these figures, any aircraft would be able to manage to nuke a target like Delhi. They would have to nuke Delhi or Bombay(Mumbai) to make an impact, dude. Any lesser target, won't be worth a nuclear conflict for PAF.

And just to remind you, IAF is the 4th largest Air Force in the world. And is the one of the best trained Air Force in the world. I would say, at par if not better than the USAF.
:)

ajaybhutani
27 Jan 05,, 18:24
Pakistan has a much better medium for nuking india and thats their missiles as as of now the paksitani missiles will clearly go and attack without being countered by indians.pakistan dsnt need AF for nuking india. And neither does idnia needs one for nuking paksitan. AF becomes significant in indias advantage in case of the non nuclear conflict like kargil etc ..

ASG
27 Jan 05,, 19:03
Pakistan has a much better medium for nuking india and thats their missiles as as of now the paksitani missiles will clearly go and attack without being countered by indians.pakistan dsnt need AF for nuking india. And neither does idnia needs one for nuking paksitan.

Exactly the point I was trying to make!! ;)

Officer of Engineers
27 Jan 05,, 19:47
Exactly the point I was trying to make!! ;)
Just to point out a historic precedence, in the early 1970s when the Soviets were preparing for a nuke supported invasion of northern China towards Lop Nor, the Chinese IRBMs that were thought to be abel to reach Moscow with a nuke were conventionally armed with HE instead. The Chinese at the time could not overcome the technological hurdles in weaponizing a nuke that could fit into their IRBMs.

troung
27 Jan 05,, 20:38
"all the real encounters between F-16s and MIG-29s were usually between the modified F-16C and the basic MIG-29A. Compare against MIG-29SMT please."

Well techically a Dutch F-16A did bag a MiG-29A over Serbia...

And seeing as nobody is currently using MiG-29SMTs.

"Actually the answer is no, because before a PAF F-16 intrudes India an IAF Plasma Stealth MiG-29 SMT would sneak into Pakistan and nuke all its airbases"

Nice point but India has no MiG-29SMTs...

Tronic
28 Jan 05,, 04:42
oh my... India-Pak discussion here, just what I was trying so hard to avoid... anyways, India only bought the Mig's cuz they know America can't be trusted (1998 sanctions). Soon the Mig's will be phased out with only a small number of Mig-29K's in service. The Sukhoi, and Indeginiously built planes will take the place of present Mig's.

MIKEMUN
28 Jan 05,, 10:46
jgetti i think Mr Vastu didnt intend to use aryans as a racial slur. Teh indians fro north india are primarily aryans in origin mixed with others and we are now indistinguishable. So we indians use aryans term a lot not as a slur but to represent the fact that we belong to a set of people called aryans who came to india a few thousand years ago and settled here .Not that is no way related to teh holocaust and shouldnt be in any way related to the ww2. And i believe that even Mr_ vastu ( as his name sounds ) is an indian.


Ohh please,why are you defending him...Can't you see that he has been calling himself Mr. Adolf,Mr Aryan..The guy is a troll...

indianbomb
28 Jan 05,, 11:40
I dont see why anyone should get fired up on the term "aryan". It is just a nomenclature used to depict a certain kind of people. In fact quite some time back in India the word "Arya" was used to address some body else just like Mr or Sir. Even the Swastika, which is an Indian symbol for goodnesss, found in every Hindu temple , has some very dark meanings in Europe. It is very sad.

jgetti
28 Jan 05,, 14:27
I dont see why anyone should get fired up on the term "aryan". It is just a nomenclature used to depict a certain kind of people. In fact quite some time back in India the word "Arya" was used to address some body else just like Mr or Sir. Even the Swastika, which is an Indian symbol for goodnesss, found in every Hindu temple , has some very dark meanings in Europe. It is very sad.


That's just it, I took it the wrong way because in america it is generally used in derogatory ways only.

Officer of Engineers
28 Jan 05,, 15:13
I dont see why anyone should get fired up on the term "aryan". It is just a nomenclature used to depict a certain kind of people. In fact quite some time back in India the word "Arya" was used to address some body else just like Mr or Sir. Even the Swastika, which is an Indian symbol for goodnesss, found in every Hindu temple , has some very dark meanings in Europe. It is very sad.

The term is equated with the deaths of over 25 million people, in pursuit of the Aryan ideal. It is very sad ... and very understandable that we detest the term to no end.

When you have a freaking idiot like Vatsu who used the names Adolf, Hitler, and Aryan, then the term here is extremely unacceptable. While I understand the term Aryan as to describe a linquistic group, when you associate that with a bloody butcher, then that freaking idiot is associating that the Holocaust is a good thing.

Bill
28 Jan 05,, 20:33
"Really?? DO you really think that IAF will scramb only a handful of aircraft when it sees a number of bombers entering its airspace. And seriously, how many nuclear delivery capable aircraft does PAF has?? 10-20 or maybe 30. Do you really think that out of these figures, any aircraft would be able to manage to nuke a target like Delhi.

Yep.

"They would have to nuke Delhi or Bombay(Mumbai) to make an impact, dude. Any lesser target, won't be worth a nuclear conflict for PAF."

So what're you going to do when they nuke your biggest airbase?

indianbomb
29 Jan 05,, 04:37
I understand. I suppose that as you guys are in that part of the world which was touched by Nazi madness you have a right to react strongly. However it is ironic that the same symbols mean opposite things in two different part s of the world.

ajaybhutani
29 Jan 05,, 08:18
Well i didnt see him using Mr Adolf Mr Nazi etc here. If he did can anyone give me a link to it.
If he didnt then i think gettting mad on him using a word aryan dsnt make any sense . For aryan dsnt signify just nazis but many more people and beliefs. how can u force 800 million hindus most of whom are aryans ( or have aryan ancestors) to give away their culture ( their aryan inheritance ) that forms the basis of their religion and that too without their fault.

I m under a firm belief that ww2 had the nazis to blame and not aryans for aryans are not limited to parts of europe or made of nazi beliefs.

ajaybhutani
29 Jan 05,, 08:25
"Really?? DO you really think that IAF will scramb only a handful of aircraft when it sees a number of bombers entering its airspace. And seriously, how many nuclear delivery capable aircraft does PAF has?? 10-20 or maybe 30. Do you really think that out of these figures, any aircraft would be able to manage to nuke a target like Delhi.

Yep.

"They would have to nuke Delhi or Bombay(Mumbai) to make an impact, dude. Any lesser target, won't be worth a nuclear conflict for PAF."

So what're you going to do when they nuke your biggest airbase?
Wont it be cheaper to use a conventional bomb in the missile to destroy the airbase rahter than going for a nuke. as that will serve the purpse cheap in terms of immediate cost as well as the prevention of indian nuke reaction. And clearly indians will attack lahor eor islamabad in response.
But yes nuking a indian nuclear missile base makes a lot of sense.

Officer of Engineers
29 Jan 05,, 09:06
Well i didnt see him using Mr Adolf Mr Nazi etc here. If he did can anyone give me a link to it.

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?p=66797#post66797


If he didnt then i think gettting mad on him using a word aryan dsnt make any sense . For aryan dsnt signify just nazis but many more people and beliefs. how can u force 800 million hindus most of whom are aryans ( or have aryan ancestors) to give away their culture ( their aryan inheritance ) that forms the basis of their religion and that too without their fault.

The bastardization ain't the fault of the real Aryans but that does not change the fact that the term was bastardized and in doing so, over 25 million people died.


I m under a firm belief that ww2 had the nazis to blame and not aryans for aryans are not limited to parts of europe or made of nazi beliefs.

Extremely true but doesn't matter. The term Aryans is forever tied to the Nazis whether you like it or not.

Officer of Engineers
29 Jan 05,, 09:08
Wont it be cheaper to use a conventional bomb in the missile to destroy the airbase rahter than going for a nuke. as that will serve the purpse cheap in terms of immediate cost as well as the prevention of indian nuke reaction. And clearly indians will attack lahor eor islamabad in response.

Air fields are actually alot of useless and empty space. You would take alot of conventional bombs with a CEP of 50 metres to take one out. It's cheaper with a single nuke.

Ironduke
29 Jan 05,, 11:41
Mr_Vastu (aka Mr Adolf, Mr Hitler, etc.) was banned for using a username deemed inappropriate under forum rules.

Reregistering under a new username to circumvent a ban is not allowed, Mr_Vastu is therefore banned, by default.

If anybody believes he has registered another username, send me a private message and I will investigate it.

ajaybhutani
29 Jan 05,, 14:52
well sorry guys i didnt know of vastu;s previous record.

Bill
29 Jan 05,, 18:33
"Air fields are actually alot of useless and empty space. You would take alot of conventional bombs with a CEP of 50 metres to take one out. It's cheaper with a single nuke."

My thinking exactly.

Airbases are freaking huge.

Dima
30 Jan 05,, 03:14
hi guys, good day, i'm a brand new member on this forum, and i have a record of getting kicked off, so far, my record is 14 forums in one day, that was fun, i was just kicked off of abovetopsecret.com for uknown reasons, racist bums, they hate me so much, that they banned my IP address from going to their main site, anyways, i'm here to talk MiG 29M vs. F-16 Block 60

we'll start with the MiG-29M fighter, the MiG-29M fighter are basically new aircraft, longer range, state-of-the-art equipment, fourfold redundant, three-channel, fly-by-wire system, which is equivalent to the fourfold redundant system used on the F-22, as well as higher weapon load

lets get into some better detail

the cockpits utilizes the HOTAS concept and is equipped with liquid crystal multifunction displays. The integrated weapon control system incoporates a radar FCS built around the ZHUK-ME radar and an IRST(infrared search and track) target designation system

the aircraft can me armed with: RVV-AE, R-27ER1, R-27ET1, R-27R1, R-27T1, and R-73E air-to-air missiles, but can also carry: Kh-29T, Kh-29L, Kh-31A, Kh-31P, Kh-35E, KAB-500KR, KAB-500L as well as rockets, freefall bombs, and a built in 30 mm GSh-301 gun

the airbirne radar provides detection of targets at a maximum of 245 kilomteres away, track-and-scan of 10 targets, and simultaneously fire on 4

the aircraft also boasts the following :

1.high efficiency under adverse operating conditions
2.superb performance data
3.excellent maintainability, reliability, and flight safety characteristics
4.up-to-date logistic support and low direct operating costs
5.an inglifght refueling system
6.digital three-channel fourfold redundant FBW system
7.Contemporary avionics system, cockpit information-control system, HOTAS concept (commonality with MiG-29K and MiG-29SMT aircraft)
8.an integrated weapon control system incoporating the upgraded FCS around the ZHUK-ME airborne radar which features a long detection range, multi channel firing, air-to-surface capability, an IRST, and helmet mounted target designation system
9.and contemporary navigation, radio communication, electronic countermeasures, electronic and recording systems, and optronic reconnaissance pods

also, the MiG-29M has the following technical characteristics:

normal takeoff weight 15.24 tons
maximum speed of 2,400 kilometers per hour, or roughly Mach 1.96
it has a service ceiling of 17,500 meters
an operational range of 2,000 kilometers with internal fuel
and is capable of carrying 4,500kilograms of weapons

http://www.migavia.ru/eng/production/?tid=1&id=5
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/mig29/

now dealing with the missiles:

the R-27, here are the general statistics for it:
it has a general range of 70 to 130 kilometers
travels at Mach 4
and has a 39kg expanding warhead

the R-73 has the basic statistics of:
range between 20 to 40 kilometers
Mach 2.5 performance
and a7.4 kg HE expanding rod warhead
also it s seeker has an azimuth of -/+ 45 degrees

the RVV-AE has the following statistics:
range between 50 to 150 kilometers
Mach 4.5 performance
and a 30kg HE fragmentation warhead
also, the Adder's seeker has an azimuth of -/+60 degrees

http://danshistory.com/arms.shtml

yea, well i think thats it, now, onto the F-16 Block 60 Fighting Falcon

this latest Fighting Falcons in production represent the largest confirguration change in F-16 history amd offer additional fuel and payload capacity, new and improved avionics and sensors, colour cockpit displays with enhanced pilot/vehicle interfaces, the targetting and weapons systems are highly advanced, with the F-16E/F(Block 60) equipped with the Active Electronic Scanning Array(AESA) which provides better performance, with higher processing speeds and memory capacities, and high resolution synthetic aperture which allows the pilot to locate and recognize tactical ground targets from far distances.

for Troung, the Litening is a target system used for target identification, acquisition, and designation for smart GPs guided or laser guided munitions, its not a missile

they have really gone through the roof in navigation systems as the F-16 can use a navigation pod such as the Lantirn/Pathfinder, and digital terrain models. Another few features that come standard are the:

Tactical Air Navigation(TACAN)
VHF Omnidirectional receiver(VOR)
Distance Measuring Equipment(DME)
Instrument Landing System
Inertial Navigation System(INS)
Global Positioning System(GPS)
Digital Terrain System(DTS)

the Block 60 series utilizes a helmet mounted cueing system which allows the pilot to direct his sensors and weapons to his line of sight. A common configuration includes multichannel VHF/UHF/HF/Data communications, satellite communications and tactical data-link systems such as the Link 16 which provides a secure, jam-resistant, high-volume data exchange on a multi-node network. Another standard is the friend/foe interrogator/transponder which allows a pilot to be sure that they're not firing at a friendly aircraft, which lets him take a BVR shot from an even longer range

http://www.defense-update.com/features/du-1-04/feature-advanced-f-16.htm

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp=fec&ci=15061&rsbci=11171&fti=0&ti=0&sc=400

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp=fec&ci=15089&rsbci=11171&fti=0&ti=0&sc=400


the F-16 has the following statistics:

it weighs 10.78 tons with nothing on it
it has a maximum speed of approximately 2,253 kilomteres per hour or roughly Mach 1.84
it has a service ceiling of 15,000+m
and has a range of 1,000 kilometers with internal fuel
it is capable of carrying 7.8 tons of weapons

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/f16/
http://globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-16xl-specs.htm

now, we'll move onto the missiles, well, we'll discuss three missiles that the F-16 uses, two BVR and one WVR, just like the MiG comparison:

AIM-7 Sparrow
100 kilometer range
performance of Mach 3.7
39.9 kg proximity and impact delayed fused Mk71 continuous rod blast-fragmentation

AIM-9X
has the general statistics of the most advanced version of AIM-9 which is the "M" version
a range of 29.03 kilometers
a maximum speed of Mach 2.5
and a 10.2kg laser-fused WDU-17 annular blast/fragmentation

finally, the AIM-120C
range of 50-120 kilometers
speed of Mach 4
23kg WDU-33/B blast-fragmentation

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-120.html
http://danshistory.com/arms.shtml

okay, this is the end, i don't really have an overly biased opinion on either aircraft, their both amazing for different reasons, but in the end, if you look at each of the pieces of information that i provided:

the MiG 29 is heavier than the F-16 by 4.46 tons, quite significant
the MiG 29 can go faster than the F-16 by 0.12 Mach or 147 kilometers per hour
the MiG 29 has a much higher service ceiling by approximately 2,500 meters or 8,200 feet, which is quite significant
the MiG 29's range of 2,000 kilometers is longer than the F-16's range of 1,000 kilometers, BUT, since both the MiG 29M and Block 60 have inflight refueling, its basically unlimited, so it doesn't really matter
finally the MiG 29M can carry fewer weapons than the F-16 by a quite considerable amount, 3.3 tons less, or about only 58% of the F-16's weapon carriage

no, if we take into account missiles, since the MiG-29M's avionics aren't entirely inferior to the F-16' it would matter who has a longer ranged missile, well, the MiG-29M can fire the RVV-AE BVR missile which has a range of 150km max, but there is a version coming out soon that will have a range of 180+, now the F-16 longest BVR missile has a range of the AIM-7 Sparrow or the AIM-120C, which i heard has a max range of 120km, in the end, i'm not entirely sure about who would get the first simulated shot because the Falcon's RCS is lower than the Fulcrum's, but i think that the MiG-29M would get the first simulated BVR shot, and an advantage in battle, but we can't count out the F-16's small size, which gives it an advantage over the MiG-29, because of its smaller size, its radar signature is much smaller, so, the range of the RVV-AE, would decrease, i'm not sure if it would totally change the tides of the battle, but, it would give the MiG-29M only a slight advantage over the F-16, i'm not entirely sure though, it could go both ways

anyways, so it fires it off, in most cases, because of its superior performance to any other BVR missile(RVV-AE), because it has a seeker that has a +/- 60 azimuth, making it almost impossible for it to lose its lock on the target, but, if you got really lucky, or it was a faulty missile, WVR comes, now, the advantage is slightly in the MiG-29M's favour because it has a helmet mounted sighting system, but so does the 60, but, at subsonic maneuverability, the MiG-29 has an advantage over the F-16, so, the highest chances are that the MiG-29 will get off its AA-11 first ,now, since its seeker has an azimuth of +/- 45 degrees and a plan to increase that to +/-60 degrees, its almost unstoppable

in the end though, i believe that the MiG-29M would come out on top, i know i will face some sharp criticism here because over half of the people here are Americans and will support their aircraft to the very end like Troung here

can i ask you something Troung, do you have a comprehension problem by any chance, because you keep mentioning that more F-16 users have the AIM-120C than MiG-29M users have RVV-AE, we're talking about a hypothetical situation in which both pilots have equal experience and training and are armed with the traditional armament, i frankly don't care how many users have the AIM-120C, Tronic is obviously talking about a hypothetical situation, can't you understand that, hey you live in Toronto, me too, well not exactly, i live beside it in Brampton

by the way, many people have heard how the MiG-29 was unreliable, the first batches of MiG-29 Fulcrums delivered had a faulty mistake with the engine, and thus, many crashes were reported, and India had to send back a lot of them, Russia found the problem, fixed it, and gave most of them back to the Indians, but i'm not sure whether they gave ALL of them

now reliability terms, the MiG-29 is much more reliable and rugged than the F-16, FACT have you ever seen an F-16 go off a dirt runway, well probably yes, but caused some structural damage, MiG-29's do it all the time

my second last point, you can point out that the total number of F-16's sold is much higher than the amount of MiG-29's sold, well, you can also point out to who they were delivered to, 1st world industrialized nations such as Western Europe and Oil Rich Middle East nations, and Japan, other than those places, there aren't many other locations that have bought the F-16, Chile, yes, Poland, thats central europe, but the fact is, that all these nations have A LOT OF MONEY and, their ties with America make a good percentage of their economy, of course they're going to choose this aircraft over the MiG-29, now, nations that are industrializing or developing such as India, China, Malaysia etc. since they don't have as much money, they like to conserve, and need a plane that is rugged, and able to operate in any conditions, because chances are that they don't spend as much as these indutrialized and developed nations on maintaining their runways and aircraft and such, which is why they buy the MiG

long story short, an aircraft's success cannot be determined by the amount of aircraft sold, it depends on what the buyer is wanting

anyways, last point, Yugoslav aircraft in the Yugoslavian air war were outnumbered 4+:1, and thats just including the NATO, if you include tha mount of Aircraft America sent(NATO sent 150+ aircraft)

but, ome important things, MiG's dowing US and NATO aircraft, i'll give you the links later because the site doesn't work right now
damage downed culprit date
destroyed F-16C MiG-29 March 26
destroyed F-15E MiG-29 March 26

the kills above are confirmed kills, the kills that i am about to state are unconfirmed kills by news agencies, but confirmed kills by residents that watched the shjow at the time, lol

destroyed NATO aircraft MiG-29 March 24
destroyed NATO aircraft MiG-29 May 21
destroyed NATO aircraft MiG-29 May 31

these are unconfirmed reports by both NATO and the USAF as well as News Agencies, but many people saw this happen, saw these aircraft getting downed more specifically

destroyed F-117 MiG-29 March 24
(this is what some guy here on this forum, forgot his name now, was talking about, the unconfirmed killing of a F-117 by a MiG-29)

and thats it, well, hope i haven't displeased anyone, Troung, take it easy buddy, be more open, your so blinded by this F-16 is the greatest junk that you won't open yourself to actual facts, take Tronic's point of view, and give us your thoughts :)

i hope no one has received this in a wrong form, the F-16 Block 60 is a very good plane :) , but i do have to go with the MiG-29M on this one, if it were between the SMT and Block 60, i'm not sure about that one, it would be very close, any other version of the MiG-29, the Block 60 would beat undoubtedly, except maybe the MiG-29K

can you guys give me that Mr. Vastu's email? anyone?

and how do you make a signature here, i can't find out how to change my profile, maybe i'm just stupid today, lol, have a great day, always remember, someone's watching you at night, so don't even think about it!!!! :biggrin:

troung
30 Jan 05,, 03:43
If I have done this once I have done it a thousand times...

"we'll start with the MiG-29M fighter, the MiG-29M fighter are basically new aircraft, longer range, state-of-the-art equipment, fourfold redundant, three-channel, fly-by-wire system, which is equivalent to the fourfold redundant system used on the F-22, as well as higher weapon load"

Me I don't like to talk about stuff which has no entered service. You don't know about a plane until at the very least it enters service and gets to see some action. If the MiG-29 had never been shot down over Iraq, Serbia and Eritrea we would be hearing who deadly it is and how it is so much better then Western planes. The allure ended once people saw they did not preform as adverstied by the Russians. The Iraqis had found that out earlier in 1988 when the MiG-29s failed to catch F-4D/Es laden with bombs. I'm sure in 1989 no one could have guessed the plane would get that bad of a combat record wouldn't you say?

So you might want to wait until the MiG-29M has done something before comparing it to anything.

"Tronic is obviously talking about a hypothetical situation, can't you understand that"

I dislike hypothetical situations as few have much merit when you get down to things. Labrotory tests and simulations don't mean terribly much.

"well, the MiG-29M can fire the RVV-AE BVR missile which has a range of 150km max"

The only R-77 that is in service is the R-77E which has a 31 mile or so range.

" i know i will face some sharp criticism here because over half of the people here are Americans and will support their aircraft to the very end like Troung here"

You have no idea were I come from and we should keep it that way.

" you can also point out to who they were delivered to, 1st world industrialized nations such as Western Europe and Oil Rich Middle East nations, and Japan, other than those places, there aren't many other locations that have bought the F-16, Chile, yes, Poland, thats central europe, but the fact is, that all these nations have A LOT OF MONEY and, their ties with America make a good percentage of their economy"

They have the money and want a good plane that kind of finishes the agruement wouldn't you say?

"of course they're going to choose this aircraft over the MiG-29, now, nations that are industrializing or developing such as India, China, Malaysia etc. since they don't have as much money, they like to conserve, and need a plane that is rugged, and able to operate in any conditions, which is why they buy the MiG"

I would hardly call the MiG-29 rugged. Most of the users bought it because it was cheap (the Russians gave it away to Iraq and Serbia to cover thier own debts). One only has to look at the massive problems so many of the users had after buying the planes. Iran bought 4 and planned to buy no more because of what they thought of the plane. Serbia had wanted Mirage 2000s but only got the MiG-29 as a stop gap for a domestic plane.

Iraq would have had Mirage 2000s but the Russians sold the MiG-29s dirt cheap. After the Iran Iraq war the Iraqis planned to buy the Mirage 2000 as thier top fighter and use the MiG-29 as a MiG-23M/MF/ML replacement. Burma fired an air force commander because he said that MiG-29s were no match for RTAF F-16s. Peru got it in a non tender as in the government simply purchased them and there were all types of allegations of kick backs.

Malasyia due to badly running an arms race got them in a short sighted buy to try and play numbers, numbers they still failed to make work compared to the RSAF and its large F-16C/D fleet. Romania ditched thiers and are looking for a western fighter so did the Czechs. Other Eastern European nations are having a hard time keeping them flying not as much for money because the plane is not user friendly. Syria got it because they had no other choice, the same with the Sudan, Yemen and Eritrea.

So even these poorer nations still want better but finances and politics stop them from getting better equipment.

"now reliability terms, the MiG-29 is much more reliable and rugged than the F-16, FACT have you ever seen an F-16 go off a dirt runway, well probably yes, but caused some structural damage, MiG-29's do it all the time"

Actually not. The filters were taken out because they added in wieght.

"but, ome important things, MiG's dowing US and NATO aircraft, i'll give you the links later because the site doesn't work right now damage downed culprit date
destroyed F-16C MiG-29 March 26 destroyed F-15E MiG-29 March 26
the kills above are confirmed kills, the kills that i am about to state are unconfirmed kills by news agencies, but confirmed kills by residents that watched"

Serbian MiG-29s failed to shoot down a single plane. The only 4th generation plane a MiG-29 ever shot down was another MiG-29 the rest have been a few older model Russian planes and a cessna.

Dima
30 Jan 05,, 05:02
"we'll start with the MiG-29M fighter, the MiG-29M fighter are basically new aircraft, longer range, state-of-the-art equipment, fourfold redundant, three-channel, fly-by-wire system, which is equivalent to the fourfold redundant system used on the F-22, as well as higher weapon load"

Me I don't like to talk about stuff which has no entered service. You don't know about a plane until at the very least it enters service and gets to see some action. If the MiG-29 had never been shot down over Iraq, Serbia and Eritrea we would be hearing who deadly it is and how it is so much better then Western planes. The allure ended once people saw they did not preform as adverstied by the Russians. The Iraqis had found that out earlier in 1988 when the MiG-29s failed to catch F-4D/Es laden with bombs. I'm sure in 1989 no one could have guessed the plane would get that bad of a combat record wouldn't you say?

So you might want to wait until the MiG-29M has done something before comparing it to anything.

"Tronic is obviously talking about a hypothetical situation, can't you understand that"

I dislike hypothetical situations as few have much merit when you get down to things.

"well, the MiG-29M can fire the RVV-AE BVR missile which has a range of 150km max"

The only R-77 that is in service is the R-77E which has a 31 mile or so range.

" i know i will face some sharp criticism here because over half of the people here are Americans and will support their aircraft to the very end like Troung here"

You have no idea were I come from and we should keep it that way.

" you can also point out to who they were delivered to, 1st world industrialized nations such as Western Europe and Oil Rich Middle East nations, and Japan, other than those places, there aren't many other locations that have bought the F-16, Chile, yes, Poland, thats central europe, but the fact is, that all these nations have A LOT OF MONEY and, their ties with America make a good percentage of their economy"

They have the money and want a good plane that kind of finishes the agruement wouldn't you say?

"of course they're going to choose this aircraft over the MiG-29, now, nations that are industrializing or developing such as India, China, Malaysia etc. since they don't have as much money, they like to conserve, and need a plane that is rugged, and able to operate in any conditions, which is why they buy the MiG"

I would hardly call the MiG-29 rugged. Most of the users bought it because it was cheap (the Russians gave it away to Iraq and Serbia to cover thier own debts). One only has to look at the massive problems so many of the users had after buying the planes. Iran bought 4 and planned to buy no more because of what they thought of the plane. Serbia had wanted Mirage 2000s but only got the MiG-29 as a stop gap for a domestic plane.

Iraq would have had Mirage 2000s but the Russians sold the MiG-29s dirt cheap. After the Iran Iraq war the Iraqis planned to buy the Mirage 2000 as thier top fighter and use the MiG-29 as a MiG-23M/MF/ML replacement. Burma fired an air force commander because he said that MiG-29s were no match for RTAF F-16s. Peru got it in a non tender as in the government simply purchased them and there were all types of allegations of kick backs.

Malasyia due to badly running an arms race got them in a short sighted buy to try and play numbers, numbers they still failed to make work compared to the RSAF and its large F-16C/D fleet. Romania ditched thiers and are looking for a western fighter so did the Czechs. Other Eastern European nations are having a hard time keeping them flying not as much for money because the plane is not user friendly. Syria got it because they had no other choice, the same with the Sudan, Yemen and Eritrea.

So even these poorer nations still want better but finances and politics stop them from getting better equipment.

"now reliability terms, the MiG-29 is much more reliable and rugged than the F-16, FACT have you ever seen an F-16 go off a dirt runway, well probably yes, but caused some structural damage, MiG-29's do it all the time"

Actually not. The filters were taken out because they added in wieght.

"but, ome important things, MiG's dowing US and NATO aircraft, i'll give you the links later because the site doesn't work right now damage downed culprit date
destroyed F-16C MiG-29 March 26 destroyed F-15E MiG-29 March 26
the kills above are confirmed kills, the kills that i am about to state are unconfirmed kills by news agencies, but confirmed kills by residents that watched"

Serbian MiG-29s failed to shoot down a single plane. The only 4th generation plane a MiG-29 ever shot down was another MiG-29 the rest have been a few older model Russian planes and a cessna.


do you get penalties for quoting large amounts at one time?, because you got points deductions at abovetopsecret.com

okay, let me see, i guess that it can obviously be seen that you are an extreme anti-russianist

1.first thing, in your first paragraph, i did not deny that MiG-29's were shot down, sooo, whats the point of what you said? oh so you don't like hypothetical situations, okay, but,i can point out that your posts in the LCA topic, where you compare the LCA with the Gripen, well, that is a hypothetical situation because you don't know much about the LCA, yet, you are doing the same thing that i am, so...............

2.according to this, the R-77E is not the only R-77 variant that is used
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Aircraft/Missiles/R-77.html
the RVV-AE is in use, a total of 150 RVV-AE missiles were bouhgt by the Indian government(30 in 1999 and 120 in 200)

3.have you heard of the MiG-25's taking down the F-15's?, lte me see if i can find the link now, i read the article a long time ago
http://www.zap16.com/mil%20fact/f-15.htm
well, i'm having trouble finding the link here, but in this link, Gulf War, it says that two F-15E Eagles were lost in the Gulf War, i'll keep looking, at the very bottom, it also says that during Iraqi Freedom, one F-15E was shot down, wait, let me keep looking.......shoot, sorry man, i can't fnid the article anymore, anyways, have you heard the reports by any chance?

4.http://aeroweb.lucia.it/~agretch/RAFAQ/AAMs.html
here's a bunch of guys talking about whether the R-77 will be as good as the AMRAAM, its rather wuite interesting

5."They have the money and want a good plane that kind of finishes the agruement wouldn't you say? " so are you implying that the MiG 29 isn't a good plane? because if you do, then you fail to see the merits of other aircraft, that is just sad, come on, be happier, i've seen your posts on other sites
troung
http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/archive/index.php/t-112.html

the second post on the page, that's truly sad if you think that badly about a plane that would destroy the F-16 in WVR

6.where are you gettting this junk from, if Iran thought so badly about the MiG coporation, then why would they team up with them to help create the subsonic stealth attack aircraft, Shafagh, Russia gave it away to Iraq and Serbia, to pay off debts, Russia having debts to Iraq and Serbia, you have it the wrong way around, they sold them, fair and square, can you provide me a link, maybe if it is credible, i'll believe you

Massive problems huh, just like the time that Lockheed got sued because 400 F-16 aircraft had hairline cracks in them, and because of engine problems, buddy, the only significant problem that Russia had with delivering MiG fighters to a country was India in the early 90's, but that was a manufacturing problem with the engines, it was the manufactuers fault, they fixed it later and dlivered them again

the Iraqi situation, and Burma/Myanmar situation, please elaborate and find some links for me thanks

i highly doubt the Iraqi situation because Iraq, only had strong ties with Western Europe in the 70's and early 80's, and they weren't even strong, they had stronger ties with America, it doesn't make sense, but if you can prove it, maybe, who knows

:) Peru? well, i'll say my thoughts later on, i' also have something to add on the Malaysia situationhttp://www.fas.org/MHonArc/AT-doc_archive/msg00006.html
if i were Malaysia, i would also choose the MiG-29's for that price, thats amazing, an aircraft that is on par or superior to the F-16 for even lower, well i the link, they compare it to the F/A-18

the Romanian's ditched theirs(i am 25% Romanian) they didn't, they are upgrading thier MiG-29 to SNIPER variant which utilizes Israeli avionics

about the filters thingy, hahaha

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/mig29/

they don't use filters, the air intakes are closed and the air is fed throuhg the louvres on the upper surface of the wing root to prevent ingestion of foreign objects, their not filters, they're louvres

Serbian MiGs failed to shoot down a single plane, well, did you get that from CNN or CTV, you have to watch the Russian stuff, the Chinese stuff, the French stuff, other news agencies around the world, you cannot trust American news agencies, they disgust me so much i can't watch CNN or ABC anymore, for the lack of information they present, and only a one-sided view of a situation, a view that shows America as the liberator, haha

now, take this into account, if the MiG-29 was such a horribly bad aircraft as you describe it, why would other nations purchase it instead of the F-16 or F-18, sure, you might say that it was sold for dirt cheap, but in the modern world, quality almost always comes out on top of quantity(unless they are severly and savagely outmanned and outgunned, like the Yugoslav's) so, the fact of the matter is that nations choose the MiG-29 over the F-16, because the aircraft suits the purpose that they were looking to be fulfilled better than the opposition

also, i hope that you are aware that America is prepared to hold sanctions against any european nation that acquires Russian aircraft, which shows, how desperate they are to advertize their F-16, they even put pressure on Israel to cancel their Lavi project, and put pressure on Japan in accepting the F-2, they were originally going to make a new aircraft for themselves, anyways thats all, can you provide me some links on these allegations that you made against Russia and how they "forced" nations to purchase their weaponry, and the nations had "no" other choice, goodnight everybody

troung
30 Jan 05,, 06:10
“do you get penalties for quoting large amounts at one time?, because you got points deductions at abovetopsecret.com”

Huh?

”okay, let me see, i guess that it can obviously be seen that you are an extreme anti-russianist”

No I am just really fukking sick of these goddamn lame MiG-29 vs. F-16 topics that people put up just so they can hope to feel good about themselves and the nation they come from and the goddamn plane it happens to fly… and FYI "russianist" is not a real word....

”have you heard of the MiG-25's taking down the F-15's?, lte me see if i can find the link now, i read the article a long time ago”

Never happened but F-15s have shot down MiG-25s.

“well, i'm having trouble finding the link here, but in this link, Gulf War, it says that two F-15E Eagles were lost in the Gulf War, i'll keep looking, at the very bottom, it also says that during Iraqi Freedom, one F-15E was shot down, wait, let me keep looking.......shoot, sorry man, i can't fnid the article anymore, anyways, have you heard the reports by any chance?”

Wow ground fire… to bad none of these smily faces is clapping or I would put it there so it could make a clapping motion for you...

“Russia gave it away to Iraq and Serbia, to pay off debts, Russia having debts to Iraq and Serbia, you have it the wrong way around, they sold them, fair and square, can you provide me a link, maybe if it is credible, i'll believe you”

You posted this link…. (good move)

http://www.fas.org/MHonArc/AT-doc_archive/msg00006.html

"And we are ready to consider any form of payment," Zotov says. The Russian arms industry is skilled in clinching barter deals from the old Soviet days when equipment was supplied to countries as far-flung as the Middle East and Africa. In Europe, Russia still owes millions dollars to a number of its former Warsaw Pact allies, including Hungary. Budapest has already accepted MIG-29s in 1994 in barter for debt settlement, and the others might be tempted to do the same.”

OMG the Russians also supplied South Korea T-80Us and BMP-3s to cover their debts. They offered Austria the MiG-29SMT in exchange for debts but the Austrians went for the more expensive EF-2000....

”i highly doubt the Iraqi situation because Iraq, only had strong ties with Western Europe in the 70's and early 80's, and they weren't even strong, they had stronger ties with America, it doesn't make sense, but if you can prove it, maybe, who knows”

You highly doubt? Even though you just said they only had strong ties with Western Europe in the 1970s… ever wonder what the most capable BVR missile the Iraqis ever had was and where it came from and when?

”if i were Malaysia, i would also choose the MiG-29's for that price, thats amazing, an aircraft that is on par or superior to the F-16 for even lower, well i the link, they compare it to the F/A-18”

It’s pretty much a given the RSAF is a far more combat ready force then the RMAF. Their MiG-29 was almost as far sighted as their mechanized infantry units with 4 by 4 wheeled cars... for jungle warfare...

”Serbian MiGs failed to shoot down a single plane, well, did you get that from CNN or CTV, you have to watch the Russian stuff, the Chinese stuff, the French stuff, other news agencies around the world, you cannot trust American news agencies, they disgust me so much i can't watch CNN or ABC anymore, for the lack of information they present, and only a one-sided view of a situation, a view that shows America as the liberator”

Ok so you’re a goof on the news bit… and Serbian Airplanes did not shoot down any NATO plane.

”now, take this into account, if the MiG-29 was such a horribly bad aircraft as you describe it, why would other nations purchase it instead of the F-16 or F-18”

Because those nations cannot get better. It's all about money and who is in bed with who...

“like the Yugoslav's) so, the fact of the matter is that nations choose the MiG-29 over the F-16, because the aircraft suits the purpose that they were looking to be fulfilled better than the opposition”

Only one nation which could have seriously gotten the F-16 uses the MiG-29 and that nation was faced by 3 F-16 users already with larger fleets of F-16s then they were even looking at. And that nation has a habit of rather short sighted defense purchases on top of that.

”also, i hope that you are aware that America is prepared to hold sanctions against any european nation that acquires Russian aircraft, which shows, how desperate they are to advertize their F-16”

So where are the sanctions on Greece for buying the Mirage 2000, on the Czech/Hungarians for buying the JAS-39, were are the sanctions on Austria for buying the EF-2000? Why haven’t we put sanctions on the UK, Germany, Spain and Italy for “daring” to build the EF-2000? And why haven’t we nuked the French for the Mirage?

“they even put pressure on Israel to cancel their Lavi project”

The Lavi was done on the money of American taxpayers, America simply cut our end of the funding.

“the Iraqi situation, and Burma/Myanmar situation, please elaborate and find some links for me thanks”

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_346.shtml

Another reason for many officers resigning was the purchase of the MiG-29s. Most of the higher officers of the TL were against the purchase of the MiG-29s from Russia, and instead wanted the TL to get Mirage 2000s or Su-27. This finally caused - just for example - a fierce quarrel between the CO of the Wing stationed at Meikhtila and his superiors. He was explaining that MiGs - which were initially built for Iraq - cost too much for no worth in exchange, and were sitting over ten years in storage. Besides, so he supposedly said, MiG-29s couldn't match Thai F-16s. As "thanks" for his advises, he was relieved of command, demoted and transferred to the Myitkyina AB. He then protested and resigned too.

----

For the Iraq part please read Air War in the Iran Iraq War by Tom Cooper… it has an excellent section which goes through the problems the IrAF had with the RD-33s, R-27R, N-019 and other "goodies" on the planes...

“can you provide me some links on these allegations that you made against Russia and how they "forced" nations to purchase their weaponry, and the nations had "no" other choice”

Syria/Eritrea/Sudan/Yemen for example could not and still cannot buy a western fighter.

I’m just too damn lazy to school you in the politics of global arms dealings…

Imma go have another beer....

Bluesman
30 Jan 05,, 06:33
Dima, the F-15 has NEVER been shot down in any air-to-air enagagement, anywhere, period. Not US, not Israeli, not Saudi. NOT EVER. I don't care what you might've read on the Internet, it is absolutely NOT TRUE.

Bluesman
30 Jan 05,, 06:35
And what's with you getting booted out of so many fora, pal? Can you just save us all the trouble, and leave this one on your own, NOW? It sounds like it would be a unique experience for you, Dima.

Bill
30 Jan 05,, 06:40
The F-15 has an air-to-air kill ratio of infinity.

That's am be da facts.

bull
30 Jan 05,, 17:24
do you get penalties for quoting large amounts at one time?, because you got points deductions at abovetopsecret.com

okay, let me see, i guess that it can obviously be seen that you are an extreme anti-russianist

1.first thing, in your first paragraph, i did not deny that MiG-29's were shot down, sooo, whats the point of what you said? oh so you don't like hypothetical situations, okay, but,i can point out that your posts in the LCA topic, where you compare the LCA with the Gripen, well, that is a hypothetical situation because you don't know much about the LCA, yet, you are doing the same thing that i am, so...............

2.according to this, the R-77E is not the only R-77 variant that is used
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Aircraft/Missiles/R-77.html
the RVV-AE is in use, a total of 150 RVV-AE missiles were bouhgt by the Indian government(30 in 1999 and 120 in 200)

3.have you heard of the MiG-25's taking down the F-15's?, lte me see if i can find the link now, i read the article a long time ago
http://www.zap16.com/mil%20fact/f-15.htm
well, i'm having trouble finding the link here, but in this link, Gulf War, it says that two F-15E Eagles were lost in the Gulf War, i'll keep looking, at the very bottom, it also says that during Iraqi Freedom, one F-15E was shot down, wait, let me keep looking.......shoot, sorry man, i can't fnid the article anymore, anyways, have you heard the reports by any chance?

4.http://aeroweb.lucia.it/~agretch/RAFAQ/AAMs.html
here's a bunch of guys talking about whether the R-77 will be as good as the AMRAAM, its rather wuite interesting

5."They have the money and want a good plane that kind of finishes the agruement wouldn't you say? " so are you implying that the MiG 29 isn't a good plane? because if you do, then you fail to see the merits of other aircraft, that is just sad, come on, be happier, i've seen your posts on other sites
troung
http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/archive/index.php/t-112.html

the second post on the page, that's truly sad if you think that badly about a plane that would destroy the F-16 in WVR

6.where are you gettting this junk from, if Iran thought so badly about the MiG coporation, then why would they team up with them to help create the subsonic stealth attack aircraft, Shafagh, Russia gave it away to Iraq and Serbia, to pay off debts, Russia having debts to Iraq and Serbia, you have it the wrong way around, they sold them, fair and square, can you provide me a link, maybe if it is credible, i'll believe you

Massive problems huh, just like the time that Lockheed got sued because 400 F-16 aircraft had hairline cracks in them, and because of engine problems, buddy, the only significant problem that Russia had with delivering MiG fighters to a country was India in the early 90's, but that was a manufacturing problem with the engines, it was the manufactuers fault, they fixed it later and dlivered them again

the Iraqi situation, and Burma/Myanmar situation, please elaborate and find some links for me thanks

i highly doubt the Iraqi situation because Iraq, only had strong ties with Western Europe in the 70's and early 80's, and they weren't even strong, they had stronger ties with America, it doesn't make sense, but if you can prove it, maybe, who knows

:) Peru? well, i'll say my thoughts later on, i' also have something to add on the Malaysia situationhttp://www.fas.org/MHonArc/AT-doc_archive/msg00006.html
if i were Malaysia, i would also choose the MiG-29's for that price, thats amazing, an aircraft that is on par or superior to the F-16 for even lower, well i the link, they compare it to the F/A-18

the Romanian's ditched theirs(i am 25% Romanian) they didn't, they are upgrading thier MiG-29 to SNIPER variant which utilizes Israeli avionics

about the filters thingy, hahaha

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/mig29/

they don't use filters, the air intakes are closed and the air is fed throuhg the louvres on the upper surface of the wing root to prevent ingestion of foreign objects, their not filters, they're louvres

Serbian MiGs failed to shoot down a single plane, well, did you get that from CNN or CTV, you have to watch the Russian stuff, the Chinese stuff, the French stuff, other news agencies around the world, you cannot trust American news agencies, they disgust me so much i can't watch CNN or ABC anymore, for the lack of information they present, and only a one-sided view of a situation, a view that shows America as the liberator, haha

now, take this into account, if the MiG-29 was such a horribly bad aircraft as you describe it, why would other nations purchase it instead of the F-16 or F-18, sure, you might say that it was sold for dirt cheap, but in the modern world, quality almost always comes out on top of quantity(unless they are severly and savagely outmanned and outgunned, like the Yugoslav's) so, the fact of the matter is that nations choose the MiG-29 over the F-16, because the aircraft suits the purpose that they were looking to be fulfilled better than the opposition

also, i hope that you are aware that America is prepared to hold sanctions against any european nation that acquires Russian aircraft, which shows, how desperate they are to advertize their F-16, they even put pressure on Israel to cancel their Lavi project, and put pressure on Japan in accepting the F-2, they were originally going to make a new aircraft for themselves, anyways thats all, can you provide me some links on these allegations that you made against Russia and how they "forced" nations to purchase their weaponry, and the nations had "no" other choice, goodnight everybody


Dima which moderator banned you u speak substance man...i will beat the ass red of the moderator who banned you ha ha...any way good work was interstig reeading your post.

Dima
30 Jan 05,, 18:22
Bluesman, can you just please be quiet, your not contributing, so you might as well close your mouth

1. Penalties-on abovetopsecret.com they have ridiculous rules of, if you havea post thats only one sentence long or shorter, you get a 48 hour posting ban, if you quote too much, you get a posting ban, its such bs., i was just wondering if you can get a posting ban here too?

2.russianist is not a word, obviously, lol :) i had to make somethinig up though

3.k, let me check again, danm, this is really making me look stupid, not being able to find the link, just wait a moment.......yes, i found it finally, okay, let me read over it just to make sure.........
http://aeroweb.lucia.it/~agretch/RAFAQ/MiG-25.html
its under Gulf War Experience, read the entire link, its interesting and very informative
1.on the first night of the Gulf War, a MiG-25PD dropped an F-18C, and fired a missile at an A-6, while at the same time avoiding F-14 and F-15 escorts
2.MiG-25E eluded 8 F-15's and then fouhght with 2 EF-111A's, they fired three missiles at the Ravens and chased them away
3.two F-15 pilots were doing sweeps east of Baghdad, and the F-15's wanted to catch another fighter heading towards Iran, blow it out of the sky, but they were instead met by 2 MiG-25's and the Foxbats fired the missiles before they could, they evaded, they outran the Eagles, but 4 Sparrow and 2 Sidewinder missiles were fired, the Foxbat's evaded, then two more Eagles came in to cut off the Foxbats from getting to their base, they evaded, and another four more Eagles tried, but were also evaded by the MiG-25's, in the last attempt, they fired 4 Sparrows while attempting to chase the Foxbats, and all were evaded
yea, well thats it for that one

3.oh, yea, i know that Russia barters for weapons, they are planning to do that with Malaysia when they receive the Su-30MKM, in fact, Thailand was planning to buy Russian Sukhoi aircraft, in exchange for chickens, lol, it was a couple months ago

4.okay, i am mistaken when i said that Russia did not have debt to Yugoslavia, maybe they do, BUT, one thing that you mentioned isn't true, Russia does not have debt to Iraq, in fact, after the major fighting of the Iraqi war was over, Russia expelled between 60-90% of Iraq's debt, i forgot, now, you guys look it up, maybe it was 40%

5.South Korea, yes i know that they gave weapons to them to settle for debt, this doesn't really strengthen your argument because, South Korea can just reject this offer, but the fact that they accepted it means that the military hardware is of high quality, the same can be applied to those nations that accepted the MiG-29 as debt payment

6.um, in your last point, you explained that the MiG-29 was farsighted, seeing that its radar has a range of 245 kilomteres, that doesn't really make sense, can you elaborate please?

7.when you said that the reason why they chose the MiG-29 is because nations cannot get better aircraft, well, that doesn't really make sense, there are other nations that are willing to seel their aircraft, such as China, Israel, Sweden etc.
so, frankly, that doesn't make sense, they chose the best aircraft for them, PERIOD, just to elaborate, the South East part of Asia doesn't have an obvious favourite when it comes to buying military hardware, but if you have noticed, many nations there purchasing Russian weapons over the choice of American ones, wait, i found a link

http://new.mn.ru/english/issue.php?2002-12-13

read it, it shows how the US government has been putting pressure on South Korea to purchase its aircraft, even though the Su-35 is the obviously superior aircraft, America has also put similar pressure on Singapore's tender

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/DG20Ag01.html

well,i can't find the link right now, but i'll keep loking, looks like Russia is dominating, Brazil, Malaysia, most likely Singapore, Colombia

oh yea, i forgot to mention that in my last post, if Peru had so many troubles with their Russian aircraft, then why would Colombia be SO interested in purchasing Russian MiGs, by the way, Peru's MiG's were supplied by Belarus, thats why they ahd so many faults with them, the Belarussian government never gauranteed that they were totally safe, and the Belarussian government never contacted MiG coporation to check with them, Russia took back the aircraft, fixed them, and returned them

8.um, again, comprehension problem, you got work on that, i said cannot buy russian aircraft, not european aircraft, so thats why they aren't sanctions imposed on any european antions by America, well, you might discuss the fact the Germany has MiG-29's, but, then again, they weren't bought by Germany, they were acquired when West Germany and East Germany unified

9.Syria/Eritrea/Sudan/Yemen? really, are you that desperate to point out something that has no validity, the reason why they chose Russian aircraft is because they want to,not because they have no choice, they can choose Chinese aircraft if they want, but the reason why they chose russian aircraft, is because it is a good airplane

10. now let me read your link, i'm rather interested to see what it says, well well well, that site is rather reliable, i go there soetimes, let me see, you didn't mention that they wanted Su-27's as well, you mentioned Mirage 2000's, but, thats just something small, well i can imagine why he said that they were no match for Thai F-16's, first of all, these aircraft were in storage for 10 years, who knows what might have happened to them, and second of all, Thai pilots in F-16's were much better trained than Burmese/Myanmar pilots

hey, does anyone have Mr. Vastu's/Mr. Hitler's email?

how old are you Troung? just curious

and don't talk about economies, i'll spank you like your mommma never did, lol :biggrin:

Dima
30 Jan 05,, 18:23
it was FredT, that little racist jerk

Officer of Engineers
30 Jan 05,, 18:35
7.when you said that the reason why they chose the MiG-29 is because nations cannot get better aircraft, well, that doesn't really make sense, there are other nations that are willing to seel their aircraft, such as China, Israel, Sweden etc.

What aircrafts manufactured by China and Israel is on par with the MiG-29? Sweden has her own political issues to deal with when it comes to weapons export.

troung
30 Jan 05,, 21:10
"Dima, the F-15 has NEVER been shot down in any air-to-air enagagement, anywhere, period. Not US, not Israeli, not Saudi. NOT EVER. I don't care what you might've read on the Internet, it is absolutely NOT TRUE."

Well we finally agree on something.... :cool:

" i said cannot buy russian aircraft, not european aircraft, so thats why they aren't sanctions imposed on any european antions by America"

If that were true Russia would not even bother to offer these nations planes. That's a defense for the inability to sell the planes.

"well,i can't find the link right now, but i'll keep loking, looks like Russia is dominating, Brazil, Malaysia, most likely Singapore, Colombia"

Umm Singapore is buying no Russian planes. Colombia has a few helicopters and Brazils fighter tender was totally cancelled.

"oh, yea, i know that Russia barters for weapons, they are planning to do that with Malaysia when they receive the Su-30MKM, in fact, Thailand was planning to buy Russian Sukhoi aircraft, in exchange for chickens, lol, it was a couple months ago"

Actually they also wanted JAS-39s in exchange for chickens.

"read it, it shows how the US government has been putting pressure on South Korea to purchase its aircraft, even though the Su-35 is the obviously superior aircraft, America has also put similar pressure on Singapore's tender"

South Korea already bought the F-15K you're kinda late. It was the only plane on the tender which offered a deep strike ability. And in the end it came down to the Rafale and F-15K with the Su-35 long cut from the tender. Singapore has already cut the Su-35 out and it is down to the F-15T, EF-2000 and Rafale.

"Syria/Eritrea/Sudan/Yemen? really, are you that desperate to point out something that has no validity, the reason why they chose Russian aircraft is because they want to,not because they have no choice, they can choose Chinese aircraft if they want, but the reason why they chose russian aircraft, is because it is a good airplane"

China sells no 4th generation planes and those nations could n ot get one from anywhere else.

"how old are you Troung? just curious"

Old enough to buy beer in Washington DC...

".okay, i am mistaken when i said that Russia did not have debt to Yugoslavia, maybe they do, BUT, one thing that you mentioned isn't true, Russia does not have debt to Iraq, in fact"

Russia sold the planes in exchange for thier own debts.

"South Korea can just reject this offer, but the fact that they accepted it means that the military hardware is of high quality"

No Russia is to poor to pay so they accept some weapons in lieu of money they would never get. The limited amount of BMP-3s and T-80s are not the strike arm of the ROKA or anything.

" you didn't mention that they wanted Su-27's as well, you mentioned Mirage 2000's, but, thats just something small, well i can imagine why he said that they were no match for Thai F-16's, first of all, these aircraft were in storage for 10 years, who knows what might have happened to them, and second of all, Thai pilots in F-16's were much better trained than Burmese/Myanmar pilots"

Ummm pratically the only MiG-29s which got exported after 1991 came from those in storage MiG-29s that were meant for Iraq.

----
I swear I have done these shitty Russian vs. American topics so many fukking times they lose the goddamn point.... its all these people who of course want to pretend like there is a competitor to America, or want to feel good about thier nation which flies Russian tech... its so goddamn 1D and all...

Dima
30 Jan 05,, 22:39
well, the FC-1 otherwise known as the J-9, the design came from the MiG-33 which was to be a direct competitor to the F-16(because, as most people don't realize is that the MiG-29 was designed to be more like the F-15 than the F-16)

the fighter would be powered by a single RD-93 engine because it is much more powerful than the RD-33, with a conventional design resembling the F-16, the project advanced very far, but since Russia was reorienting themselves towards mutli-role aircraft and since the MiG-33 was only useful against airborne targets, the project was cancelled and later on given to the Chinese as the FC-1, i've heard rumoursa that it would have a canard triplane configuration, it is totally different compared to the MiG-29M(which is now called the MiG-33)

it was much lighter, closer to the weight of the F-16, it featured air inlets on the lateral sides of the fuselage rather than the ventral inlets of the MiG-33, but the most apparent change is the repositioning of the ventral fins from the engine compartment

the aircraft is expected to cost in between $10-15 million per copy, significantly cheaper than the minimum of $37 million for a JSF and $370 million for an F-22, and expected to rise

the aircraft was supposed to operate in cooperation with the J-10(i was going to mention that the J-10 is equal to performance compared to the MiG-29 as well) but the Chinese government didn't like the idea of operating two aircraft with basically the same characteristics at the same timea s it would be a financial drain

the aircraft was supposed to make it first flight in January 1996, but sadly, the project was delayed because Pakistan wanted to upgrade its fleet of F-16's because of the threat of India's Su-30MKI's

in February 1998, the project was restarted after 2 years of stagnation, and now, China is expected to buy 200+ aircraft, and Pakistan is expected to buy at least 150 aircraft

the project was name JF-17 Thunder and was completed in a record of only four years after being bought, but after the imposition of sanctions against China in 1999, it hindered the acquisition of avionics and weaponry for the aircraft and the avionics had to be delinked from the airframe development in 2001, they completed a detailed preliminary design in 2001, and completed the detailed design structure and the system charts in 2002

production work began on September 16, 2002 in Chengdu, which is the capitol of China's southwest province Sichuan

the FC-1 made its first formal debut at China's fourth International Airshow between Novmber 4-7, 2002 in Zhuhai, near Macao

up till 2003, 5 planes had passed their evaluation and 7 had already made their maiden flight

serial production of the aircraft will begin in January 2006 and is expected to replace Mirage, F-16, A-5, and F-7 aircraft and will meet the latest requirements of Pakistan

the aircraft is going to be considered as a match for the LCA(light Combat Aircraft) of India and has some features like advanced and futuristic avionics and cost effectiveness that will give it an edge over the LCA

the aircraft is a light-weight, multi-role, all-weather aircraft, having the capability of flying at Mach 1.6 and it has a hggh thrust-to-ewight ratio giving it improved maneuverability, it also has the ability to engage targets at all speeds, alltitudes within the conventional flying envelope(well that makes me feel safe lol)
it can strike at very long distances when in strike and interdiction modes, and has an advanced FCS which is a mix of conventional and FBW controls which, along with its high thrust-to-weight ratio, give it incredible maneuverability and agility

it will be capable of carrying WVR, BVR, anti-ship, anti-radiation missiles, laser guided bombs, penetration bombs, and cluster bombs, it might also have the capability of carrying nuclear warheads such as the MiG-29C

in the end, it will have a long range and combat radius because of a very fuel-efficient turbofan, it will be slow at only Mach 1.6(is it just me or are aircraft getting slower these days, the JSF is supposed to replace the F-16, they both have a maximum speed of Mach 1.8, and the Raptor is supposed to replace the F-15, F-15 Mach 2.6 and Raptor Mach 1.8, an F-15 can outrun a Sidewinder and Archer) extremely maneuverable, STOL capability, short take-off and landing,

the aircraft will also feature precision targetting systems, battlefield awareness sytems, navigation systems, target detection and recognition as well as electronic warfare

the first 8 are to be delivered in 2006

here are its following statistics

normal weight of 9.072 tons which makes it lighter than the F-16 and MiG-29
a weapons load of 3,629 kg, which is lower than both the MiG-29 and F-16
a maximum speed of Mach 1.6 puts it at slower than both the F-16 and MiG-29
its service ceiling of 15,240 meters is on par with the F-16, but still lower than the MiG-29







http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/images/fc-1_06-s.jpg





the J-10/F-10 project began in October 1988 and was to have a canard triplane configuration with a delta wing, because having a delta wing gave two significcant benefits, the leading edge of the delta wing stays ahead of the shock wave genreated by the nose when in supersonic flight , which makes it very efficient and aerodynamic at supersonic speeds, the second advantage is that the leadiing edge of the delta wing generates a vortex that attaches itself to the upper wing during high AOA maneuvers, resulting in high stall points it also offers increased survivability because it has increased structural and airflow stability

in 1993 the Chinese possessed an all metal model of the J-10, wind tunnel testing proved that there were many problems with the project including low maneuverability at subsonic speeds, and lower than expected maximum AOA at subsonic speeds, there was also a trend going aroiund the world where aircraft became multi-role, this made drastic changes to the J-10 such as making it acquire terrain following radar, more and sturdier hardpoints, and an entirely new targetting Fit completed its first flight in 1996 with the help of the Russians donating their AL-31FN turbofan engine, BUT, it took two years until it had a successful flight in 1998

by 1999, China had 6 prototypes, 4 for flight tests and 2 for static tests, and by late 2000, there were 9 J-10's accumulating over 140 flight hoursin early 2003, 10 J-10's were deployed to Nanjing Military Region for training and operational evaluation, unlike the FC-1, development of this aircraft wouldn not stop and they developed a two seat version for trainig and air-to-ground roles

preliminary designs of the J-10 featuring single engine and twin engines as well as featuring LO geometry was also completed

Russian support didn't stop at providing the J-10 with the AL-31FN engines, but they also offered advanced multifunction radars, navigation and targeting systems, ECM suites, missile warning and defense systems

the Chinese will most likely adopt the Russian Phazotron RP-35 which is an X-band radar with digital fire control sensors and an electronically scanning phased array antenna, the multifunction radar is also nkown by the name of Zemchug, the radar features a liquid-cooled travelling wave tube transmitter, an exciter, three channel microwave receiver, and programmable data and signal processors

here are some of the statistics for the J-10/F-10

normal weight of 9.75tons, which is heavier than the FC-1, but lighter than the F-16 and MiG-29
Maximum speed of Mach 1.85, which is faster than FC-1 considerably, and just barely sqeuking past the F-16, but still slower than the MiG-29
and its service ceilnig is 18,000 meters, significantly more than the F-16 and FC-1, and slightly more than the MiG-29

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/images/j-10_4-s.jpg

Dima
30 Jan 05,, 22:54
"Ummm pratically the only MiG-29s which got exported after 1991 came from those in storage MiG-29s that were meant for Iraq.

----
I swear I have done these shitty Russian vs. American topics so many fukking times they lose the goddamn point.... its all these people who of course want to pretend like there is a competitor to America, or want to feel good about thier nation which flies Russian tech... its so goddamn 1D and all..."

no, not true, Colombia is going to purchase MiG-29's India purchased them, Malaysia purchased them, Sudan or Algeria purchsaed them, i forgot who, and a few more, i don't know the specifics

its so goddamn 1D and all, NO, JUST NO, what IS 1D is the fact that you have the inability to respect an aircraft for what it does well, and that is fight

you obviously have some sort of comprehension problem and and fail to recognize the characteristics of each aircraft, what is really sad, is that your one of the few 1D persons that i have talked to on any forum

i'm going sledding, and when i get back, i'll whip you up into shape, regarding your comment on how Russia is too poor

Officer of Engineers
30 Jan 05,, 23:14
Well, 1st off, neither the J-10 nor the FC-1 has reached operational status.

2nd, neither Pakistan nor China has actually started marketting nor release actual operational performance data which means that either plane can be much, much better than the MiG-29

or as history suggests,

Extreme underperformers.

Bluesman
30 Jan 05,, 23:36
1.on the first night of the Gulf War, a MiG-25PD dropped an F-18C, and fired a missile at an A-6, while at the same time avoiding F-14 and F-15 escorts
2.MiG-25E eluded 8 F-15's and then fouhght with 2 EF-111A's, they fired three missiles at the Ravens and chased them away
3.two F-15 pilots were doing sweeps east of Baghdad, and the F-15's wanted to catch another fighter heading towards Iran, blow it out of the sky, but they were instead met by 2 MiG-25's and the Foxbats fired the missiles before they could, they evaded, they outran the Eagles, but 4 Sparrow and 2 Sidewinder missiles were fired, the Foxbat's evaded, then two more Eagles came in to cut off the Foxbats from getting to their base, they evaded, and another four more Eagles tried, but were also evaded by the MiG-25's, in the last attempt, they fired 4 Sparrows while attempting to chase the Foxbats, and all were evaded
yea, well thats it for that one

Still waiting for the part where the F-15 loses in any air-to-air engagement, anywhere in the world, anytime in history...

If you can't put up, shut up, especially as you just told ME to shut up. Get your dope right, or you have no credibility here. Be gone, little man.

troung
30 Jan 05,, 23:47
"no, not true, Colombia is going to purchase MiG-29's India purchased them, Malaysia purchased them, Sudan or Algeria purchsaed them, i forgot who, and a few more, i don't know the specifics"

Malaysia only bought it because it was cheap and they are surronded on three sides by F-16 users. Colombia is not going for the MiG-29.

The Sudan cannot buy any other fourth generation fighter. Niether France (Mirage 2000), America (F-15/16/18), Taiwan (F-CK-1), Britian (Tornado ADV), or Sweden (JAS-39) would sell anything anymore to the Sudan. India's MiG-29Ks came with the carrier they are buying from Russia and America would not sell a carrier plane to India and did not even offer one.

See how people get locked into things?

"you obviously have some sort of comprehension problem and and fail to recognize the characteristics of each aircraft, what is really sad, is that your one of the few 1D persons that i have talked to on any forum"

It seems you don't do much research on why and how things are the way they are.

And you brought up the J-10 and FC-1 but seem not to know something important about them... niether one are actually on the market today much less ten years ago...

Yeah so this is terribly Fing boring...

MIKEMUN
31 Jan 05,, 00:53
Guys let it go...These my d**k is bigger than yours arguments only creates ill will.The question can only be solved by real combat and I doubt that the US will attack Russia just to satisfy your curiosity...

Dima
31 Jan 05,, 04:52
actually Engineer, they have, my first link on the FC-1, it gives statistics on the aircraft, it gives two sets, one for 1999, what they thought the aircraft would be like, and one in 2004, which is the confirmed statistics

Blues guy, sorry, i apologize, but as i told you, i read that article quite some time ago, and thus, didn't remember all the facts straight, so take it easy, your not really contributing

1.one more thing BluesBoy(you mind if i call you that?) F-15 NEVER has been shot down, where'd you hear that? huh? American news, listen to something else for a change, look at 4-5 news agencies like i do, and you'll get the REAL picture, when i watch CNN< it makes me cry, really, its such bs, like no other network, most trusted netowkr in the world my ass, hahaha, they post the largest lies, and deceive a larger part of the US than any other stupid news network such as ABS

2.well, thats why Russia doesn't even try to opt their aircraft for Western European buyers, its trying to attract Central European and Eastern European buyers who don't give two shits about America, but, there's no way a Western European nation is going to purchase Russian military hardware, there's a chance with Central European nations, but not a good one, and a chance with Eastern European nations, but also, not a really good chance


yes, i know that Singapore won't buy Russian aircraft anymore, they wanted to, but America applied too much pressure and is too big of an ally, too much influence

same thing with South Korea, the Su-35 was obviously the better aircraft, but they chose America instead, read the lnik, do you read any of my links? it says that they are pressured and such, aggressively advertised

and, sorry i apologize, not Colombia, what the hell is going on, i'm messing up everything, its Venezuela thats looking at purchasing MiG aircraft to replace their F-16's

http://www.ocnus.net/cgi-bin/exec/view.cgi?archive=59&num=15320
http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=23790
http://www.cybertime.net/~ajgood/ch8R.html
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20041202-115328-2659r.htm(at the very bottom)

Brazil's F-X tender has been postponed to the end of 2005, and thus, the F-16 and another company has to renew the registration to the tender
but, i thinnk that the F-16 and other aircraft were eliminated, the only ones left are the Mirage 2000 and Sukhio Su-35


really?, Thailand was willing to give chickens for JAS-39's, link please, i've never heard of this lol

i know that the Russian aircraft were both cut from two tender's, because of political opposition, and, i already explained, America pressured both countries into keeping the F-15 in the tender, no China does not sell any fourth generation planes, but.......they can buy a Sukhoi Su-27 or variant, only about $5-15 million more, why did they opt for the MiG 29, because it fits their criteria better, your statement has a weak base]

Russia is too poor, haha, just wait, let me get my stuff ready, and, MiGs have barely been sold, here's the list: Algeria, Bangladesh, Belarus, Bulgaria, Cuba, Eritrea, Germany, Hungary, India, Iran, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Myanmar, North Korea, Peru, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Syria, Sudan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, and Yemen

Troung, your last point, regarding why Malaysia bouht the MiG-29, that doesn't make sense, and is irrelevant, so what if their surrounded by F-16 users? why don't they opt for the F-16 instead, since its the same aircraft that their likely opposition will have , all that will matter is who gets the better training for their troops, why did they choose the Fulcrum instead, because its better

you nkow why America didn't offer a carrier aircraft such as the F-18, because it can't be used on the Admiral Gorshkov, have you actually seen tha carrier, it doesn't have a catapult, its deck is slanted upward to make up for it, American aircraft need a catapult

really, you comment on my ability to not research, yet, i have corrected you over many things, such as the sanctions against WESTERN EUROPEAN nations, the supposed cancellation of Brazil's F-X program, which has been postponed until the end of 2005 with the Mirage 2000 and Su-35 remaining, the Admiral Gorshkov carrier

"And you brought up the J-10 and FC-1 but seem not to know something important about them... niether one are actually on the market today much less ten years ago..."

haha, lol, i brought them up because someone asked for me to do so, of course i know that their not on the market, there's your comprehension problem again, i even mentioned it in my article that, the FC-1 is coming out in 2006, and there isn't aset date for the J-10

now the economic recession, i have done this on two forums already, one Russian and one American, the Russian one, everything was fine, but the day after that i wrote this, i was banned from the American one, hahaha

anyways, before i start, can i ask someone if there is s way that i can make a signature?

i will compare the American, Russian, Chinese, and my home country Moldovan economies

AMERICA

1. America has the largest economy in the world worth an estimated $10.99 trillion in PPP GDP figures, with China a far cry away at $6.449 trillion, or 58.6% of the American economy, so America is almost worth twice the amount of China. Another incredible thing about America is that they have the 2ed highest GDP per capita in the world of $37,800, while the world average is $8,200, and the last general thing about the American economy is that they are growing at a staggernig pace compared to Western European economies growing between 1%-2.8%, America is growing at a rate of 3.1% per year or 105 in the world overall and the world average is 3.80%, so your slightly behind the rest of the world, in monetary terms, your economy is growing by approximately $340.69 billion per year, which is worth more than one Pakistan every year lol(Pakistan's economy is worth $318 billion)

CHINA

1.China has the second largest economy in the world worth $6.449 trillion, or roughly 58.6% of the American economy, compared to third place which belongs to Japan($3.582 trillion), the Japanese economy would only equate to 55.5% of the Chinese one, so the Chinese economy is almost twice as large as the Japanese economy. The sad thing about China is that they are ranked very low on GDP per capita, in fact they are ranked 123 in the world at $5,000 per person while the average is $8,200. The largest bright spot of the Chinese economy is the rate at which their economy is increasing, yearly, their economy is increasing by 9.1%, which is ranked 12th in the world and is well above the 3.80% average, in monetary terms, their economy is growing by $586.86 billion per year, which is worth more than one Australia per year(which is worth $571.4 BILLION)

RUSSIA

1.Russia has the 10th largest economy in the world worth approximately $1.282 trillion, compared to 11th place Canada, Canada's economy is worth $958.7 billion, which translates to about 74.8% fof the Russian economy, the Russian economy is worth a mere 11.7% of the American economy. A relatively strong thiing for Russia is their GDP per capita, which is ranked 87 in the world at $8,900 per year, which is higher than the average of $8,200. But a very bright spot for Russia is their high growth rate which stands at 7.3% per year, which equates to a ranking of 21 in the world well above the average of 3.8%, and in monetary terms, Russia grows by approximately $93.59 billion per year, which is worth more than a New Zealand per year(which is worth $85.34 billion)

MOLDOVA

1.Moldova has the 143 largest economy at $7.792 billion, compared to the country that stands in 144 place(Benin $7.742 billion), that country is worth 99.4% of Moldova, and Moldova, compared to America's massive economy is only worth a sqeuling 0.8%(lol :biggrin: )another weakpoint of Moldova is their small GDP per capita, which is only worth $1,800, that is well below the world average of $8,200 and is ranked 180 in the world, making it one of the poorest places in the world, and the poorest place in Europe. a strong point for Moldova is its good economic growth which stands at 6.3% per year, which is well above the average of 3.8% and ranks in at 34 place worldwide. in the end, Moldova grows by about $490.9 million per year, which is roughly equivalent to Gibraltar($500 million)

well, that was the basic stats, so lets sum it all up, highest economies

1.USA-$10.99 trillion(1 in world)
2.China-$6.499 trillion(2 in world)
3.Russia-$1.282 trillion(10 in world)
4.Moldova-$7.792 billion(143 in world)

GDP per capita

1.USA-$37,800(tied for 2 in world)
2.Russia-$8,900(87 in world)
3.China-%5,000(123 in world)
4.Moldova-$1,800(180 in world)

GDP growth rate

1.China-9.1%(12 in world)
2.Russia-7.3%(21 in world)
3.Moldova-6.3%(34 in world)
4.USA-3.1%(105 in world)

Monetary growth rate

1.China-$586.86 billion per year
2.USA-$340.69 billion per year
3.Russia-$93.59 billion per year
4.Moldova-$490.9 million per year

now here's an idepth research into the public debt of all countries

USA

2.this part of the discussion will concentrate around the budget. Now, revenues made by the government from taxes and such total up $1.782 trillion per year, now that is a lot of doe, but, your expenditures equal to approximately $2.156 trillion per year, so, yearly, your government sinks deeper into public debt by approximately $374 billion per year, or 3.4% of your economy annually, and will increase your public debt of already 62.4% of the economy(which is worth $6.858 trillion in total, thats how much you guys are going to have to pay your government to earn the privelages that they're giving you, they've spent more than you've given them) so yearly, your public debt will increase by 5.5%, so next year, your public debt should be expected to be 67.9%

CHINA

2.China annually receives $265.8 billion from their people and spend a total of $300.2 billion annually, which makes their government sink deeper into public debt by $34.4 billion per year, which equates to 0.0005% of their economy annually, which will increase their public debt of already 30.1%(which means $1.941 trillion) by about 0.002% annually, hardly noticeable, therefore, they're percentage of public debt shouldn't change

RUSSIA

2.Russia annually receives $83.99 billion from her residents, and spends about $73.75 billion, which leaves them with a new word, a positive budget balance of $10.24 billion annually, this equates to about 0.0008% of the economy and will decrease the public debt(which stands at 34.1% or roughly $437.16 billion) by 2.3% per year, so nest year, Russia will have a public debt percentage of 31.8%

MOLDOVA

2.Moldova annually receives $474.8 million from her citizens and expends $443.4 million for them, which also leaves them with a positive budget balance of $31.4 million, this equates to only 0.0004% of the economy, but it will decrease the level of public debt in Moldova(which stands at 88.4% which means $6.888 billion) by appoximately 0.0005%, which means that Moldova's public debt will most likely remain the same nest year

okay, to summise everything here

budget balance

1.Russia- positive $10.24 billion
2.Moldova(yay, lol)- positive $31.4 million
3.China-negative $34.4 billion
4.USA-negative $374 billion

increase/decrease in public debt

1.Russia-decrease by 2.3% per year
2.Moldova-decrease by 0.0005% per year
3.China-increase by 0.002% per year
4.USA-increase by 5.5% per year

this is my last part of the economy section

USA

3.USA exports products and services worth $714.5 billion per year, and imports products and services worth $1.26 trillion per year, leaving them with a negative account balance of $545.5 billion annually, that means that your current account balance will double in negativity, from -$541.8 billion to a toal of $1.087 trillion next year(not necessarily, i will discuss later on)

CHINA

3.China exports $436.1 billion a year and imports $397.4 billion a year, which leaves it with a positive trade account balance of $38.7 billion, which means that their account balance currently will go from positive $31.17 billion to $69.87 billion

RUSSIA

3.Russia exports $134.4 billion a year and imports $74.8 billion a year, which leaves it with a positive trade account balance of $59.6 billion a year, which means that their current account trade balance of $35.91 billion will go up to a total of $95.51 billion

MOLDOVA

3.Moldova exports $790 million and imports $1.34 billion which leaves it with a negative trade balance of $550 million yearly, which will lower its current trade account balance from negative $135 million to negative $685 million next year(not necessarily i'l elaborate later)

summise

trade account balance

1.Russia-$59.6 billion
2.China-$38.7 billion
3.Moldova-negative$550 million
4.USA-negative$545.5 billion

current trade accoutn balances nest year

1.Russia-$95.51 billion
2.China-$69.87 billion
3.Moldova-negative $685 million
4.USA-negative$1.087 trillion







okay, here is where i sum up everything, i'll start with China, then Moldova, then Russia, and leave the big bang last, USA

CHINA-very positive future for this nation, especially with its high growth rates, if we were to add the balances from both trade and budget, China gets a positive of $4.3 billion, so thats $4.3 billion into their pocket every year, that they can use to pay off their $197.8 billion external debt, they're foreign currency and gold reserves total $412.7 billion(usually used for investments and in harsh economic conditions) if they concentrate all of their $4.3 billion in the direction of paying off debts, they'll reduce they're debt annually by 2.17% which could effectively mean no debt in approximately 46 years, but with China expected to become a net importer because its citizens want more products from abroad, most likely, they're trade account balance might shift to negative because they will be importing more than they export, in a few years though, then, China will decrease slightly yearly, just like America's situation, except not even close to as worse as they're situation will be

MOLDOVA-a mediocre future for my own country, we have high growth rates, if we were to add our trade balance and budget balances together, we would get a negative for Moldova, our year end would be -$518.6 million annually, now in order to pay this off, we would need to borrow from other countries increasing our external debt(which is currently $1.515 billion)considerably, over $2 billion, or we could leave this to our economic growth and see how much our economy can take of this, Moldova's economy is growing by $490.9 million per year in monetary terms, thus, if we were to force all of this on our economy, we would still have a negative number(-$27.7 million) which means that, if we were to put this entire negative amount on our economic growth, our economic growth would be 0% and we'd STILL need to borrow money from other countries, which would increase our external debt even more! on the positive though, Moldova does have a foreign exchange and gold reserve of $302.3 million which they can use to pay off the debt

RUSSIA-everyone thinks that China is making a lot of money, oh yes, a blasting economy, well no one looks at the insides, they only listen to the reports, Russia's economic growth is very high, and if we add both the positive trade balance and budget balance together, we get a positive $69.84 billion yearly(which is considerably more than China's $4.3 billion, in fact 16.2 times greater) they will be able to use this to pay off their external debt of $175.9 billion, theoretically, if they use everything that they earn from this positive amount, they can totally eliminate their debt in 2.5 years, and even now, Russia has a foreign exchange and gold reserve of $76.94 billion

USA-well, i'd like to start off with the comment that the USA is screwed, the USA has slightly below average growth rates, and if you add both the negative trade account balances and budget balance, you get -$919.5 billion, now there are two options that we can use to take out this debt, or reduce it at least, we can borrow money from other countries to pay it off, which would increase our already high debt of $1.4 trillion(which accounts for 70% of World debt) pr you can put this entire strain on the growth of the economy, currently your economy will be groing by $340.69 billion per year, so, if we put this strain on the economy, your economic growth will be 0% and you will still have $578.81 billion debt to pay off, you can use your foreign exchange and gold reserves to pay it off(which total $85.94 billion), even if you did that, you would have $0 left in that account, you would still hav a -$492.87 billion debt, the only other option is to borrow money, thus, your external debt will increase every year while your economy will not grow at all, either way, there is nothing that you can do to reverse this apocalyptic scene, it really does not look good

just a few notes, all the information is dated for 2003

another note, Russia is now what they call a net importer i believe, they have more foreign exchange reserves and gold then they do have External debt, so more countries owe them then they owe back

andni think thats the last note, my source of info

http://cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/

oh yea, another bad thing, according to this link, American exports have receded by 6.9% and imports have increased by 9.1%

http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/story.jsp?story=605721

have a nice day

Officer of Engineers
31 Jan 05,, 05:07
actually Engineer, they have, my first link on the FC-1, it gives statistics on the aircraft, it gives two sets, one for 1999, what they thought the aircraft would be like, and one in 2004, which is the confirmed statistics

You might to want to at least wait until the 1st IOC aircraft gets into a PAF pilot's hands.

BTW, PPP economies don't compare well. I'm not going all the way to China for a haircut.

troung
31 Jan 05,, 05:31
"Guys let it go...These my d**k is bigger than yours arguments only creates ill will.The question can only be solved by real combat and I doubt that the US will attack Russia just to satisfy your curiosity..."

I didn't start this and I amn not a person with a fraigle pyske that needs to feel like the USA is not powerful and thus needs to put Russia up on a pedisital to feel like tomorrow is worth living....

"one more thing BluesBoy(you mind if i call you that?) F-15 NEVER has been shot down, where'd you hear that? huh? American news, listen to something else for a change, look at 4-5 news agencies like i do, and you'll get the REAL picture, when i watch CNN< it makes me cry, really, its such bs, like no other network, most trusted netowkr in the world my ass, hahaha, they post the largest lies, and deceive a larger part of the US than any other stupid news network such as ABS"

You simply are an idoit...

".well, thats why Russia doesn't even try to opt their aircraft for Western European buyers"

Actually they did try in Greece and Austria to sell thier planes.

"yes, i know that Singapore won't buy Russian aircraft anymore, they wanted to, but America applied too much pressure and is too big of an ally, too much influence"

You said anymore. Singapore has never flown a Russian fighter. They took the Su-35 and MiG-29M out and left in the Rafale, EF-2000 and F-15T.

"same thing with South Korea, the Su-35 was obviously the better aircraft, but they chose America instead, read the lnik, do you read any of my links?"

South Korea bought the F-15K over the Rafale those were the last two planes left. They needed a fighter for the deep strike role and the F-15 won out in the end over the Rafale.

"and, sorry i apologize, not Colombia, what the hell is going on, i'm messing up everything, its Venezuela thats looking at purchasing MiG aircraft to replace their F-16's"

A: Not to replace the F-16s
B: They are no longer and American ally you might say
C: Chavez wanted to buy the planes and not the FAV (a big difference), a change in the command of the FAV got them to agree with him.

"Brazil's F-X tender has been postponed to the end of 2005, and thus, the F-16 and another company has to renew the registration to the tender but, i thinnk that the F-16 and other aircraft were eliminated, the only ones left are the Mirage 2000 and Sukhio Su-35"

The point of the deal came down to who were better friends with the government and what nation would invest more into local pet projects (aviation industry, space program etc...). It came down the the Mirage 2000BR and Su-35 of which the both had champions. Personally it seemed to me the Mirage 2000BR was ahead because of all the friends Dassualt had in Brazil. It was put off because they could find better ways to spend the money... and this has what to do with your love for the MiG-29 and dislike for America?

"Russia is too poor, haha, just wait, let me get my stuff ready, and, MiGs have barely been sold, here's the list: Algeria, Bangladesh, Belarus, Bulgaria, Cuba, Eritrea, Germany, Hungary, India, Iran, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Myanmar, North Korea, Peru, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Syria, Sudan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, and Yemen"

Well you can cut Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Belarus, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan off as they got planes left behind after 1991. Germany no longer uses it. Poland, Bulgaria, Romania and Slovakia were all WP nations.

North Korea, Cuba, Syria, Sudan, Yemen, Myanmar, Eritrea and Iran could not search the world for a 4th generation plane seeing as they are in a special situation...

Eritrea has bought Su-27S/UBs after the MiG-29s poor showing againist Ethiopia. Iran will buy no more planes after 1991. Nobody else will sell to the Sudan. Yemen was not terribly friendly with the west. Cuba is Cuba. Syria is Syria. And Myanmar is still Myanmar...

"you nkow why America didn't offer a carrier aircraft such as the F-18, because it can't be used on the Admiral Gorshkov, have you actually seen tha carrier, it doesn't have a catapult, its deck is slanted upward to make up for it, American aircraft need a catapult"

No America would not sell India a carrier the point is rather moot.

"last point, regarding why Malaysia bouht the MiG-29, that doesn't make sense, and is irrelevant, so what if their surrounded by F-16 users? why don't they opt for the F-16 instead, since its the same aircraft that their likely opposition will have , all that will matter is who gets the better training for their troops, why did they choose the Fulcrum instead, because its better:

The RMAF is totally out gunned by the RTAF and RSAF...

"haha, lol, i brought them up because someone asked for me to do so, of course i know that their not on the market, there's your comprehension problem again, i even mentioned it in my article that, the FC-1 is coming out in 2006, and there isn't aset date for the J-10"

You dumbass you commented that why didn't nations buy from China. The fact is China has no 4th generation fighter for sale.

------

This has turned into a waste of my fukking time..... I might as well dig up old responces I did back in 2002 because none of this shiit is new to me....

Bluesman
31 Jan 05,, 05:59
Blues guy, sorry, i apologize, but as i told you, i read that article quite some time ago, and thus, didn't remember all the facts straight, so take it easy, your not really contributing

1.one more thing BluesBoy(you mind if i call you that?) F-15 NEVER has been shot down, where'd you hear that? huh? American news, listen to something else for a change, look at 4-5 news agencies like i do, and you'll get the REAL picture, when i watch CNN< it makes me cry, really, its such bs, like no other network, most trusted netowkr in the world my ass, hahaha, they post the largest lies, and deceive a larger part of the US than any other stupid news network such as ABS

You really are a tool, man. Mind if I call you The Wedge? It's the simplest tool known to Man, so it's a perfect handle for you.

I never said the F-15 has never been shot down, hotrod. I said it's never lost in air-to-air combat. I was very careful to say that, because I know there have been combat losses. But NOT, as your imperfect memory was telling you, in any air-to-air engagement.

Are you following any of this, Wedge?

troung
31 Jan 05,, 06:09
"Mind if I call you The Wedge? It's the simplest tool known to Man, so it's a perfect handle for you."

Ok now that was a good one :cool:

-----

This whole discussion is rather worthless when you get right down to it...

ajaybhutani
31 Jan 05,, 06:43
You really are a tool, man. Mind if I call you The Wedge? It's the simplest tool known to Man, so it's a perfect handle for you.

I never said the F-15 has never been shot down, hotrod. I said it's never lost in air-to-air combat. I was very careful to say that, because I know there have been combat losses. But NOT, as your imperfect memory was telling you, in any air-to-air engagement.

Are you following any of this, Wedge?
Well neither has it faced the comparable fighters like su27 in A2A combat has it ??

Bluesman
31 Jan 05,, 07:11
Well neither has it faced the comparable fighters like su27 in A2A combat has it ??

I don't know, and it's not relevent to the point, which was my answer to The Wedge's post:

3.have you heard of the MiG-25's taking down the F-15's?

Bluesman
31 Jan 05,, 07:12
"Mind if I call you The Wedge? It's the simplest tool known to Man, so it's a perfect handle for you."

Ok now that was a good one :cool:


Thanks. :cool:

Severnaya
31 Jan 05,, 10:23
You really are a tool, man. Mind if I call you The Wedge? It's the simplest tool known to Man, so it's a perfect handle for you.

Do you usually insult people to prove a point?

Bluesman
31 Jan 05,, 11:26
Do you usually insult people to prove a point?

Why don't you e-message me privately and ask that, lest you be a hypocrite? The topic here isn't my posting style, is it? So, unless YOU are trying to score some off-topic point yourself, there was no real reason for you to bring it up, was there?

But that's what we ALL do, and bein' as how The Wedge is an ignorant clod, and bein' as how I don't usually suffer fools gladly, I hit him with a Virtual Bat to the figuratiive head. He needed it. Still does.

So, I'll be insulting him some more, as necessary.

Welcome to the World Affairs Board, clyde. Wear a cup.

Dima
01 Feb 05,, 00:19
You might to want to at least wait until the 1st IOC aircraft gets into a PAF pilot's hands.

BTW, PPP economies don't compare well. I'm not going all the way to China for a haircut.


oh dang, you've written 3,008 posts, i was going to congratulate you no your 3,000, anyways congratulations

yea i guess so, i'll wait, but they already have a few models of the aircraft, and have deduced the estimates from them, so i'm sure that the production model's statistics won't be too far off from those

PPP economies don't compare well(because of the conversion in currencies), yea, they're slightly off, i like GNP better, but i couldn't find a reliable site with information on every country in the world

wow, Troung, you and Blueboy have some serious problems, i come into this debate, nice and friendly and peaceful, i give some facts, and you guys retaliate immediately on me because you know that your wrong, i don't care about putting Russia up so high, because, if you were paynig attention to my original post, i said that both aircraft perform exceptionally well, but the MiG-29M beats the Block 60 out slightly, if anything, your the one who's trying to put America up top on a pedestal by your foolish and utterly stupid behaviour in believing that the F-16 is SO much better than the MiG-29

"You simply are an idoit..." you too are simply an idiot for your stupid beliefs, especially that America is so much more powerful than Russia, stop living in the 90's, this is the new millenia, and you can't say that Russia's economy is weak, or that they are underfunded

oh they did, Greece and Austria you say, so what happened, who was involved in the tender, what other aircraft, just curious

on the comment of Venezuela, where did you get that ABC news from? just wondering, because in many articles, it said that they were going to purchase the MiG-29's to replace the F-16, and B, yes i am aware of that, but C, where did you get that from? never heard of that before

jeeze, first of all, i don't dislike America, i just hate the President, and the people dumb enough to vote for him, second of all, the reason why i brought it up is because you were using the excuse that Russia can only sell aircraft to nations that don't have another choice or are allies with Russia, i just simply stated that no, that isn't true

"No America would not sell India a carrier the point is rather moot."

wow, man, are you illiterate or somethiing, read what i said, US cannot offer carrier AIRCRAFT such as the F-18, because of those reasons, jeeze

can you state why the RMAF is outgunned by the RTAF and RSAF, because of training etc.? i'm curious again

Eritrea's poor showing against Ethiopia, considering that Ethiopia spends $2.43 billion annually on their military, and Eritrea only spends $389.4 million, it can obviously be seen that Eritrea doesn't maintain their aircraft properly, or no where near the level that Ethiopia does

let me see who has the F-16: Bahrain, Greece, Israel, Egypt, New Zealand, UAE, Singapore, South Korea, Oman, Chile, Poland(well, these are countries who have recently ordered them, some such as Poland will receive their first Block 60 aircraft in 2006)
let me see, Bahrain, Greece, Israel, New Zealand, UAE, Singapore, South Korea, Chile, Poland

have very warm ties with the USA, or are trying to develop very warm ties to the US

Egypt, is turning towards the US, but also towards Europe, even more than the US

the only country that surprised me is Oman, do they havw warm relationships with the US?

well, recently, a total of 362 aircraft have been sold recently or will be sold in the very near future, now out of these 362 aircraft only 36 aircraft have been sold to countries that don't have very warm ties to America, Egypt(warming though) and Oman(?)

let me see the MiG numbers, this is pure speculation, i have no clue which one will be higher so this may prove your point more

Algeria, Bangladesh, Belarus, Bulgaria, Cuba, Eritrea, Germany, Hungary, India, Iran, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Myanmar, North Korea, Peru, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Syria, Sudan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Yemen

Sev, yo you mind helping me out if i miss up on something? any recent aircraft purchases that i forget to mention, thanks a lot man
THESE ARE RECENT PURCHASES AND FUTURE PURCHASES

Algeria-80 aircraft
(http://www.russiajournal.com/news/cnews-article.shtml?nd=44019)
Bangladesh-bought them i 1999/2000, not recent enough
Belarus-Soviet
Bulgaria-Soviet
Cuba-Soviet
Eritrea-1998/1999
Germany-Soviet
Hungary-Soviet
India-16 aircraft
http://news.indiamart.com/news-analysis/india-to-buy-16-mig--8538.html
Iran-1990's
Kazakhstan-Soviet
Malaysia-40
www.aeronautics.ru/nws001/archive0899.htm
Myanmar-2001
North Korea-Soviet
Peru-1996
Poland-Soviet
Romania-Soviet
Slovakia-Soviet
Syria-Soviet/1990's
Sudan-12
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0831/p01s02-wogi.html
Turkmenistan-Soviet
Ukraine-Soviet
Uzbekistan-Soviet
Venezuela-50
http://www.mosnews.com/money/2004/09/17/venezuela.shtml
Yemen-1990's(from Moldova)

http://www.newtimes.ru/eng/detail.asp?art_id=210

in fact, if you don't know, Pakistan had negotiated hard to buy Russian made MiG-29 fighters between 1990-1997

of all these nations that have recently signed contrcts for Russian aircraft, the total is worth 198 MiG 29 aircraft, compared to the 362 F-16 aircraft, so the Fighting Falcon is going to be boughht cpnsiderably more than the Fulcrum, almost twice as many Fighting Falcons have been bought compared to Fulcrums, now, if we add nations that don't really havw warm ties with the nation that sold them the aircraft, a total of 36 F-16 aircraft were sold to nations that didn't have very warm feelings towards America, but, a total of 136 MiG 29 aircraft have been bought by nations that don't have very warm feelings towards Russia, well that took a long time, i uncovered a bunch of cool information though

wait, one more article i found while snooping around, India is going to go through the process of choosing which aircraft will be used to replace their ageing and (not entirely crappy, but crappy) MiG-21BIS' , the aircraft include, the F-16, Mirage 2000, MiG 29 and the Gripen, awesome, the best light aircraft in the world

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4020275.stm

well, i've been doing some research on Malaysia, and their current situation, countries that surround them, such as having physical borders are Singapore, Thailand, and Myanmar, nations that are geographically close, include Vietnam, Cambodia, and Indonesia, so i decided to do those as well

Cambodia

MiG-21BIS: 9
MiG-21UM: 4

Vietnam

MiG-21BIS: 110
MiG-21UM: 10
Su-22M-3/3R: 26
Su-22M-4: 32
Su-22UM-3: 2
Su-27SK: 9
Su-27UBK: 1

Myanmar

Chengdu F-7M: 30
Guizhou FT-7/JJ-7: 6
Nanchang A-5M: 22
SOKO G-4: 10

Thailand

AV-8B: 7
TAV-8B: 2

Singapore

Lockheed Martin F-16A Block 15: 4
Lockheed Martin F-16B Block 15: 4
Lockheed Martin F-16C Block 52: 22
Lockheed Martin F-16D Block 52: 20
McDonnel Douglas A-4SU: 64
McDonnel Douglas TA-4SU: 12
Northrop F-5E: 42
Northrop F-5F: 8
Northrop RF-5E: 8

Indonesia

BAE Systems Hawk Mk 109: 8
BAE Systems Hawk Mk 209: 32
BAE Systems Hawk Mk 53: 14


if there is anything that i missed feel free to tell me about it, thanx

http://www.newportaero.com/home/airforces

well, i guess thats all, have a nice day guys

Severnaya
01 Feb 05,, 00:34
Why don't you e-message me privately

No.


The topic here isn't my posting style, is it? So, unless YOU are trying to score some off-topic point yourself.

No, not your style. The content within your posts is my point.


there was no real reason for you to bring it up, was there?

Yes, there was, lowering debates into immature name-calling.


But that's what we ALL do

Your saying that name-calling is a common occurance on this forum?


and bein' as how The Wedge is an ignorant clod, and bein' as how I don't usually suffer fools gladly, I hit him with a Virtual Bat to the figuratiive head. He needed it. Still does.

I don't think you have the right to 'hit him with a virtual bat to the figurative head'. That is a decision for the moderators to make.


So, I'll be insulting him some more, as necessary.

So be it.


Welcome to the World Affairs Board, clyde. Wear a cup.

:rolleyes:

Dima
01 Feb 05,, 00:45
Severnaya, nice signature, how'd you get that? i can't find how to change my profile

its funny te govvorit porrusski? or justa little bit?

what do you think about the massive amounts of links and information i've provided?

Officer of Engineers
01 Feb 05,, 01:59
yea i guess so, i'll wait, but they already have a few models of the aircraft, and have deduced the estimates from them, so i'm sure that the production model's statistics won't be too far off from those

A couple of things.

1) Chinese designed warplanes have a history of not meeting expectations, and that includes their clones of the MiG-19 and 21.

2) The PLAAF doesn't want the FC-1 which strongly suggests that the plane has failed to even meet their somewhat lower expectations.

Dima
01 Feb 05,, 02:38
well, yes, China does have aircraft that hav really let down everyone including themselves, thats why they have the J-11/Su-27SK, and Su-30MKK

anywyas, i mentioned this in my post if you read it on the FC-1 and the J-10, i think it was one of the first parts of the FC-1, i said smoething like, the Chinese government doesn't like the idea of buying two aircraft that essentially do the same thing, so, which aircraft do you think they'll choose? the FC-1 is a very limited plane, you won't be able to convert it into different forms like they did with the F-16, i think they'll choose the J-10, because like the Su-27, it has a lot of upgrades that can be done, and it looks like there will be a promising market for it

troung
01 Feb 05,, 03:16
"Eritrea's poor showing against Ethiopia, considering that Ethiopia spends $2.43 billion annually on their military, and Eritrea only spends $389.4 million, it can obviously be seen that Eritrea doesn't maintain their aircraft properly, or no where near the level that Ethiopia does"

Eritrea spent a lot more during the war and like Ethiopia had just gotten the planes and then at first hired Ukrainian pilots. Eritrea had a massive defense hike during the war and both nations really made thier air forces during the war. And today the opposite of what you said has happened actually....

"come into this debate, nice and friendly and peaceful, i give some facts, and you guys retaliate immediately on me because you know that your wrong, i don't care about putting Russia up so high, because, if you were paynig attention to my original post, i said that both aircraft perform exceptionally well, but the MiG-29M beats the Block 60 out slightly, if anything, your the one who's trying to put America up top on a pedestal by your foolish and utterly stupid behaviour in believing that the F-16 is SO much better than the MiG-29"

These lame hypothetical topics get annoying quickly.

"oh they did, Greece and Austria you say, so what happened, who was involved in the tender, what other aircraft, just curious"

Greece...
F-15H
Su-35
Rafale
EF-2000

Austria
EF-2000
JAS-39
MiG-29SMT

"jeeze, first of all, i don't dislike America, i just hate the President, and the people dumb enough to vote for him"

So 51% of the country....

"t me see who has the F-16: Bahrain, Greece, Israel, Egypt, New Zealand, UAE, Singapore, South Korea, Oman, Chile, Poland(well, these are countries who have recently ordered them, some such as Poland will receive their first Block 60 aircraft in 2006) let me see, Bahrain, Greece, Israel, New Zealand, UAE, Singapore, South Korea, Chile, Poland"

Put in Venezuela, Jordan, Thailand, Taiwan, Netherlands, Italy, Belguim, Norway, Demark, Turkey, Indonesia, Pakistan and take out New Zealand.

"can you state why the RMAF is outgunned by the RTAF and RSAF, because of training etc.? i'm curious again"

Equipment.

"in fact, if you don't know, Pakistan had negotiated hard to buy Russian made MiG-29 fighters between 1990-1997"

They were under embrago and thier F-16s were not delievered.

"Thailand AV-8B: 7 AV-8B: 2 Singapore Lockheed Martin F-16A Block 15: 4
Lockheed Martin F-16B Block 15: 4 Lockheed Martin F-16C Block 52: 22
Lockheed Martin F-16D Block 52: 20 McDonnel Douglas A-4SU: 64 McDonnel Douglas TA-4SU: 12 Northrop F-5E: 42 Northrop F-5F: 8 Northrop RF-5E: 8
Indonesia BAE Systems Hawk Mk 109: 8 BAE Systems Hawk Mk 209: 32
BAE Systems Hawk Mk 53"

Where the hell did you get that data?

The TNI-AU had 12 F-16A/B B-15 OCUs (now 10), 14 F-5E/F MACAN and 24 A-4E and also now has 2 Su-27SK and 2 Su-30MK. The RTAF has around 60 F-16A/B B-15 OCU/ADF, 40 or so F-5E/F (totally upgraded). RSAF are no longer refered to as being F-5E/F but F-5S/T becuase of the upgrades for the Griffo and AIM-120.

---

FYI BAF (Bangladesh) MiG-29s are out of service... rather soon after being bought...

Severnaya
01 Feb 05,, 03:42
Greece...
F-15H
Su-35
Rafale
EF-2000

Greece does not have the Su-35, nor will it have it.


Austria
EF-2000
JAS-39
MiG-29SMT

And Austria certainly does not have the MiG-29SMT. The SMT upgrade is an extension to the MiG-29SM. And will certainly not be fielded anywhere else but Russia. The main reason for it not being exported is its enhanced stealth capability in radar frequency band and a wide variety of advanced communication and navigation systems.

Link: http://www.warfare.ru/?catid=255&linkid=1600

troung
01 Feb 05,, 04:04
Those are planes that were offered goomba.... Greece flies no F-15Hs either...


"The SMT upgrade is an extension to the MiG-29SM. And will certainly not be fielded anywhere else but Russia. The main reason for it not being exported is its enhanced stealth capability in radar frequency band and a wide variety of advanced communication and navigation systems."

Actually the Russians have tried to export the plane many times...


This discussion is so boring and rather pointless......

Dima
01 Feb 05,, 04:22
"Eritrea's poor showing against Ethiopia, considering that Ethiopia spends $2.43 billion annually on their military, and Eritrea only spends $389.4 million, it can obviously be seen that Eritrea doesn't maintain their aircraft properly, or no where near the level that Ethiopia does"

Eritrea spent a lot more during the war and like Ethiopia had just gotten the planes and then at first hired Ukrainian pilots. Eritrea had a massive defense hike during the war and both nations really made thier air forces during the war. And today the opposite of what you said has happened actually....

"come into this debate, nice and friendly and peaceful, i give some facts, and you guys retaliate immediately on me because you know that your wrong, i don't care about putting Russia up so high, because, if you were paynig attention to my original post, i said that both aircraft perform exceptionally well, but the MiG-29M beats the Block 60 out slightly, if anything, your the one who's trying to put America up top on a pedestal by your foolish and utterly stupid behaviour in believing that the F-16 is SO much better than the MiG-29"

These lame hypothetical topics get annoying quickly.

"oh they did, Greece and Austria you say, so what happened, who was involved in the tender, what other aircraft, just curious"

Greece...
F-15H
Su-35
Rafale
EF-2000

Austria
EF-2000
JAS-39
MiG-29SMT

"jeeze, first of all, i don't dislike America, i just hate the President, and the people dumb enough to vote for him"

So 51% of the country....

"t me see who has the F-16: Bahrain, Greece, Israel, Egypt, New Zealand, UAE, Singapore, South Korea, Oman, Chile, Poland(well, these are countries who have recently ordered them, some such as Poland will receive their first Block 60 aircraft in 2006) let me see, Bahrain, Greece, Israel, New Zealand, UAE, Singapore, South Korea, Chile, Poland"

Put in Venezuela, Jordan, Thailand, Taiwan, Netherlands, Italy, Belguim, Norway, Demark, Turkey, Indonesia, Pakistan and take out New Zealand.

"can you state why the RMAF is outgunned by the RTAF and RSAF, because of training etc.? i'm curious again"

Equipment.

"in fact, if you don't know, Pakistan had negotiated hard to buy Russian made MiG-29 fighters between 1990-1997"

They were under embrago and thier F-16s were not delievered.

"Thailand AV-8B: 7 AV-8B: 2 Singapore Lockheed Martin F-16A Block 15: 4
Lockheed Martin F-16B Block 15: 4 Lockheed Martin F-16C Block 52: 22
Lockheed Martin F-16D Block 52: 20 McDonnel Douglas A-4SU: 64 McDonnel Douglas TA-4SU: 12 Northrop F-5E: 42 Northrop F-5F: 8 Northrop RF-5E: 8
Indonesia BAE Systems Hawk Mk 109: 8 BAE Systems Hawk Mk 209: 32
BAE Systems Hawk Mk 53"

Where the hell did you get that data?

The TNI-AU had 12 F-16A/B B-15 OCUs (now 10), 14 F-5E/F MACAN and 24 A-4E and also now has 2 Su-27SK and 2 Su-30MK. The RTAF has around 60 F-16A/B B-15 OCU/ADF, 40 or so F-5E/F (totally upgraded). RSAF are no longer refered to as being F-5E/F but F-5S/T becuase of the upgrades for the Griffo and AIM-120.

---

FYI BAF (Bangladesh) MiG-29s are out of service... rather soon after being bought...


your first paragraph on the war in the African Horn between(hey it rhymes lol) Eritrea and Ethiopia, so, if Ethiopia got Ukrainian pilots in the first place, no wonder they blew the Eritrean pilots out of the sky, no pilots from either Eritrea or Ethiopia can match Ukrainian pilots, also, not possible for Eritrea to spend even close to the amount Ethiopia spent, economically impossible, if they did, there wouldn't be an Eritrea right now because of extreme and severe economic hardships, let me explain

Eritrea has a total economic worth of $3.3 billion only and has a growth rate of 2% and a per capita of $700, Ethiopia has an economy worth $46.81 billion and it has been decreasing by -3.8%, the per capita is $700, which measn that, when the war started, the economy of Eritrea was even smaller, since the war started in 1998, and thats when most of the spending was happening, ni the beginning, if we were to take these growth factors, and factor them into the economy of both countries, that would mean that, the Eritrean economy was worth only $2.97 billion compared to the $3.3 billion today

no Ethiopia would have an economic worth of $55.7 billion compared to today's worth of $46.81 billion, the Eritrean economy was only worth 5.3% of the Ethiopian economy, now Ethiopia currently spends 5.2% of their GDP on military purchases and hardware etc. well, that means that for Eritrea to match Ethiopia in military hardware, they would have to donate 98.1% of their GDP to the military, which we all know, would totally destroy their economy, and even if they were to come close to the Etnhiopian expenditure on military hardware, a minimum of 60%+ would be needed, now look at North Korea's economy, they spend 22.9% of their GDP on their military, but look how screwed they are, countless drouhgt sna food shortages, imagine how severe that would be in Africe with such a lack of water, so, it was economically impossible to spend even close to the Ethiopians, the Eritreans were outrained, outgunned(because the Ethiopians used Su-27's) and outnumbered

oh was that the turn out 51%? damn, then i guess i hate 51% of America lol :biggrin:

thanks for the aircraft list for Austria and Greece, the reason why they are outgunned, yea, probably equipment, because Myanmar doesn't maintain their MiG aircraft, and the rest of their aircraft such as their F-7 are totally worth, less than a friggin car, and their training, well i can't speak of it because i haven't heard any statistics, but based on the region, it is expected i'd expect it to be abysmally low

oh, let me find the site, just wait........

http://www.newportaero.com/home/airforces

this is the site, i don' think its really reliable though, because i went to Russia and the only combat aircraft that they had there were MiG-25's, now Fulcrums or Flankers or anything, do you have a reliable site, thats updated regularly?

Severnaya
01 Feb 05,, 04:25
Actually the Russians have tried to export the plane many times...

No they didn't.



This discussion is so boring and rather pointless......

Is it?

Dima
01 Feb 05,, 04:36
well, if it is, then why are you staying here?

troung
01 Feb 05,, 05:40
"Eritrea and Ethiopia, so, if Ethiopia got Ukrainian pilots in the first place, no wonder they blew the Eritrean pilots out of the sky, no pilots from either Eritrea or Ethiopia can match Ukrainian pilots, also, not possible for Eritrea to spend even close to the amount Ethiopia spent, economically impossible, if they did, there wouldn't be an Eritrea right now because of extreme and severe economic hardships, let me explain"

At first they both hired Russian and Ukrainian pilots then they later used thier own pilots to face thier own pilots.

"because Myanmar doesn't maintain their MiG aircraft, and the rest of their aircraft such as their F-7 are totally worth, less than a friggin car, and their training, well i can't speak of it because i haven't heard any statistics, but based on the region, it is expected i'd expect it to be abysmally low"

The RMAF is not from Myanmar....

----

"No they didn't."

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_168.shtml

"From a large list of candidates, that also included Dassault Rafale, Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet, MiG MiG-29SMT, and EADS EF-2000 Typhoon, only four contenders remain: Lockheed-Martin F-16C Fighting Falcons, Saab/BAe JAS-39 Gripen, Dassault Mirage 2000BR and Sukhoi Su-35 Super Flankers. The latter two are the front-runners."

http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRheft/FRH9810/FR9810g.htm

"Naturally the improvements to the MiG-29SMT are not only meant for Russia, they are also of interest to numerous export customers. However, convincing them to buy will not be all that easy. Countries like Poland or Hungary seem to be more interested in Western aircraft."

Boy for the rest of your time here never disagree with me again.

----

Me I think the MiG-29SMT and MiG-29M are the plane the MiG-29 should have been from the start but how those will actually preform in action is unknown for the time being. I guess I'll end it on that note.

Severnaya
01 Feb 05,, 05:55
Whilst researching about Russian Export, I contacted Rosoboronexport regarding an arms catalog. a) The MiG-29SMT will not be exported due to it being fitted with the latest Generation of Russian plasma stealth b) The Su-35, hasn't even been fielded in the Russian army, nor is it being produced souly for export.

The only military aircraft availiable for export from Russia are:

Sukhoi Su-24MK Tactical Bomber
Sukhoi Su-25SMK Attack Aircraft. Modernization of Su-25K
Sukhoi Su-30MK Multi-role Fighter
Sukhoi Su-32 Fighter-bomber
Sukhoi Su-39 Attack Aircraft
Sukhoi Su-27SK Air Superiority Fighter
Sukhoi Su-33(Su-27K)Ship-Borne Fighter
Mikoyan MiG-21-93. Modernization of MiG-21
MiG-29 and MiG-29UB Modernisation Programme
Mikoyan MiG-29K Multi-role Ship-Borne Fighter
Mikoyan MiG-29M2 Multi-role Fighter
Mikoyan MiG-31E Fighter-Interceptor
Ilyushin Il-76MF/Il-76MD Transport Aircraft
Ilyushin Il-76P Fire-fighting aircraft
Ilyushin Il-78MK Convertible Refuelling Tanke
Antonov An-70 Transport Aircraft
Antonov An-32B-200 Multi-Purpose Military Transport
Antonov An-74 Light STOL Transport Aircraft
Antonov An-38-100/An-38-200 Light Utility Aircraft
Antonov An-3 Light Utility Aircraft
Beriev Be-103 Light Utility Amphibian
Beriev Be-200 Multi-role Amphibian
Beriev Be-12P Fire-fighting Amphibian
Tu-214, Il-96-300 and Yak-42D VIP Aircraft
Tupolev TU-22M3 Long-range Strategic Bomber
Geofizika M-55 High-Altitude Aircraft
A-50 Aircraft

Helicopters:

Ka-50 Combat Helicopter
Ka-50 Combat Helicopter (Two-Seat Version)
Mi-28NE Combat Helicopter
Mi-35 Combat-Transport Helicopter
Mi-8AMTSh Combat-Transport Helicopter
Mi-26 Heavy Lift Military Transport Helicopter
Mi-17-1V Multipurpose Helicopter

-----

The site you provided is hardly credible. The article is by Piotr Butowski is hardly known for his opinion and/or articles regarding aircraft. He is a Polish Jew who immigrated to America, later returned to Russia to take 'pictures', perhaps he should stick to taking pictures rather than writing articles about issues he knows nothing about.

Severnaya
01 Feb 05,, 05:57
Also, that article is over 7 years old.


Last updated September 4, 1998

troung
01 Feb 05,, 06:41
"He is a ----- Jew"

I guess that says it all... can't trust them...

"Also, that article is over 7 years old."

Wow so they have still been looking for buyers even 7 years ago.

"The MiG-29SMT will not be exported due to it being fitted with the latest Generation of Russian plasma stealth"

Jackass the plane is mostly for export. Russia can barely afford to fly much less upgrade the fleet.

They have offered it to India, Brazil, Peru, Venzuela, Yemen, Malaysia, Vietnam, the Philippines, Austria, Syria, Algeria, the UAE, the Czechs and others. It seems like Yemen could very well buy some.

http://www.aviationweek.com/shownews/02fidae/special.htm

"Responses were also reported last December from Lockheed Martin with Block 50/52 F-16C/Ds, the Saab/BAE Gripen, and Rosoboronexport with the MiG-29SMT and Sukhoi Su-35."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/405294.stm

"Arab sources report that Russia has agreed to sell Su-27 and MiG-29SMT fighter aircraft ... as well as 200 T-80 tanks," according to Jane's Defence Report."

So that is 4 links easy...

So like I said never disagree with me again...

Severnaya
01 Feb 05,, 08:43
I guess that says it all... can't trust them...

Yes.


Wow so they have still been looking for buyers even 7 years ago.[/qoute]

Your an idiot. Seven years ago it was only a protoype, the modernization of the Russian MiG-29's did not start until later 2000.

[quote]Jackass the plane is mostly for export. Russia can barely afford to fly much less upgrade the fleet.

Incorrect, the SMT upgrade was designed to increase the MiG-29's in the Russian airforce. 120 of of the 455 MiG-29's have been upgraded so far, thus having been given the highest priority for production, Mikoyan industries have not had the time to offer the SMT version for export.


Jackass the plane is mostly for export. Russia can barely afford to fly much less upgrade the fleet.

Jackass? The plane is not for export, as I have said, you are obviously to arrogant and fixed in your ways to admit it.


They have offered it to India, Brazil, Peru, Venzuela, Yemen, Malaysia, Vietnam, the Philippines, Austria, Syria, Algeria, the UAE, the Czechs and others. It seems like Yemen could very well buy some.

What country do you live in?


"Arab sources report that Russia has agreed to sell Su-27 and MiG-29SMT fighter aircraft ... as well as 200 T-80 tanks," according to Jane's Defence Report."

Russia would not offer the SMT upgrade, with the latest generation of plasma stealth to an arab nation.


So that is 4 links easy...

Irrelevant, quality not quantity.


So like I said never disagree with me again...

Don't flatter yourself, you obviously can't except it when someone is right. Why don't you try and find a Russian source stating that the SMT is availiable for export. Obviously Western articles are only acceptable .. due to them being more reliable than the country which is supposedly making the aircraft.

MIKEMUN
01 Feb 05,, 09:16
What is the whole point of this discussion...I am now already lost...I am not a military expert and I don't claim to be...Never flown a combat aircraft,never been in one..But my opinion is we do not know which plane is better.There are areas where the -29 performs better and there are areas where the Viper performs better..But the truth is you can't know which plane is better because they have never been pitted against each other in combat,the latest upgrades,that is..So until we get more facts it is quite pointless to peddle everything you read on the net as truth..Numbers are just that,numbers.They can be fudged...They are not the gospel truth.........My humble opinion..

Severnaya
01 Feb 05,, 09:44
I respect and Agree with your opinion.

Making threads involving aircrafts being compared in combat, are totally unrealistic. In this era of warfare, 'dog fights' will not involve one aircraft verse another, but instead multiple aircraft engaging one another from BVR. Also, it is not the aircrafts specifications that count, it is the ability of the pilot to adapt and use the capabilities of which the aircraft has to the best of his abilities.

MIKEMUN
01 Feb 05,, 09:53
This article says that the first 2 MIG-29SMT have been delivered to Yemen..Too bad that you need registration before reading it.

www.flightinternational.com/FALANDING_189860.htm

Mr_Vaastu
01 Feb 05,, 11:08
I dont see why anyone should get fired up on the term "aryan". It is just a nomenclature used to depict a certain kind of people. In fact quite some time back in India the word "Arya" was used to address some body else just like Mr or Sir. Even the Swastika, which is an Indian symbol for goodnesss, found in every Hindu temple , has some very dark meanings in Europe. It is very sad.


Exactly as I was saying :confused: ...........Danke für das Löschen alle zweifelt ;)

Mr_Vaastu
01 Feb 05,, 11:11
http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?p=66797#post66797



The bastardization ain't the fault of the real Aryans but that does not change the fact that the term was bastardized and in doing so, over 25 million people died.



Extremely true but doesn't matter. The term Aryans is forever tied to the Nazis whether you like it or not.


Colonel, actually Aryanism has been associated with India for the past 5000 years and always will. Its got nothing to do about Racism although Hitlers hijacking of our Swastika was what gave racist overtures to anything associated to or with the Aryans or their ancient civilizations that stretched from Europe through Russia to India. Indians consider themselves Aryans the same way Britons consider themselves Celts. What the Swastika is to India is what the Celtic cross is to British Isles and Gallatia which is why you’ll find a Swastika in every nook and cranny in India from grocery shops and shopping malls to the Holy Temples. It is revered as a sacred symbol for progress and supremacy. So like it or not, others are not fit to make their judgments on Aryanism because they are ‘not fit’ to do so. Besides, the whole world could ban the Swastika, but the Swastika will never be banned in India….....we are a true Aryan nation :eek: :eek: :) :biggrin: !!!

Mr_Vaastu
01 Feb 05,, 11:13
Mr_Vastu (aka Mr Adolf, Mr Hitler, etc.) was banned for using a username deemed inappropriate under forum rules.

Reregistering under a new username to circumvent a ban is not allowed, Mr_Vastu is therefore banned, by default.

If anybody believes he has registered another username, send me a private message and I will investigate it.


Alright, alright, alright.........I apologise for my whimsical ways of doing a Prince Harry and appearing on this forum as an ‘Adolf’ and ‘Hitler’ just for the fun of it. But I didn’t come on as ‘Adolf Hitler’ did I? Adolf and Hitler happen to be the names of many people who have no connection whatsoever with racism so I was not aware of those names being inappropriate as per the rules. Also I never spoke anything derogatory toward any race or community of people that had racial overtures of any kind. All I did was speak about Luftwaffe MiGs and some Aryan culture of India and this thread went spiraling from the flamin' Fighting Falcons to the German Nazis :eek: :eek: :) !!!

Severnaya
01 Feb 05,, 11:17
This article says that the first 2 MIG-29SMT have been delivered to Yemen..Too bad that you need registration before reading it.

Wrong, I have an arms catalog regarding Rosoboronexport sales. The MiG-29SMT, which is equipped with the latest Russian Generation of Plasma stealth, will not be fielded outside the Russia airforce.

Mr_Vaastu
01 Feb 05,, 11:53
I stand by the fact that no MiG-29 has ever been intercepted by any fighter plane. You need to record the crash site where the wreckage was and if possible, find the ID number of the downed plane, the standard most European Air Forces follow which the USAF, never had.

Seen here the downed F-117s that were victims of the MiG-29, their wreckages were found and registered :

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/images/yugoslavia/jan-june99/331yu039.jpg

http://serbnews.com/f117.html

The MiG-29 has a 100% kill ratio to infinity against any F-16. In the Gulf conflict F-16s flew in CAP missions with F-15 and AWACS aircraft and yet it took 249 F-16s, 200 odd F-15s, 100 plus F-111s, Tomcats, Hornets, Tornados, Jaguars, Mirages and UK F-4s to chase a lone MiG-29 that managed to get past Allied Air Defence Systems safely into Iran.

On a one-on-one basis whenever F-16s have gone on DACT exercises with MiG-29s they have lost, clean bowled. Luftwaffe and Polish MiG-29s killed USAF F-16s with every shot in air exercises and IAF Fulcrums didn’t give Singaporean F-16s a chance to live either.

Mr_Vaastu
01 Feb 05,, 11:57
I'll bet Troung and Bluesman you both are either from UAE, Singapore, Pakistan or some country that flies the F-16 but no matter how hard you try and stall...........my MiG-29 "Falcon Hunter"'s gonna run your F-16s into the sands :eek: :eek: hahaha :biggrin:

troung
01 Feb 05,, 18:19
"Wrong, I have an arms catalog regarding Rosoboronexport sales. The MiG-29SMT, which is equipped with the latest Russian Generation of Plasma stealth, will not be fielded outside the Russia airforce."

See you're just bsing.

The MiG-29SMT has been offered for export several times. You're down to making up stuff. It seems like Yemen could pick up the plane.

You're an idiot deal with it...

And seeing as you said you don't trust jews... shows what type of guy you are...

"The MiG-29 has a 100% kill ratio to infinity against any F-16"

Ummmm Serbian and Iraqi MiG-29s have been killed by American and Dutch F-16s. No MiG-29 has ever even fired a shot back much less hit an F-16.

"I stand by the fact that no MiG-29 has ever been intercepted by any fighter plane."

Syrian, Eritrean, Iraqi, and Serbian MiG-29s have been confirmed shot down in combat by all types of planes in all manners of settings.

"You need to record the crash site where the wreckage was and if possible, find the ID number of the downed plane, the standard most European Air Forces follow which the USAF, never had."

Fucking moron...

"I'll bet Troung and Bluesman you both are either from UAE, Singapore, Pakistan or some country that flies the F-16 but no matter how hard you try and stall...........my MiG-29 "Falcon Hunter"'s gonna run your F-16s into the sands"

Jackass....

Dima
01 Feb 05,, 19:43
What is the whole point of this discussion...I am now already lost...I am not a military expert and I don't claim to be...Never flown a combat aircraft,never been in one..But my opinion is we do not know which plane is better.There are areas where the -29 performs better and there are areas where the Viper performs better..But the truth is you can't know which plane is better because they have never been pitted against each other in combat,the latest upgrades,that is..So until we get more facts it is quite pointless to peddle everything you read on the net as truth..Numbers are just that,numbers.They can be fudged...They are not the gospel truth.........My humble opinion..

yes i agree as well, it was just my opinion on which one is better, but you can't really calculate which aircraft is better until they both meet each other in combat, with equal pilots

yo, Mr. Vastu, you seem to have extensive knowledge of the MiG 29 aircraft and how it is "superior" to the F-16, you mind giving me your email, and then we can talk?

thanks

Bill
02 Feb 05,, 22:16
In the few instances where a Mig-29 has faced off with an F-16, it has ended very badly for the Mig driver, everytime.

Bill
02 Feb 05,, 22:26
'Wrong, I have an arms catalog regarding Rosoboronexport sales. The MiG-29SMT, which is equipped with the latest Russian Generation of Plasma stealth, will not be fielded outside the Russia airforce.'

Well your arms catalog is wrong cuz.

The Mig-29SMT has been offered to numerous countries.

Apparently, no one wants them...

ajaybhutani
03 Feb 05,, 01:12
i was under an impression that russians are planning to give plasma stealth feature to mig29K to be procured by India. and even for upgrades.??Though i dont remember where i read it.

tu160mblackjack
03 Feb 05,, 22:16
Colonel, actually Aryanism has been associated with India for the past 5000 years and always will. Its got nothing to do about Racism although Hitlers hijacking of our Swastika was what gave racist overtures to anything associated to or with the Aryans or their ancient civilizations that stretched from Europe through Russia to India. Indians consider themselves Aryans the same way Britons consider themselves Celts. What the Swastika is to India is what the Celtic cross is to British Isles and Gallatia which is why you’ll find a Swastika in every nook and cranny in India from grocery shops and shopping malls to the Holy Temples. It is revered as a sacred symbol for progress and supremacy. So like it or not, others are not fit to make their judgments on Aryanism because they are ‘not fit’ to do so. Besides, the whole world could ban the Swastika, but the Swastika will never be banned in India….....we are a true Aryan nation :eek: :eek: :) :biggrin: !!!

God! Before I start, I"ll let you know I'm Indian. First, Indians are not Aryans. Indians belong to an entire race seperate from others. Research on the Vedic conferences of 1965-67 and you will see the Aryan invvasion theory was disqualified as invalid. However, I agree that to Hindus and also various other cultures, the Swastika is an important symbol, and I find nothing wrong in it. The only thing is, you are a tactless moron and need to act responsible.

So, the Aryan Invasion theory was introduced by the British as a ploy to make a connection between Indians and themselves, whom they considered "Aryan" as they were Europeans and so were the "Aryans." In the end, the stupid Indian government has continued teaching that nonsense over the decades and it has become a part of our falsely imparted "culture." If you want to do further research on this, research some info on the British Education Act during the British Raj.

tu160mblackjack
03 Feb 05,, 22:22
In the few instances where a Mig-29 has faced off with an F-16, it has ended very badly for the Mig driver, everytime.

driver???????????????????? :confused: :confused: :rolleyes:

ASG
03 Feb 05,, 22:25
driver???????????????????? :confused: :confused: :rolleyes:
LOL!!

of course, he meant pilot.

LOL!!

Bill
03 Feb 05,, 22:28
Pilot = Driver, as in "Eagle Driver", etc, etc.

ASG
03 Feb 05,, 22:29
i was under an impression that russians are planning to give plasma stealth feature to mig29K to be procured by India. and even for upgrades.??Though i dont remember where i read it.
As Sniper already quoted, and I have read at several other places, MIG29k is being rejected by every country it is being offered to. Then why are the Indian Armed Forces so keen on procuring this aircraft.?
I think it is being procured for the Navy for its aircraft carriers. But India doesn't have any Aircraft Carriers at the moment. I think these are a part of the Gorshkov(spelling?) deal.

Bill
03 Feb 05,, 22:35
"I think it is being procured for the Navy for its aircraft carriers. But India doesn't have any Aircraft Carriers at the moment. I think these are a part of the Gorshkov(spelling?) deal."

I'm probably wrong, because it's been months since i read anything about that carrier deal(and because i read far more than i can possibly retain), but weren't they Mig-29Ks?

EDIT TO ADD: Yep, google says they're K models.

ajaybhutani
03 Feb 05,, 23:30
yes i m talking about the mig29K the naval variant for gorshkov

ASG
03 Feb 05,, 23:33
yes i m talking about the mig29K the naval variant for gorshkov
can you quote any reason why only India seemed to have accepted MIG-29K.

ajaybhutani
03 Feb 05,, 23:49
well primary reason is " we didnt have many options We had to buy russian fighter Aircraft for gorshkov( as otherwise we wont get gorshkov) and su33 dsnt fit on it Though the package shall contain the su30 MKI type avionics and TVC,.

ASG
03 Feb 05,, 23:52
well primary reason is " we didnt have many options We had to buy russian fighter Aircraft for gorshkov( as otherwise we wont get gorshkov) and su33 dsnt fit on it Though the package shall contain the su30 MKI type avionics and TVC,.
Its like fitting a Maruti 800 with a Rolls Royce steering system.

troung
03 Feb 05,, 23:58
"can you quote any reason why only India seemed to have accepted MIG-29K."

Not very many nations buying Russian carriers...

SwingKid
04 Feb 05,, 00:05
'Wrong, I have an arms catalog regarding Rosoboronexport sales. The MiG-29SMT, which is equipped with the latest Russian Generation of Plasma stealth, will not be fielded outside the Russia airforce.'

Well your arms catalog is wrong cuz.

The Mig-29SMT has been offered to numerous countries.

Apparently, no one wants them...

This may be nitpicking but... wouldn't that make the arms catalog technically correct? :rolleyes:

-SK

ASG
04 Feb 05,, 00:09
This may be nitpicking but... wouldn't that make the arms catalog technically correct? :rolleyes:

-SK

No its not technically correct. The manual implies that Russia wont be offering the aircraft to any other country. But actually it has been offered but no one wants it.

Not so much into research as much in nitpicking as you call it, huh?

SwingKid
04 Feb 05,, 00:52
No its not technically correct. The manual implies that Russia wont be offering the aircraft to any other country.

No it doesn't. It says the aircraft won't be fielded outside Russia. In order for that to be incorrect, the aircraft would have to be fielded outside of Russia.

Whiere is it fielded outside of Russia Maximus? Which country?

Huh? Huh?



Not so much into research as much in nitpicking as you call it, huh?

I'm procrastinating. Research is hard work! :frown:

-SK

troung
04 Feb 05,, 01:02
"No it doesn't. It says the aircraft won't be fielded outside Russia. In order for that to be incorrect, the aircraft would have to be fielded outside of Russia. Whiere is it fielded outside of Russia Maximus? Which country?"

It seems it could be going to Yemen and Algeria. Two nations which have no other option for modern planes.

But the guy that orginally posted that whole crap about the Russians not wanting to export it is an idiot trying to make it sound special.

SwingKid
04 Feb 05,, 01:31
It seems it could be going to Yemen and Algeria. Two nations which have no other option for modern planes.

Interest in "MiG-29SMT" for its ground attack capabilites, maybe. But "plasma stealth?" I think you have to be a little smarter than that to get into a hardware-buying position of authority in those countries.

-SK

troung
04 Feb 05,, 04:54
"Interest in "MiG-29SMT" for its ground attack capabilites, maybe."

Well at the very least it would be better then a MiG-29A/S/UB thats for sure...

"But "plasma stealth?" I think you have to be a little smarter than that to get into a hardware-buying position of authority in those countries."

;)

The whole point is the maybe "plasma stealth" is an under funded pipe dream that is talked about to hype up the systems. Or of course the fact "plasma stealth" is really going no where. So I doubt they looked online and said "hey it has "plasma stealth"!!! lets buy it!!!".

But of course being smart and being in a hardware buying position don't really mesh or go hand in hand either, so... ;)

ajaybhutani
04 Feb 05,, 08:57
Its like fitting a Maruti 800 with a Rolls Royce steering system.
As i said there were no options. Clearly its better to have a Maruti 800 rather than not having a car at all.

MIKEMUN
04 Feb 05,, 13:44
Yemen has bought it.. ;)

Dima
05 Feb 05,, 08:41
Maximus, haha, the MiG-29K has been offerred to no other country, the only country i've heard is India, and ajaybhutani, um, i doubt that the Su-33 can't fit onto the deck of the Gorshkov while it was still in Russia, or was it the Admiral Kuznetsov, they're both the same class, because Russia has some 24 Su-33's that were stationed on the Admiral Gorshkov, and Troung, not every nation is willing to buy a $2 billion carrier, when was the last time America has sold a carrier to another country, just curious

by the way, MiG-29SMT sales are incredible, Russia already has 150 of their MiG-29's upgraded to SMT standard and UBT(approximately 120,30), then Yemen has orderd 14, Sudan has ordered 4, and Algeria, has a confirmed order of 50, and a possible 30 more, again, Troung, with his lame attempts at saying that these nations have no other choice, neither does Western Europe, or Japan, or Israel, or South Korea and Australia, all those nations are under a tight grip by the USA and you can't deny that, look through my links, in 2-3 of them, they mention this conflict, especially the one where South Korea is tired of America bossing them around forcing them to purchase their aircraft, find it, read it, nations ni South East Asia, America doesn't really have very good strong control over these nations, so don't say that other nations don't have a choice, so choose the MiG-29, its pathetic

also, for further sales, many nations in the middle-east will be opting to upgrade their MiG-29's to SMT's, so there will be further profits in that

MIKEMUN
05 Feb 05,, 12:33
So why all the argument about MIGs not being sold 'cause of Plasma Stealth??? ;)

ajaybhutani
05 Feb 05,, 16:03
Maximus, haha, the MiG-29K has been offerred to no other country, the only country i've heard is India, and ajaybhutani, um, i doubt that the Su-33 can't fit onto the deck of the Gorshkov while it was still in Russia, or was it the Admiral Kuznetsov, they're both the same class, because Russia has some 24 Su-33's that were stationed on the Admiral Gorshkov, and Troung, not every nation is willing to buy a $2 billion carrier, when was the last time America has sold a carrier to another country, just curious

Well 1. Gorskov comes for the cost or refit.
Cost is 750M for refit. and 750M for 16 mig29.
So its really cheap for an aircraft carrier. Well its possible that the rest would be LCA or sothin else from some other country.

About su33

http://www.indiadefence.com/Gorshkovdeal.htm

And curent russian carrier is Kuznetsov class which weighs 65000 tonnes and so can carry su33. But gorshkov cannot.

link http://www.webcom.com/~amraam/rcar.html

Dima
06 Feb 05,, 00:33
i was talking about the price for American carriers, which might even exceed that, $1.5 billion for the Gorshkov is really cheap for a carrier

ah, yes, the Gorshkov is a Kiev class, not a Kuznetsov class, my bad, sorry, i was really sleepy when i wrote that

well, so, $750 million for 16 aircraft, well lets see, that means that the mean price of the MiG-29K's will be $47 million, Jesus Murphy Gopher, lol, thats expensive, for a MiG-29, but then again, its on par with the MiG-29M and SMT, so, i guess its worth it, but still, $47 million per aircraft

http://in.rediff.com/news/2005/feb/05iaf.htm

this might interest you(link above)

why didn't you guys buy a Kuznetsov class carrier, like China, their a lot better, more modern, more space for aircraft? just curiouos

ajaybhutani
06 Feb 05,, 03:01
i was talking about the price for American carriers, which might even exceed that, $1.5 billion for the Gorshkov is really cheap for a carrier

ah, yes, the Gorshkov is a Kiev class, not a Kuznetsov class, my bad, sorry, i was really sleepy when i wrote that

well, so, $750 million for 16 aircraft, well lets see, that means that the mean price of the MiG-29K's will be $47 million, Jesus Murphy Gopher, lol, thats expensive, for a MiG-29, but then again, its on par with the MiG-29M and SMT, so, i guess its worth it, but still, $47 million per aircraft

http://in.rediff.com/news/2005/feb/05iaf.htm

this might interest you(link above)

why didn't you guys buy a Kuznetsov class carrier, like China, their a lot better, more modern, more space for aircraft? just curiouos

well the russians gave us the carrier for free. That means no cost 1.5B isfor refit and aircrafts.
mig29 costed more to us as we needed to pay for the extra cost of developing the aircraft itself like integrationa nd testing with newer avionics radar etc.
Well chine bought the incomplete carrier. And is completing it by itself. Now we purchased a keiv class that was given to us for free we just paid for the refit.
furthermore we donot need a big carrier. . We plan to get 3 of the size of gorshkov by 2007 we will get gorshkov by 2010 our own AD) air defence ship).

Dima
06 Feb 05,, 03:25
oh, so India plans on purchasing more Kiev class carriers, awesome, Russia is sure to get billions from this, boost its Rand D industry, and then it will be a match for the US avionics industry

yea, they purchased the incomplete carrier from Ukraine, that blows, i wish they bought it from Russia, that would be even more money, so ig uess that your going to put into poeration only MiG-29K fighters on those carriers, right? or will they develop a carrier capable version of the LCA?

ajaybhutani
06 Feb 05,, 07:25
oh, so India plans on purchasing more Kiev class carriers, awesome, Russia is sure to get billions from this, boost its Rand D industry, and then it will be a match for the US avionics industry

yea, they purchased the incomplete carrier from Ukraine, that blows, i wish they bought it from Russia, that would be even more money, so ig uess that your going to put into poeration only MiG-29K fighters on those carriers, right? or will they develop a carrier capable version of the LCA?
Gorshkov is the last keiv class left. We are producing our own ADS(air defence ship) at cochin shipyards whcih will be ready by 2010.And its not based on any russian design but all design and technical consultations are from the european countries as russians arent as good as europeans /americans in aicraft carrier technology.

Dima
07 Feb 05,, 01:58
Gorshkov is the last physical remnant of a Kiev class carrier, but that doesn't mean that you can't buy anymore Kiev class carriers because they can still manufacture them, but you said that

"We plan to get 3 of the size of gorshkov by 2007'

maybe you just said it wrong, but can you elaborate?

SwingKid
07 Feb 05,, 02:59
ajaybhutani, um, i doubt that the Su-33 can't fit onto the deck of the Gorshkov while it was still in Russia, or was it the Admiral Kuznetsov, they're both the same class,

Gorshkov is a modified Kiev class. It has never operated Su-33.


by the way, MiG-29SMT sales are incredible, Russia already has 150 of their MiG-29's upgraded to SMT standard

Check your sources, there are no such aircraft. There is not even any such thing as an SMT "standard," rather it is whatever Mikoyan wants it to be on any given day. And Russia only has "plans" for 150. They have had those same plans for the past 14 years, because Mikoyan refuses to include the Zhuk radar for the agreed "SMT" price - a price they conveniently fabricated to attract customers by subtracting the cost of the "optional" Zhuk. How much extra is the plasma stealth? :rolleyes:

-SK

ajaybhutani
07 Feb 05,, 10:05
Gorshkov is the last physical remnant of a Kiev class carrier, but that doesn't mean that you can't buy anymore Kiev class carriers because they can still manufacture them, but you said that

"We plan to get 3 of the size of gorshkov by 2007'

maybe you just said it wrong, but can you elaborate?

i never said the class of but only the size of . and many cariers of different designs can be of similar sizes. though not at all in teh same class. I think u didnt understand my statement right.Again keiv is not at all a good design. And for india who has access toa lot of european as well as the euwopean technology we would prefer to g for european designs of AC's rather that the unsuccessful russian ones. and that too with production at home. Gorshkov will be a different thing as it is coming for free and refit will involve making a lot of changes to suit our specifications.

Dima
08 Feb 05,, 04:13
by saying unsuccessful, what do you mean by that, Russian AC have never been tested in combat, so you can't really say "unsuccessful"

i think a better word would be non-proven or reliable, Kiev class isn't entirely bad, but then again, you have to take into account that Russia never had any dreasm of accumulating a fleet of carriers like the American CVN-68, its more of an anti-submarine unit, than it is a bomber unit(but can still perform those roles) but it's very effective against anti-naval, with its Ka-28 anti-submarine helicopters, and its incredible Granit missile

ajaybhutani
08 Feb 05,, 16:44
I exactly mean unsuccessful.Just check out the history of aircraft carriers in russia . The technologies they used and the way carriers like gorshkov ended up with roblems fires etc etc. ITs called a faliure and not a not proven. For they have already proved that they were worthless when in use.

Dima
09 Feb 05,, 04:39
lol, when did these fires occur? during the 1990's?

because, any nation that was in such an economic depression for as long as Russia, definitely their military training and quality, even its numerical advantage would decrease significantly

and history of aircraft carriers in Russia, when have they been used?

although, American and European aircraft carriers are much more advanced, i'l,l argue that when the Russians first decided to ahve an aircraft carrier force, that they did not intend for it to be used the same way as the American's use theirs

Bill
10 Feb 05,, 19:56
"by saying unsuccessful, what do you mean by that, Russian AC have never been tested in combat, so you can't really say "unsuccessful""

Ummm, they havn't???

LOL...

barrowaj
11 Feb 05,, 04:15
In real life the MiG has a disadvantage in avionics. But, it has great aerodynamics and maneuverability. The F-16 may be able to pull more continuous Gs, but the MiG should have the advantage of higher AoA and acceleration. Most fights aren't The R-77s are pretty badass, and the EOS system is great. There's nothing better than downing a guy who didn't even know what hit him.

If I ever got enough money, I'd buy a used MiG-29. More than likely I'd buy a MiG-21 instead though, because it'd be cheaper to operate it.

Dima
11 Feb 05,, 04:39
M21, you really don't know anything about Russian AC

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_283.shtml

take a look at that list, plus

http://www.geocities.com/~dagmawi/NewsMay2000/Airforce_SU27_Mig29.html

Su-27's took out 4 MiG-29's

also, a MiG-25 destroyed a F-18 and was the first A2A kill of the Iraqi war(already provided a link, go look for it)

and i'll see if i can get you more tomorrow

although, all their kills came from Su-25's and Su-27's, that's still Russian AC

plus, MiG-29's in Yugoslavia took out 6 NATO aircraft

Officer of Engineers
11 Feb 05,, 05:29
plus, MiG-29's in Yugoslavia took out 6 NATO aircraft

No, they did not. You don't get it, do you? We have access to all the logs and all the schedules of each and every aircraft and their associated aircrews that was deployed to Kosovo. You may suggest these are faked (but they are not and extremely hard to fake, considering that 16 capitals have access and copies of these logs and schedules as they are produced).

All aircrafts and aircrews, including those shot down, have been accounted for.

ajaybhutani
11 Feb 05,, 11:57
lol, when did these fires occur? during the 1990's?

Go and check it out urself.


because, any nation that was in such an economic depression for as long as Russia, definitely their military training and quality, even its numerical advantage would decrease significantly

and a considerable decrease => stuff starts sucking a lot.


and history of aircraft carriers in Russia, when have they been used?

do a google if u can.


although, American and European aircraft carriers are much more advanced, i'l,l argue that when the Russians first decided to ahve an aircraft carrier force, that they did not intend for it to be used the same way as the American's use theirs
well why told u that? AC is a power projection platform and russian ones are nowhere near the american / european ones => russian ones suck.

Dima
12 Feb 05,, 22:22
Engineer, you believe what your government wants you to believe, and what your papers say, i don't care

well, to start, the Moskva's even though they had the name of an aircraft carrier, they're role was more designed to anti-submarine

even the OREL carried a bettery of dedicated anti-ship missiles

the Kiev is significantly smaller than most American carriers, and still carried a number of helicopters, and several anti-ship missiles, also, the Kiev class, were created as gap fillers until more capable carriers were designed, so that is perhaps why their performance is less than it should be

Kuznetsov class is nice, but still not up to par with American carriers, it also retains the Russian concept of anti-ship mission

U'lyanovsk would have been an incredible carrier if it wasn't scrapped in 1991, it's displacement of 75,000 tons was close to the CVN-68 Nimitz displacement of 97,000 tons, in fact, the U'lyanovsk was to be the heaviest carrier in the Russian fleet, and it still isn't near the size of the Nimitz

only a few instances where there were fires occurred, most in the 1980's and early 1990's the Moskva sufferred a fire in 1975, both the Minsk and Novorossiysk sufferred fires

http://www.hazegray.org/features/russia/carrier.htm

the Kuznetsov was and is the only "true" aircraft carrier that Russia has

not entirely stuff starts sucking a lot, but it does start to deteriorate unless properly cared for

the Gorshkov is a VTOL cruiser

and sorry, but i have not been able to find an incident in which any Kiev class cruiser has been involved in actual combat, can you inform me?

ajaybhutani
14 Feb 05,, 05:45
Engineer, you believe what your government wants you to believe, and what your papers say, i don't care

well, to start, the Moskva's even though they had the name of an aircraft carrier, they're role was more designed to anti-submarine

even the OREL carried a bettery of dedicated anti-ship missiles

the Kiev is significantly smaller than most American carriers, and still carried a number of helicopters, and several anti-ship missiles, also, the Kiev class, were created as gap fillers until more capable carriers were designed, so that is perhaps why their performance is less than it should be

Kuznetsov class is nice, but still not up to par with American carriers, it also retains the Russian concept of anti-ship mission

U'lyanovsk would have been an incredible carrier if it wasn't scrapped in 1991, it's displacement of 75,000 tons was close to the CVN-68 Nimitz displacement of 97,000 tons, in fact, the U'lyanovsk was to be the heaviest carrier in the Russian fleet, and it still isn't near the size of the Nimitz

only a few instances where there were fires occurred, most in the 1980's and early 1990's the Moskva sufferred a fire in 1975, both the Minsk and Novorossiysk sufferred fires

http://www.hazegray.org/features/russia/carrier.htm

the Kuznetsov was and is the only "true" aircraft carrier that Russia has

not entirely stuff starts sucking a lot, but it does start to deteriorate unless properly cared for

the Gorshkov is a VTOL cruiser

and sorry, but i have not been able to find an incident in which any Kiev class cruiser has been involved in actual combat, can you inform me?
u ahve urself quoted up that they shudnt even be compared to american or european carriers . so clearly they SUCK when compared to american and european ones. .Just accept it dude. For u urself are proving it in ur every post.

ajaybhutani
14 Feb 05,, 06:11
Engineer, you believe what your government wants you to believe, and what your papers say, i don't care

well, to start, the Moskva's even though they had the name of an aircraft carrier, they're role was more designed to anti-submarine

even the OREL carried a bettery of dedicated anti-ship missiles

the Kiev is significantly smaller than most American carriers, and still carried a number of helicopters, and several anti-ship missiles, also, the Kiev class, were created as gap fillers until more capable carriers were designed, so that is perhaps why their performance is less than it should be

Kuznetsov class is nice, but still not up to par with American carriers, it also retains the Russian concept of anti-ship mission

U'lyanovsk would have been an incredible carrier if it wasn't scrapped in 1991, it's displacement of 75,000 tons was close to the CVN-68 Nimitz displacement of 97,000 tons, in fact, the U'lyanovsk was to be the heaviest carrier in the Russian fleet, and it still isn't near the size of the Nimitz

only a few instances where there were fires occurred, most in the 1980's and early 1990's the Moskva sufferred a fire in 1975, both the Minsk and Novorossiysk sufferred fires

http://www.hazegray.org/features/russia/carrier.htm

the Kuznetsov was and is the only "true" aircraft carrier that Russia has

not entirely stuff starts sucking a lot, but it does start to deteriorate unless properly cared for

the Gorshkov is a VTOL cruiser

and sorry, but i have not been able to find an incident in which any Kiev class cruiser has been involved in actual combat, can you inform me?
u ahve urself quoted up that they shudnt even be compared to american or european carriers . so clearly they SUCK when compared to american and european ones. .Just accept it dude. For u urself are proving it in ur every post.

Dima
15 Feb 05,, 04:50
lol, i don't mean to be rude, but are you illiterate or something, they're of different roles, they maybe generally claimed to be aircraft carriers, but there is a differnece in their roles still, if you want to judge them by the general name of Carrier, then, yes, it is inferior because it is a VTOL cruiser, but, if you take into account what it's role ACTUALLY IS, then no, stop being ignorant

ajaybhutani
15 Feb 05,, 12:17
lol, i don't mean to be rude, but are you illiterate or something, they're of different roles, they maybe generally claimed to be aircraft carriers, but there is a differnece in their roles still, if you want to judge them by the general name of Carrier, then, yes, it is inferior because it is a VTOL cruiser, but, if you take into account what it's role ACTUALLY IS, then no, stop being ignorant
read this.
http://www.webcom.com/~amraam/rcar.html
And yes dont talk about different roles as an explanation for worthlessness and stuff like fires forcing gorshkov to be decommisioned.

Dima
16 Feb 05,, 06:10
this is exactly what i'v read like 6 times over now

buddy, do you still not understand, there are different types of aircraft carriers, the Gorshkov happens to be a VTOL cruiser, which can't match up to a full aircraft carrier

do you not understand woman? lol

fires, you are yet to give me any links regarding fires on the Gorshkov, links :biggrin:

gimmegimme

ajaybhutani
16 Feb 05,, 07:49
this is exactly what i'v read like 6 times over now

buddy, do you still not understand, there are different types of aircraft carriers, the Gorshkov happens to be a VTOL cruiser, which can't match up to a full aircraft carrier

Well what is it being usd today as a VTOL??



do you not understand woman? lol

Why are u a woman?? :tongue:


fires, you are yet to give me any links regarding fires on the Gorshkov, links :biggrin:

gimmegimme


Well u hve asked it for the first time. And since i read it years ago i cant find a very good link for it but i guess this thud do
http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl2103/stories/20040213003603500.htm

see the 3rd para from bottom.
And yes it has been a case with almost all russian carriers.

Dima
17 Feb 05,, 03:23
good, this situation has calmed down, it felt tense for a moment

"was a major fire on Gorshkov"

this was from the link you gave me, well, if you notice the "a" there was "a" major fire on Gorshkov, weren't you implying that Russian vessels KEPT getting on fire, just once, that could have been the fault of the officer, once in a lifetime occurence

"Well what is it being usd today as a VTOL??"

? well, if you mean, what does it use so that it's a VTOL cruiser, well, it used to usse Yak-38 Forger's(piece's of crap if you ask me)

http://www.deagel.com/pandora/?p=pm00330001

was designed to provide support for Soviet ballistic missile subs, surface ships, and aircraft of the USSR, they used Yak-38, Ka-27, and Ka-25

note that these are the roots for the Admiral Gorshkov, that's what it was made for, and these were the aircraft it was meant to accomodate, the Gorshkov was commissioned in 1987, the last of the Kiev Class

now, this is the Admiral Gorshkov in particular, after all of the implementations to try to make it a full fledged carrier(try to make it)

http://www.deagel.com/pandora/?p=pm00330002

look at the picture provided, note the rows of Bazalt missiles

now, it will be compatible with the MiG-29K, Ka-31, and the Ka-27, but still weighs only 44 tons, less than half that of the Nimitz

for the woman thingy, lol, sorry, i was just joking, that's what i say to my friends when they can't grasp what i'm trying to explain to them

ajaybhutani
18 Feb 05,, 19:25
good, this situation has calmed down, it felt tense for a moment

"was a major fire on Gorshkov"

this was from the link you gave me, well, if you notice the "a" there was "a" major fire on Gorshkov, weren't you implying that Russian vessels KEPT getting on fire, just once, that could have been the fault of the officer, once in a lifetime occurence

such faults ocur in all Navies all the time. The point is that the arrangements for even in case of fire were so poor taht the fire ended up taking the whole ship out of service. Now taht dsnt happen in case of an accidental fire in other navies .


"Well what is it being usd today as a VTOL??"

? well, if you mean, what does it use so that it's a VTOL cruiser, well, it used to usse Yak-38 Forger's(piece's of crap if you ask me)

VTOL was a forces choice and not a need . A simple logic.

Russians had SU27 and Mig27 also being made at the same time then still they preffered to amke another aircraft for VTOl and made a heavy VTOL carrier ( the weight at which they could have managed a good normal carrier) now thats the whole point here . They really didnt have the expertise to do so and so had to invest the other waymaking the VTOL . And cklearly they were thus lacking from their time in terms of Carriers. now calling the russian carriers as crap when comapred to the american ones .



http://www.deagel.com/pandora/?p=pm00330001

was designed to provide support for Soviet ballistic missile subs, surface ships, and aircraft of the USSR, they used Yak-38, Ka-27, and Ka-25

note that these are the roots for the Admiral Gorshkov, that's what it was made for, and these were the aircraft it was meant to accomodate, the Gorshkov was commissioned in 1987, the last of the Kiev Class

Well thats because they didnt know how to make a actual carrier like ameriacns and west used to do at that time.



now, this is the Admiral Gorshkov in particular, after all of the implementations to try to make it a full fledged carrier(try to make it)

http://www.deagel.com/pandora/?p=pm00330002

look at the picture provided, note the rows of Bazalt missiles

now, it will be compatible with the MiG-29K, Ka-31, and the Ka-27, but still weighs only 44 tons, less than half that of the Nimitz

for the woman thingy, lol, sorry, i was just joking, that's what i say to my friends when they can't grasp what i'm trying to explain to them
Well thats what they feilded against the americans as the carrier . Now we compare russian subs with american subs without thinking about the fact taht the americans make better carriers and mor powerful ones. so we shud compare the american carriers with the russian ones in the same unbiased manner and if they are crap we shudnt put the bnlame on the russian interests in other parts of the navy as that wont make the carrier better than it is.

tu160mblackjack
19 Feb 05,, 01:34
i never said the class of but only the size of . and many cariers of different designs can be of similar sizes. though not at all in teh same class. I think u didnt understand my statement right.Again keiv is not at all a good design. And for india who has access toa lot of european as well as the euwopean technology we would prefer to g for european designs of AC's rather that the unsuccessful russian ones. and that too with production at home. Gorshkov will be a different thing as it is coming for free and refit will involve making a lot of changes to suit our specifications.
Since when have Europeans been good at Carrier construction?
France's Charles de Gaulle is a crappy carrier and its the only carrier capable of operating conventional aircraft on it. I also heard of the Italians building a carrier, the Garibaldi, but I doubt it's effectiveness. So, explain what you mean by European expertise in carrier building.

Dima
19 Feb 05,, 06:01
the reason why Russia didn't develop carriers like America is because they had a different view of thinking, contrary to many beliefs, the USSR was primarily defensive, they did not want to develop an offensive force of carreirs that would cost roughly $4.5 billion each, so they just purchased a VTOL Cruiser to assist their submarines(true pride of Russian Navy) and other surface ships, simple as that

different ideologies=different ideas

put the blame, the Gorshkov does it's role very well, supporting submarines and other surface ships, it isn't an excuse, this IS THE REASON THAT IT WAS MADE, not because they couldn't make anything better, if they could, they could easily have made a 100,000 ton carrier, but instead opted for different types of carriers because they found NO use in them, i mean, a few Granit shots from the Kuznetsov, and an enemy carrier is done, $4.5 billion for a few ten million, look at this picture of the Gorshkov on the right side
http://www.deagel.com/pandora/?p=pm00330002
then look at this picture of the Nimitz class Carriers
http://www.deagel.com/pandora/?p=pm00109001
look at all the pictures, anything in common other than the launching strip?, look at the rows of missiles on the Gorshkov

thanks for replying Blackjack, didn't know that European carriers were crappy, you like Russian aircraft?

ajaybhutani
19 Feb 05,, 07:29
the reason why Russia didn't develop carriers like America is because they had a different view of thinking, contrary to many beliefs, the USSR was primarily defensive, they did not want to develop an offensive force of carreirs that would cost roughly $4.5 billion each, so they just purchased a VTOL Cruiser to assist their submarines(true pride of Russian Navy) and other surface ships, simple as that

Well my point is whats the differecne between the cost of a VTOL and a Normal carrier of same weight. Lemme tell u nothing much to choose a VTOL with YAK **** rahter than a normal carrier with a good fighter like mig29/su27. Well the only reason they opted for VTOL was because they didnt know how to make a normal one. and so had to even spend up in development of another aircraft for they didnt know how to get a
different ideologies=different ideas

[QUOTE=]
put the blame, the Gorshkov does it's role very well, supporting submarines and other surface ships, it isn't an excuse, this IS THE REASON THAT IT WAS MADE, not because they couldn't make anything better, if they could, they could easily have made a 100,000 ton carrier, but instead opted for different types of carriers because they found NO use in them, i mean, a few Granit shots from the Kuznetsov, and an enemy carrier is done, $4.5 billion for a few ten million, look at this picture of the Gorshkov on the right side
http://www.deagel.com/pandora/?p=pm00330002
then look at this picture of the Nimitz class Carriers
http://www.deagel.com/pandora/?p=pm00109001
look at all the pictures, anything in common other than the launching strip?, look at the rows of missiles on the Gorshkov
[QUOTE]
Surelya few shots from kuentov will do wonders but only if the kuzentov will survive the onslought from the american planes . And theres a better chance of the kuzentov falling rahter tahn the american ones.

About the european carriers At least their cariers dont retire due to accidental fire .

Dima
19 Feb 05,, 08:20
you still don't understand, haven't you noticed by now that military hardware made in the Soviet Union was oriented to different fields? such as the Su-27 and MiG-29 aircraft compared to the F-15 and F-16, the American aircraft focused primarily on BVR engagments(well, not the Falcon, wasn't BVR capable) while the design of the Flanker and Fulcrum was geared towards WVR combat

the exact same thing can be applied to the difference in these carriers

please, don't give me that bs how Russia doesn't know how to make a normal carrier have you ever taken into account that the USSR thinks differently compared to America, or do you just compare everything to America and , "oh, well, if it's not like that, then it's crappy," please that is the most absurd concept i have ever heard of, please, you have to adapt to each country, every country has their own priorities and criteria, only a fool uses one country to judge others, remember that

another analogy can be the difference between the AK-47 and M-16, the Russians opted for a robust, simple, powerful and inaccurate gun, compared to the American unreliable, sophisticated, weak, and accurate gun

ajaybhutani
19 Feb 05,, 20:41
you still don't understand, haven't you noticed by now that military hardware made in the Soviet Union was oriented to different fields? such as the Su-27 and MiG-29 aircraft compared to the F-15 and F-16, the American aircraft focused primarily on BVR engagments(well, not the Falcon, wasn't BVR capable) while the design of the Flanker and Fulcrum was geared towards WVR combat

Well but all that decision also led to the the russians ending up inferior in BVR. and we all know about the track record of mig29 and F16/F15.Clearly thats all with teh versions involved. But today avionics is one thing where russians are lagging behind the west.


the exact same thing can be applied to the difference in these carriers

please, don't give me that bs how Russia doesn't know how to make a normal carrier have you ever taken into account that the USSR thinks differently compared to America, or do you just compare everything to America and , "oh, well, if it's not like that, then it's crappy," please that is the most absurd concept i have ever heard of, please, you have to adapt to each country, every country has their own priorities and criteria, only a fool uses one country to judge others, remember that

another analogy can be the difference between the AK-47 and M-16, the Russians opted for a robust, simple, powerful and inaccurate gun, compared to the American unreliable, sophisticated, weak, and accurate gun

Well why it happened dsnt change the fact that it has happened . Though russian scheme was widely governed by their finances and thus they preffered not to invest in develping such big carriers or even invest to get a real carrier . But that cannot be used discount the fact that their decision actually had the conscequences. The russian carriers arent today as good as the american ones. And well though its well known why ( and tahts not because the russian scientists were incapable it was all because the russians didnt intend to concentrate in that) but like the various strong point the russians have in certain feilds this is one of thier weak point just like avionics is.

Dima
19 Feb 05,, 20:57
BVR-Russia inferior, now, i'm not biased here, Russian BVR missiles are incredible
R-27R, R-27T, R-27RE, R-27TE, all easily outrange the AIM-120B, then you have the R-77, the upcoming R-37(AA-13 i believe) and Ks-172, with this armament, they are smoking, i believe that Russian missiles are more advanced than American missiles in general, the Python 4 and 5 are incredible though

well, if you're talking about thecombat record of the MiG-29 compared to the F-16 or F-15, don't worry, i'm creating a databse on aircraft shot down by Soviet aircraft, so far i have done a small analysis of the MiG-23's involvement in the mid east, and it has rakced up 8 kills against F-4's, 4 kills against F-5's, 2 kills against A-4's, and an F-16 kill, there are also three aircraft downed of unknown designation

but, take this into account, Fulcrums have been outnumbered, outsupported, outtrained, and out(qualified, i mean to say that they are export versions, thus are not as advanced) severely

yes, Russian avionics still lag behind Western avionics, but they are catching up rapidly

good, we're making progress, at least you acknowledge that the Russian military was not interested in developing a carrier fleet and weren't specifically concentrating on this, good, finally you understand, just stop saying normal carrier, there's no such thing, and stop saying not as good, you can't compare the Gorshkov with the Nimitz

ajaybhutani
19 Feb 05,, 21:45
BVR-Russia inferior, now, i'm not biased here, Russian BVR missiles are incredible
R-27R, R-27T, R-27RE, R-27TE, all easily outrange the AIM-120B, then you have the R-77, the upcoming R-37(AA-13 i believe) and Ks-172, with this armament, they are smoking, i believe that Russian missiles are more advanced than American missiles in general, the Python 4 and 5 are incredible though

Americans fly with the AWACS. And the russian AWACS arent that good. Further the european /american ECMS are good which also matter a lot in war. Teh russian missiles are surely good but the record for Mig29,F16 is in favour of US.


well, if you're talking about thecombat record of the MiG-29 compared to the F-16 or F-15, don't worry, i'm creating a databse on aircraft shot down by Soviet aircraft, so far i have done a small analysis of the MiG-23's involvement in the mid east, and it has rakced up 8 kills against F-4's, 4 kills against F-5's, 2 kills against A-4's, and an F-16 kill, there are also three aircraft downed of unknown designation

Well i m waiting eagerly for ur report. Though i m much more interested in a F16 vs Mig29 comparison.


but, take this into account, Fulcrums have been outnumbered, outsupported, outtrained, and out(qualified, i mean to say that they are export versions, thus are not as advanced) severely

Well tahts true they arent as advanced. But lets leave it here . what i meant to signify was taht there are things russia isnt good at like the record of their aircraft( due to various reasons that arent directly related to quality or aircraft) or the avionics etc.

yes, Russian avionics still lag behind Western avionics, but they are catching up rapidly

good, we're making progress, at least you acknowledge that the Russian military was not interested in developing a carrier fleet and weren't specifically concentrating on this, good, finally you understand, just stop saying normal carrier, there's no such thing, and stop saying not as good, you can't compare the Gorshkov with the Nimitz[/QUOTE]

Dima
19 Feb 05,, 22:00
how do you know that Russian AWACS aren't that goood, you seem to have this policy that everything made in Russia is inferior to the West except products that are made for India

if anything, i'd say Russian AWACS are at the very least on par with American AWACS and perhaps even better, Russians are known for creating amazing radars, aka "Flash Dance" on the MiG-31. regarded as the most powerful radar in the world

good, me to, i'm really eager

tu160mblackjack
19 Feb 05,, 23:23
thanks for replying Blackjack, didn't know that European carriers were crappy, you like Russian aircraft?
Yes, they are crappy. In reply to your query DIMA, I like Russian aircraft.

ajaybhutani
20 Feb 05,, 17:47
how do you know that Russian AWACS aren't that goood, you seem to have this policy that everything made in Russia is inferior to the West except products that are made for India

if anything, i'd say Russian AWACS are at the very least on par with American AWACS and perhaps even better, Russians are known for creating amazing radars, aka "Flash Dance" on the MiG-31. regarded as the most powerful radar in the world

good, me to, i'm really eager
Well india opted for Phalcon instead of the Russian ones offered to it . Now ??

ajaybhutani
20 Feb 05,, 18:06
And yes for the real topic now
The RAdar ranges for The two aircrafts
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~dheb/2300/Articles/PG/PGSA.htm

F16 (best) 130 275
Mig29SMT 130 275.
Though i really dont know which one has a lower RCS but it should be near to each other as they belong tothe same class.
range similar.
weapons
SMT VV-AE ,R73,R27
F16 AMRAAM AIM9x
ECMs?? does anyone have info on this. ??

Dima
21 Feb 05,, 04:28
yes, but they placed the Phalcon on a Russian Il-76, i think it was Il-76

what did Russia offer?

ajaybhutani
21 Feb 05,, 07:52
I dont remember the name rite now. But i do remember that it was the best russians had as an awac.
Yes its placed on russian Il76. U know india we prefer the cheapest and best from evwhere . So a russian airframe as it is cheap and better and an israeli radar on it.

leib10
27 Mar 05,, 03:06
MiG-29's are still some of the most maneuverable aircraft in existance, able to pull 10 G's. However, their standard Russian radars are ****.

Bill
27 Mar 05,, 09:09
Pilots black out at 9g's with conventional g-suits(such as those used by Russia and the USAF/NATO).

leib10
27 Mar 05,, 16:24
Pilots can go to ten G's, but only for a limited amount of time because they black out, as you said. ;)

Bill
27 Mar 05,, 16:37
Ask one of the many USAF pilots here:

www.a-10.org

USAF and Russian G suits are only good to 9gs, which is why all modern aircraft have a 9g sustained G limit. That's all the average pilot can handle before he goes sleepy bye.

leib10
27 Mar 05,, 16:48
A 9g sustained G-limit. ;)

Bill
28 Mar 05,, 02:59
You can pull over 9gs instantaneous, but you still black out.

killer
28 Mar 05,, 04:11
MiG-29's are still some of the most maneuverable aircraft in existance, able to pull 10 G's. However, their standard Russian radars are ****.

In Mig 29 if you use isreali and french avionics then this plane is better than F-16s. this is what Indians are doing.

secondly, it is the man behind the machine. you can have the best machines but if you do not know how to use it then it is of no use. remember the US supplied sabre jet to pakistan and indian Gnats. sabre Jets were the best in the world. but the light armed and small Gnats killed the sabres. this is because the pakistani pilots were il rained and indian pilots were highly trained.

so it is both the planes and the person who is flying them that counts.

leib10
28 Mar 05,, 04:18
"It's the man, not the machine, that makes the difference in combat." I forgot who said that.

Dima
29 Mar 05,, 05:52
Pilots black out at 9g's with conventional g-suits(such as those used by Russia and the USAF/NATO).

actually, i believe that is incorrect, if you look, the record for a man taking on G-forces totalled 11 without any suit, and was inside a 40's plane, actually saw it on the History channel, or Discovery, not sure, yea, 11 G's, incredible


oh, just to mention, the guy blacke dout, but for only a split second, he screamed when he crossed the 11 G mark, think he hit 11.3G's

jgetti
29 Mar 05,, 15:08
actually, i believe that is incorrect, if you look, the record for a man taking on G-forces totalled 11 without any suit, and was inside a 40's plane, actually saw it on the History channel, or Discovery, not sure, yea, 11 G's, incredible


oh, just to mention, the guy blacke dout, but for only a split second, he screamed when he crossed the 11 G mark, think he hit 11.3G's


If you've ever seen an aerobactics performance with a guy named Sean D. Tucker flying,, he actually pulls just over 11 G's during his performance but it's only for a fraction of a second at a time. He flys one of those super small sports bi-planes and just throws it around violently in the sky,, pretty impressive. Saw him perform twice at the EAA's annual fly in at Oshkosh WI.

Terran empire
29 Mar 05,, 16:20
Navy Blue Angels Preform there stunt show With out G suits. They say the Constant pumping throws there ability too Control the jet's with such Procession. It's tough On them But because they do it every show on almost a daily basis during a Season that the pilots Are Conditioned too the G's.

jgetti
29 Mar 05,, 17:01
Navy Blue Angels Preform there stunt show With out G suits. They say the Constant pumping throws there ability too Control the jet's with such Procession. It's tough On them But because they do it every show on almost a daily basis during a Season that the pilots Are Conditioned too the G's.

Yea, the angels use a 40lb spring on the stick to bias it towards one of their legs. Then they use their leg as a fulcrum for making more precise maneuvers. The G suit pumping up naturally wouldn't make the leg much of a reference to rest against, and so they can't use the G suit.

Terran empire
29 Mar 05,, 19:07
why fly by wire Navy aircraft still have the joy stick is right between the legs of the Pilot is a mystery to me. I mean the Pilot has his arm resting on the G suit in what I dub the "personal Private Moment position" Fly by wire means that the Stick could be any where. The F16 has it's stick on the pilot's right side
F18 on top
F16 on top

Dima
30 Mar 05,, 03:25
yea, i think that's the guy jgetti, he wasn't flying no modern plane or anything ,i don't remember him flying a biplane, he was flying a monoplane

is he like, 50? because the guy i saw looked 45-50 years of age

Sir Vastu
30 Mar 05,, 11:32
In Mig 29 if you use isreali and french avionics then this plane is better than F-16s. this is what Indians are doing.

secondly, it is the man behind the machine. you can have the best machines but if you do not know how to use it then it is of no use. remember the US supplied sabre jet to pakistan and indian Gnats. sabre Jets were the best in the world. but the light armed and small Gnats killed the sabres. this is because the pakistani pilots were il rained and indian pilots were highly trained.

so it is both the planes and the person who is flying them that counts.


Exactly, infact the IAF upgrades some of the Worlds best fighters and configures them to their best. For this reason the best upgraded Spitfires flew with the IAF and not the RAF. While the best Gnats, Jaguars, MiG-21-93s and probably later best version MiG-29s will fly with the IAF

Bill
30 Mar 05,, 12:10
"Navy Blue Angels Preform there stunt show With out G suits. They say the Constant pumping throws there ability too Control the jet's with such Procession. It's tough On them But because they do it every show on almost a daily basis during a Season that the pilots Are Conditioned too the G's."

The Blue Angels routine doesn't exceed 7.5 Gs.

jgetti
30 Mar 05,, 12:20
yea, i think that's the guy jgetti, he wasn't flying no modern plane or anything ,i don't remember him flying a biplane, he was flying a monoplane

is he like, 50? because the guy i saw looked 45-50 years of age

Not sure of his age, but you can't guess just by looking at most of those guys. They've hemmoraged every blood vessel in their head so many times that they could be 30 and look 50. Another great pilot I watched perform at Oshkosh is Patty Wagstaff. She's awesome and probably used to be a looker, but not anymore. She just looks old from cramming blood in and out of her face from the constant positive to negative G's she pulls.

Terran empire
30 Mar 05,, 12:22
The Blue Angels routine doesn't exceed 7.5 Gs.
I did not know that but it's still Pretty impressive.

Bill
30 Mar 05,, 12:23
There is a female stunt aviator that hits 10g in her routine, but only for very brief periods.

She's been featured on Discovery Wings and the Military Channel several times.

Here are a few interesting articles on G-LOC:

http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_036a.html

http://www.pilotfriend.com/aeromedicine/GLOC.htm

Bill
30 Mar 05,, 12:28
"Patty Wagstaff."

That's the chick i was thinking of. Her routine has accelerations up to 10G's.

jgetti
30 Mar 05,, 12:52
"Patty Wagstaff."

That's the chick i was thinking of. Her routine has accelerations up to 10G's.

Yep,, here's a link to the Sean D. Tucker info. Apparently he's good friends with Patty..

http://www.fsplanet.com/reviews104.htm

longcat
11 Aug 05,, 02:30
i like f-16 better

zinminnhtt
07 Jun 11,, 15:11
Most of the treads presented here are based on whole generations of Falcon and Fulcrum. I think that is weird . Both have a long career and many modifications. So, please enlighten me on the following specific situation involving specific version of the fighters.

12 F-16

F-16 A Block 15 OCU
fly-by-wire
HOTAS ( hands on throttle and stick), HUD ( head up display), no Boeing Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS)
radar APG-66(V)2
engine 1x 23,770 lbf (105.7 kN) F100-PW-220
armament; gun 1x 20 mm 6 barrel M 61 Vulcan machine gun (511 rounds)
6 x AIM 9 IR guided short range air to air missiles ( I dont know the specific version of Sidewider but NOT an AIM 9 X that is sure)
4 x Mark 83 1000lb GP bomb
1x 300 gallons drop tank

12 MiG-29

MiG-29 SMT
fly-by-wire
HOTAS (hand on throttle and stick) , some analogue instruments and two monochrome liquid crystal (LCD) multi-function displays (MFD), helmet mounted display(HMD), head up display (HUD)
radar ; Zhuk ME radar + IRST
engine ; 2x Klimov RD-33MK afterburning turbofans, 9,000 kgf (88.26 kN, 19,840 lbf) each
armament; gun 1 x GSh 30-1 cannon with 150 rounds
6x R 77 ( RVV AE) radar guided medium range air to air missiles
2x R73 E IR guided short range air to air missile

fighting condition

The Falcon has crossed the border of the Fulcrum nation, heading for a target 150 miles inside Fulcrum territory and 350 miles their own base. They are detected by ground radar 100 miles to their targets. The Fulcrums are sent from a base halfway (50 miles from each) between the target and Falcons.

Officer of Engineers
07 Jun 11,, 15:14
Somebody throw the dead chick at this guy. No, not SWSNBN.

YellowFever
07 Jun 11,, 15:34
Dammit!

A legitimate reason to post a Celine pic and I'm on my droid.

I'm tempted to drive back home and get on my desktop....

Nobody lock this thread until I get home!!!!

Blademaster
07 Jun 11,, 15:39
Dammit!

A legitimate reason to post a Celine pic and I'm on my droid.

I'm tempted to drive back home and get on my desktop....

Nobody lock this thread until I get home!!!!

Now this is a sure proof that the end of the world is coming! Prepare for Armageddon!

YellowFever
07 Jun 11,, 15:44
Blade, dude, help me out.

I can't post sexy Celine pics right now.

Be a pal and post a few, will ya?

Do me (and the Colonel) a favor and take the plunge.

Blademaster
07 Jun 11,, 15:49
Blade, dude, help me out.

I can't post sexy Celine pics right now.

Be a pal and post a few, will ya?

Do me (and the Colonel) a favor and take the plunge.

Are you crazy?? I want to live in this beautiful world, not in a post-Armageddon, Planet of the Apes style!http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/11/20/1258746789326/Planet-of-the-Apes-starri-001.jpg

Sumku
07 Jun 11,, 16:16
Blade, dude, help me out.

I can't post sexy Celine pics right now.

Be a pal and post a few, will ya?

Do me (and the Colonel) a favor and take the plunge.

Aahoo.....Wish Granted
25352

:)

Blademaster
07 Jun 11,, 16:45
Uh oh. Now Armageddon rapidly approaches!!

YellowFever
07 Jun 11,, 18:20
Woo Hoo!!!

Check out the body on that cadaver!

gunnut
07 Jun 11,, 18:32
Dammit!

A legitimate reason to post a Celine pic and I'm on my droid.

I'm tempted to drive back home and get on my desktop....

Nobody lock this thread until I get home!!!!

You have been pre-empted by the colonel. :biggrin:

IBTDC...wait...she already made an apparence.

IBTL.

YellowFever
07 Jun 11,, 20:53
What are you talking about???

I didn't even think about Celine until the colonel mentioned it!

Maybe he was giving us a subtle hint by bringing her up first.

Hmmm......