Thread: MiG-29 “FALCON HUNTER” Exclusive : THE WINNER

All three variants are actually all still under development.

So far the A and C model are looking very good, the B model has more problems than Michael Jackson's defense team.

Originally Posted by jgetti

I'm not being arrogant,, I've dealt with this shmuck before. Read some of the other articles concerning the F-15/Su27 and it's derivitives that I've posted on, you'll find the evidence there. I'm an engineer on the F-15 program in St. Louis,, I know way more data than I'm allowed to post publicly. It doesn't matter what evidence is brought up against this guy, he's heavily bias in his beliefs, and no amout of proof is going to change his mind. That's why I laugh at his comment.

So you have data on SMT version as well? Most of you still consider MiG-29 a version which GDR has handled to Germany.... This was old time version same as considering F-14 by samples left at Iran....

Would you as an engineer state that MiG-29 is a bad platform?

In 2000-2004 Mikoyan have really made a lot of work on modernizing this old bird. They increased its range significantly having changed engines (more economic + lighter weight) and increased internal fuel. They changed wings and engine hondolas with a newer and lighter materials making. This added a lot to its payload... In addition to that more powerfull engines have increased its max take off load. For MiG-29K naval version is now being equipped with open architecture avionics that with newer software assumes using both NATO, Soviet and Israely weaponry....

Guess you as an engineer you must have infomation about last modification.... (your Russian counterparts really track latest western products specs)

i remain bemused as to why so many russians believe that the USAF/NATO lost vast numbers of fast-jets to yugoslav air defences.

where are the downed airframes?

where are the downed pilots or distraught family members?

if america is unable to keep the 'secret' of the prisoner abuses in iraq, i think its unlikely that they could somehow lose 30 odd aircrew and aircraft while fighting an airwar thats main characteristic was the number of journalists crawling over everything. the journalists on board the carriers and at the NATO airbases would have seen the rescue helicopters, they would have seen the hole-riddled aircraft and they would see the gaps in the squadrons.

moreover, when NATO aircraft were shot down, it was reported quickly - often before the aircrew were rescued, so how did these mythical shootdowns not get reported? or do we have a 'secret' airforce that only employs orphans with no families who won't be missed who fly in invisible aircraft that magicly vapourise whenever a TV camera comes to film the wreakage?

odd also that the aircraft claimed to have been shotdown are almost all air-superiority fighters, no tornados, jaguars, mirages, harriers, german phantoms - all aircraft whose ability to defend themselves from fighters while loaded with several two-thousand pound bombs is akin to my ability to defend myself from a great white shark while swimming in 100ft of water and armed only with a pair of speedos.

the whole MiG25/29/31 or SU27/31 vs F-15/16/22 arugument is utterly irrelevant, name one conflict in which a force armed with soviet or russian aircraft and doctrine has prevailed against a force armed with western aircraft and doctrine. no? thought not.

[QUOTE=Garry]So you have data on SMT version as well? Most of you still consider MiG-29 a version which GDR has handled to Germany.... This was old time version same as considering F-14 by samples left at Iran....

Would you as an engineer state that MiG-29 is a bad platform? [QUOTE]

No, I don't consider the MiG-29 as a bad platform, I said it's not on the performance level of an F-15. I think there are some very good variants of the Mig-29. I also consider the F/A-18 E/F an excellent airplane which is in essence a highly upgraded variant of an old F/A-18 A/B/C/D. That doesn't mean it has the capabilities of an F-15 either. F-15 is our top of the line air superiority fighter and has been upgraded as such. It's payload, range, low wing loading, high thrust to weight ratio, survivability, reliability, avionics, and available radar variants allow it to be that way.

Compare apples to apples, that's what I'm saying.

Originally Posted by Maximus

No kidding??!! I saw on the Discovery Channel. The Boeing team celebrating the JSF contract. With Boeing written in huge bold letters. I remember it was JSF because the aircraft could take off vertically.

Yep, Lockheed Martin's X-35 demonstrators beat out Boeing's X-32 demonstrators. X-32 was McDonnell Douglas's inherited stepchild that came with mother Boeing in the buyout. We called it the 'Monica' or the 'Lewinski' cause all it did was suck and blow,, hehe.

McDonnell Douglas's JSF demonstrator was finished after the Pentagon selected the Pratt & Whitney F-119 over the variable cycle F-120 engine that GE developed for the ATF/JSF programs.

"variable cycle F-120 engine that GE developed for the ATF/JSF programs."

That engine was a seriously ambitious design.

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

"variable cycle F-120 engine that GE developed for the ATF/JSF programs."

That engine was a seriously ambitious design.

Sure was, but that was the centerpiece of McDonnell's diverted airflow vertical fan concept for the STOVL variant. When GE didn't make the downselect, the idea wouldn't work, and our only other option at that point for vertical lift was to put in a second engine. A single engine was explicitly stated in the contract requirements,, and the rest is history.

The X-32 was also among the UGLIEST aircraft ever designed, which i'm sure was of no help whatsoever in trying to win the contract, lol...

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

The X-32 was also among the UGLIEST aircraft ever designed, which i'm sure was of no help whatsoever in trying to win the contract, lol...

Maybe it would have worked great for scare tactics,, hehe. Ground troops would have thought obese flying sharks were attacking,, hehe.

"moreover, when NATO aircraft were shot down, it was reported quickly - often before the aircrew were rescued, so how did these mythical shootdowns not get reported? or do we have a 'secret' airforce that only employs orphans with no families who won't be missed who fly in invisible aircraft that magicly vapourise whenever a TV camera comes to film the wreakage?"

Don't you know we killed thier families so we would not have to admit to losing any more planes...

"the whole MiG25/29/31 or SU27/31 vs F-15/16/22 arugument is utterly irrelevant, name one conflict in which a force armed with soviet or russian aircraft and doctrine has prevailed against a force armed with western aircraft and doctrine. no? thought not."''

Here is some food for thought. Iraq entered the Iran Iraq war with a more or less totally Russian trained airforce which was considered rather lousy. They ended the war after getting French and British training and were able to under take long range missions, show intuitive up in the air, relied less on GCI, were able to adapt to changing events, anf flew far more aggresivly, and were able to carry the war more and more into Iran. Go figure....

A funny fact about the MiG-29 is that for all the talk about it being such a good dogfighter... the plane was not supposed to do that in service with the WP. It was supposed to take off and shoot the R-27s and then the R-60s and go home no turning none of that.

Hell the MiG-21 was not supposed to dogfight in WP service either, just take off slash and run home.

I can go on and on with this...