MiG-29 “FALCON HUNTER” Exclusive : THE WINNER

**jgetti** · 06 Feb 05, 00:19

Originally Posted by Dima

Jgetti, you might work for McDonnel Douglas, but are you sure you can trust what your company says, i mean really, the best comments(someone said this to me here) and often the most reliable come from the air forces that the aircraft has been operated by, exp. go to the Lockheed site, they claim that the F-16, is so absolutely incredibly amazing by far better than any other aircraft in the world, and has low maintenance costs and high reliability, well, with all due respect, go to the MiG site and they don't even mention the Fulcrum's capability to safely launch from and land to dirt airfields, the best comments and often most reliabel come from the people in the air forces of other countries(can't be the manufactureing country, because they're not going to admit that the enemy is better than they are. anyways, i wouldn't trust anything from Americans news if someone paid me to, really, and information froma company that you work at isn't much better

Jgetti, i am aware that you work on the F-15, and you're aware of its capabilities, but i'm telling you this, why do you have to be so blinded and ignorant as to saying that the F-15 is the best aircraft by far over ALL others, this is the dumbest and most absurd quote someone has said to me in the past week, i have to argue that the Su-30MKI would destroy the F-15, but i'm not going to get into that, really tired, except maybe not the K

You're absolutely right that it's easy to get biased towards the aircraft that your company works for,, I'll give you that. However, not only do I work for MCAIR, I am engineering support for USAF, IAF (Israeli Air Force), RSAF, JASDF, and soon ROKAF F-15's, so I know what our customers think of the jet. NOONE has a bad thing to say about it,, it's performed fantastically for everyone. The only thing keeping any of our current customers from buying more is whether or not the line will still be open when they go looking for more aircraft.

Also, I haven't used the term 'by far' once when talking about the F-15's superiority. I only said that it can MAINTAIN air superiority over any other fielded aircraft. I know the SU-27 family of aircraft are superb in their operating capability, but we've got the technological means and the money to keep our aircraft one step ahead of everyone elses, and have done so with our air superiority fighter.

What I don't understand is why anyone who is partial to Russian aircraft can't accept that just perhaps there is something better than what they've got fielded out there. I'm not saying that American aircraft companies are superior to Russian companies either. We've got the money to spend and have done so to keep our defense technology at the cutting edge. Why is that so hard for you to accept? Perhaps you're the one who is blinded and ignorant.

**Dima** · 06 Feb 05, 01:07

Officer of Engineers, you believe what you want to believe, i don't care, my friend is no reporter, he's still a carpenter, and he still remembers that day,i'll believe him and his dad over a report by the US CNN or ABC any day

oh, so your part of the Canadian Air Force, you flew the CF-18? you liked it

remarkable plane, one of my most favourite aircraft created by America, i like the F-5 for some reason, it just seems cool, i hate the F-4, the F-14 is mediocre, the F-15, i'm not really a fan, but it has some impressive capabilities, the F-16 is a above average aircraft, the F-18 is a monster, the F-20 is real nice and the F-22 is a God right now

SwingKid, i've never heard of that rumour before, the Iraqi's could have shot down American aircraft wityh passive-radar missiles, resemlbing SAM's, it makes sense, do you have a link that i can read about it?

jgetti, i would complain if i was buying an aircraft for $100 million(F-15K), when i can get roughly the same quality in a $40 million(F-15E) aircraft, the F-15K is better(which doesn't make sense because it's an export version, can you elaborate jgetti, or am i mistaken?) other than that, there's not much wrong with the F-15, except its gas-guzzling engines, but thats it, and its massive RCS, now thats it, lol

well, i hope you guys haven't gotten the wrong opinion, i'm not an overly biased guy, i like some American aircraft, not really the missiles though, except the AIM-54C Pheonix, the only American missile that i like, i know that some Russian military hardware is inferior to American military hardware, such as the MiG-23/MiG-27 being inferior to the F-111, why is it so hard for who to accept, ME?

hey, hey, you have to admit that the Su-30MKI is better than the F-15E, if not, than thats blindness, arrogancy, and stupidity i mean those Su-30K's whooped the F-15E's ass pretty good at Gwailor, no offense, i think that only the Su-27 and variants are equal, or surpass the F-15, and the MiG-29 isn't that far off(except in range of course), but the new MiG-29 upgrade that is set to come out in 2007

http://www.migavia.ru/eng/news/?page=1&tid=1&id=12

last part of the paragraph, will probably be superior to the F-15E, with all new stealth features, TVC nozzles, and new avionics systems

**Officer of Engineers** · 06 Feb 05, 02:59

Originally Posted by Dima

Officer of Engineers, you believe what you want to believe, i don't care, my friend is no reporter, he's still a carpenter, and he still remembers that day,i'll believe him and his dad over a report by the US CNN or ABC any day

I don't doubt your friend and his father saw something but it ain't what they believe it to be. I don't go with CNN or ABC nor any news media outlet. I'm telling you my reports come directly from the Department of National Defence itself. I've known people who served during that war. All airplanes and aircrews have been visually accounted for.

Not only me but Bluesman and M21Sniper have the same kind of access - from the people who actually fought in that war.

Originally Posted by Dima

oh, so your part of the Canadian Air Force, you flew the CF-18? you liked it

BITE YOUR TONGUE! I do real work for a living. I've humped dirt under fire. I don't play with my stick.

**Dima** · 06 Feb 05, 03:05

what else can be mistaken for a 140-180 foot triangular shaped object, a U-2, lol

Department of Defense, i want to say something, but then again, you guys will just dismisss it as bs or something, you know your truth, i know mine, i'm fine with that

"BITE YOUR TONGUE! I do real work for a living. I've humped dirt under fire. I don't play with my stick."

um, whats up with this, i don't understand, di....you humped dirt, what? play with your stick??????????Bite your toung, but that hurts, why?????

i saked you if you liked the CF-18, did you? its awesome, sad to see it go to the ugly-assed F-35(excuse me)

**Officer of Engineers** · 06 Feb 05, 03:17

I work for the army, not the air force.

**Dima** · 06 Feb 05, 03:43

oh, sorry, my bad, so in that case, you you like the Lepard tanks, i live in Canada, so i'm just wondering, heard we're replacing those with some crappy-half-assed APC with a 105mm turret, i mean, what the hell is going on?

**Officer of Engineers** · 06 Feb 05, 04:41

Two threads for you

WAB - Canada Serious about replacing Tanks?

WAB - Canada going tankless

**Officer of Engineers** · 06 Feb 05, 04:55

Originally Posted by SwingKid

Hey, I just finished reading his book last night - interesting as much for what it omits as for what it describes, but nevertheless pretty insightful IMHO. What were the contradictions?

-SK

Clark's report claims an 80% success rate on the Kosovo air campaign. The Canadians, flying 10% of the mission with the 4% of the force, claims a 10% success rate.

Reason: Clark's eval is weapons release. The CF is targets hit.

**Dima** · 06 Feb 05, 06:48

thanks Officer, let me look through those links

but, i got another link that takes it directly from the article, it doens't say anything about the replacement, probably got updated, anyways, my friend showed me a picture of the vehicle thats supposed to replace the LEO's, it looks like an APC with a 105mm cannon on it, i mesan how pathetic is that? i'm not even going to waste my RPG-7 on that, i'll just shoot it with my 7.62mm rounds, probably disable it the same lol

**Officer of Engineers** · 06 Feb 05, 07:04

The name of the vehicle is the LAV-105 MGS (Mobile Gun System). Currently, they're slated for "B" and "C" Squadrons, Lord Strathcona Horse (Royal Canadians). They're not to meant to replace tanks. They're to assume a role as force protection for a mech inf battle group which is currently lacking.

**Dima** · 06 Feb 05, 07:10

so, then, what will replace our venerable Leopards?

i used to live on a street in Winnipeg, Manitboa, and it was called Strathcona, thats so cool, then i moved to Toronto, Winnipeg is beautiful

which part of Canada do you live in?, which province?

**Officer of Engineers** · 06 Feb 05, 07:43

Son,

You're talking to a lifer. My regiment was the 1st Combat Engineers Regiment. I went where they went. Long since retired, living near Ottawa right now.

To answer your question, nothing is going to replace the Leo C2s because we don't have a role for the Leo C2s anymore. Tanks still have a place in modern warfare but not in what we want to do which is a mechanized infantry battle group operation, forming combat teams on an adhoc basis.

We cannot send tanks with the infantry battle groups because

1) expensive
2) deplete the brigade's tank maintenance pool and thus deplete the brigade.

The LAV-105 we can send piecemeal since it's an infantry support system.

**Dima** · 06 Feb 05, 08:09

till death due you part, from the military, you married?

**~~Mr Vastu~~** · 14 Feb 05, 11:17

The least western aviation experts can do is belittle the Mig-29 and bring it down to F-16 standards, claiming that at low speeds and altitudes, the Falcon is better. This is just a myth it is not true. In reality any F-16 pilot who actually flies the plane will state clearly that the Migs far superior.

The Fulcrum can do the cobra maneuver upto 150 degrees or more while the MiG-29 TVC has even higher Angle-of-Attack capability. The high AoAs of the Fulcrum is what gave the Luftwaffe Fulcrum pilots another pulse point who already had a faster, superior weaponed plane. In fact the F-18 HARV (High Angle-of-Attack Research Vehicke), and Lockheed Martin (General Dynamics) F-16 VISTA with MATV (Multi-Axis-Thrust-Vectoring) programs might have been initiated to make the inferior F-16s and F-18s actually keep pace with the Flankerish Fulcrums.

Unlike the Mig-29 with proper HOTAS facility, that ‘sidey’ side-stick controller located on the right horizontal console more than gives an F-16 pilot a hard time being a more rigid assembly moving only around one-eighth of an inch. The amount of movement is quite debate especially since the pitch & roll commands are recognized as "rates" not amounts of deflection, that is degress/second and G's of pitch. Most pilots agree that inducing the measure of control stick deflection only complicates the factors involved with the flight control computers.

With the same speed, missiles and radar systems and having cobra dynamics the newer version MiG-29s would be as good as the Su-30 Flankers that got the F-15s in Indo-American air exercises

**~~Mr Vastu~~** · 14 Feb 05, 11:23

Hey Dima, I congradulate you on doing a good job locking onto these F-16 'Fighting Chickens' at this forum haha

I am biased when it comes to the Migs and Falcons. I like Russian jets only, those US jets with their big Goldfish bowl bubble cockpits look more like flying saucers rather than fighter planes

Unfortunately I keep getting banned

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

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Similar Threads

LCA beats F-16

Now, MiG engines may light homes

MiG 1.42 MFI “RAPTOR KILLER” : THE F-22 SLAYER

Mig-29 K/kub Fighters For India, First pictures

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions