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.
"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.
Comment