The Truth About the MiG-29

[MAKO69 186]

Good read if your on the throne. Or at work and looking like your "working".

 

http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/truth-about-mig-29-180952403/

[B52STRATO 215]

Let’s face it: Soviet jets are ugly, and MiGs are some of the worst offenders. The Vietnam-era MiG-17 and MiG-19 represented a utilitarian tube-with-wings-on-it trend; they were followed by the deadly MiG‑21, a rational sculpture of angles and cone.

 

How dare you ?!     

 

More seriously, interesting article to read.

[MAKO69 186]

The Russians didn't build junk. Their equipment was built around the make it tuff, not to techno, and built in larger numbers style of warfare, part of the collapse of the Russian country during the arms race. Would their equipment work with the way U.S. and NATO countries fight, probably not. A conventional war between NATO, Russia and her Eastern Block nations would have been interesting to see which method would prevail. Technology over numbers.

[+russouk2004 6,959]

Say this for the russkies,they make stuff to do a job no matter what it looks like....take the ak47...largest amount of any gun ever made is ak47...

even buried in icy mud for a week,one was dug out and it operated and fired perfectly....they rattle,at least the model during the 70`s-80`s did,and feel as if they are going to shake apart,but dont...its been going now in one form or another for just over 70 years..

[Snailman 517]

Personally I like the SF approach of European conflicts  in several different eras... mid50's  late 60's, mid 70's, 80's...  interesting scenarios to see, in which era which planes would have met, and which doctrines used.  It is not only me who is curious about what if the contemporary first line units and top tech would have been facing each other.

It's too bad we cannot model that level of realism in SF series. And lack of Avionics80+

[+Dave 2,322]

The Mig-29 is not ugly!

[Emp_Palpatine 501]

The Mig-29 is not ugly!

That's what the article says.

 

I actually disagree with the severe view on the early soviet fighters aesthetics. Some of them have sort of a charm. And I like fishbeds very much, I guess that side-opening canopy plays a big role in this.

 

We already knew that western pilots got mauled by Luftwaffe's Fulcrums in the first mock dogfights as we knew Fulcrums avionic wasn't that good. 

Still a very interesting reading. 

[macelena 1,070]

Fulcrum's are the sexiest bad guy plane since the Me-109, and Novalogic's sim from the 90s was the aviation nerd's equivalent of fifty shades of grey. No Stary, that's not about skinning...planes

[ultramig688 2]

Very good read.but i wonder since the mig-29 avionics and radar were not as advanced as the western jets (f-18e,f-16 newest block).how would the new mig-35 compare to these jets with its advanced avionics and radar and is due to enter service with the Russian air force in 2016?

[MAKO69 186]

The Mig-29 is not ugly!

It is a good looking bird, just funny looking on the ground profile view it looks like it could tip onto its nose or tail if the brakes are applied to hard or runs over a pebble.

[+Gepard 11,356]

I read this article with certain smile on my face. It is full of statements like:

"It wasn’t designed to do much besides intercept and shoot down adversaries who were flying not far from its airfield. Eastern bloc pilots were trained to slavishly follow ground controllers, so the Fulcrum’s systems, including its head-up display, were not highly developed, and the situational awareness the pilots got was very limited."

Which show, that the design philosophy of the MiG-29 was not understood.

The MiG-29 HUD gave you all information you needed. It looks different to a western HUD and was not as stylish, thats true. But it told the pilot speed, alttitude, course, angle of attack, target informations, climb and dive angles, distance to waypoints etc.

And the statement of the slavish doctrine was only correct for MiG-21 and 23. For the 29 a completly new fighting doctrine was developed. This was not finished yet in 1990 but is was a big change.

And so on, and so on, and so on.

The best two statements i have read from pilots are: " The worst case for us is a German flying a MiG-29.", by a RAF pilot and a "They won the battles during debriefing with their mouth. We won it in flight.", by a german MiG-29 jock.

 

[Emp_Palpatine 501]

Very good read.but i wonder since the mig-29 avionics and radar were not as advanced as the western jets (f-18e,f-16 newest block).how would the new mig-35 compare to these jets with its advanced avionics and radar and is due to enter service with the Russian air force in 2016?

Soviet Union was lacking in electronical technologies. Russia's supposedly made some progress. Hard to say.

[MAKO69 186]

 

I read this article with certain smile on my face. It is full of statements like:

"It wasn’t designed to do much besides intercept and shoot down adversaries who were flying not far from its airfield. Eastern bloc pilots were trained to slavishly follow ground controllers, so the Fulcrum’s systems, including its head-up display, were not highly developed, and the situational awareness the pilots got was very limited."

Which show, that the design philosophy of the MiG-29 was not understood.

The MiG-29 HUD gave you all information you needed. It looks different to a western HUD and was not as stylish, thats true. But it told the pilot speed, alttitude, course, angle of attack, target informations, climb and dive angles, distance to waypoints etc.

And the statement of the slavish doctrine was only correct for MiG-21 and 23. For the 29 a completly new fighting doctrine was developed. This was not finished yet in 1990 but is was a big change.

And so on, and so on, and so on.

The best two statements i have read from pilots are: " The worst case for us is a German flying a MiG-29.", by a RAF pilot and a "They won the battles during debriefing with their mouth. We won it in flight.", by a german MiG-29 jock.

 

 

 

Says the kid from the other side of the street, I'm sure the MIG-29 was and newer/upgraded versions are very capable fighters, it all comes down to who's behind the stick and the logistics behind such a platform. It was the free world against Russia and her Eastern Block Nations. We know who one the Cold War. Your welcome Gepard.

[+logan4 848]

Actually no sides "win" the cold war, both went bankrupt only the so called west had more freedom and access to resources. Beside the "not act as I say or else" rule doesn't give you much of a "freedom". 

The real winner was the planet and all her living creatures - including humans - that was not turned into a radioactive piece of rock in the 90'ties during ww3 for the next few million years.

[MAKO69 186]

Actually no sides "win" the cold war, both went bankrupt only the so called west had more freedom and access to resources. Beside the "not act as I say or else" rule doesn't give you much of a "freedom". 

The real winner was the planet and all her living creatures - including humans - that was not turned into a radioactive piece of rock in the 90'ties during ww3 for the next few million years.

The West went bankrupt trying to police the rest of the world and crappy big business taking advantage of governments and their people, pretty sure we were financially ok after the fall of the Eastern block, financially speaking. The U.S. along with some of the larger NATO nations spread themselves thin trying to do the "Right Thing". When maybe we should have stepped back and taken a breather after the Cold War. One has to ask is Iraq better off with or with out Saddam? Maybe Mother Earth would have been better off if we blew ourselves into oblivion, she could start over without the hateful race fighting over trivial things.

[+logan4 848]

Personally I think the 1st gulf war (DS) would have been enough, then let his people handle it, like it happened in other arab states in the last few years.

 

I don't think that would not happened again in the future. Life always develops one or more intelligent form during its evolutionary process.

 

----------

OT: The Indian Navy/AF should be able to answer how good/bad the new/upgraded MiG29's(MiG35) electronics are. I think the old versions could be a very capable fighters with some integrated western electronics suite and the bird certainly not ugly, wish we would still fly them.

[ultramig688 2]

----------

OT: The Indian Navy/AF should be able to answer how good/bad the new/upgraded MiG29's(MiG35) electronics are. I think the old versions could be a very capable fighters with some integrated western electronics suite and the bird certainly not ugly, wish we would still fly them.

 

I think the old versions WERE very capable fighters even with the electronics they had when they were used the way they were intended,WVR knife fight in a telephone booth,I think even today if a super hornet or block 60 f-16 were to get into a close in turning fight the mig-29 could hold its own.if you have seen the series dogfights the episode about the first gulf war says that f-15 pilots should not get into a turning fight with a mig-29 if they could help it.now I don't know how true that is but it does make one wonder with a well trained pilot that even an f-15 could fall victim to a mig -29 with its close in manuvability and off bore sight archer missiles.IMHO

Edited August 26, 2014 by ultramig688

[jeanba 1,920]

And the statement of the slavish doctrine was only correct for MiG-21 and 23. For the 29 a completly new fighting doctrine was developed. This was not finished yet in 1990 but is was a big change.

And so on, and so on, and so on.

I read that it was a consequence of the Bekaa battle, when Syrian Radar were jammed and Syrian interceptors blinded and defeated.

The WP forces decided to take this possibility into account.

 

Anyway, the link was interesting in saying how the US got Mig29 for tests.

But I agree that the assessment of the plane is heavily "cold war western oriented"

Edited August 27, 2014 by jeanba

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

Gepard::

 

And the statement of the slavish doctrine was only correct for MiG-21 and 23. For the 29 a completly new fighting doctrine was developed. This was not finished yet in 1990 but is was a big change.

 

Would you describe in detail that new doctrine? If I recall Tom Cooper's articles, at least one, or some, Syrian MiG-23 pilots briefly did very well in MiG-23.

[+Gepard 11,356]

Gepard::

 

 

Would you describe in detail that new doctrine? If I recall Tom Cooper's articles, at least one, or some, Syrian MiG-23 pilots briefly did very well in MiG-23.

 

I can tell you only about the LSK (EGAF), because the soviets sold only the plane, not the knowledge how to work it properly.

When the GDR got the new MiG-29, the plane was used in the first weeks along the old CGI based doctrine. But very fast it became obviesly that this doctrine would not allow to fly the plane so that it could use all of his capacities. So it was intended to use the MiG-29 and MiG-21 together. In a similar way the iranians used their F-14s for a while to support their other fighters. But this periode was very short. At end of 1988 a completly new tactic was started to develope. It was more focused on aggressive fighter patrols along,  over and behind the frontline with the task to achieve the air superiority over the combat area by annihilating enemy fighters, attackers and helicopters in dogfighting. It became closer to the western fighter doctrines.

Parts of the new doctrine were already used during 1989 training routines, but by the end of the year it was not yet fully developed and implemented.

So the time of dogfight training was more than doubled and the time of GCI intercept training was significantly reduced.

 

It is rarely known, that the LSK had her own "fighter cup" competition and so looked the trophy

(picture taken from Flugzeugforum.de)

 

 

 

The Soviets had their own "Top Gun Fighter town" somewhere in Turkmenistan or so.

 

 

Edited August 27, 2014 by Gepard

[jeanba 1,920]

So it was intended to use the MiG-29 and MiG-21 together. In a similar way the iranians used their F-14s for a while to support their other fighters. But this periode was very short.

That could make nice DCS / SF2 missions !

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

Thanks Gep, very interesting.

 

I can tell you only about the LSK (EGAF), because the soviets sold only the plane, not the knowledge how to work it properly.

When the GDR got the new MiG-29, the plane was used in the first weeks along the old CGI based doctrine. But very fast it became obviesly that this doctrine would not allow to fly the plane so that it could use all of his capacities. So it was intended to use the MiG-29 and MiG-21 together. In a similar way the iranians used their F-14s for a while to support their other fighters. But this periode was very short. At end of 1988 a completly new tactic was started to develope. It was more focused on aggressive fighter patrols along,  over and behind the frontline with the task to achieve the air superiority over the combat area by annihilating enemy fighters, attackers and helicopters in dogfighting. It became closer to the western fighter doctrines.

Parts of the new doctrine were already used during 1989 training routines, but by the end of the year it was not yet fully developed and implemented.

So the time of dogfight training was more than doubled and the time of GCI intercept training was significantly reduced.

:

:

: