MiG-29 and its modifications

F.L. said:
I don't think these comparisons can hold up.
The F-14, equivalent to the Flanker, was a terribly effective and deadly aircraft during the Iran-Iraq conflict, where I think that an F-18/F-16, equivalents to the MiG-29, might not have been so deadly for one reason : they did not have the Phoeinx, equivalent to the R-37.
Currently, in the sky of Ukraine, the story is repeated. The Su-35 armed with R-37 imposes its law against the MiG-29 which for the moment has not scored a single confirmed victory against Russian piloted aircraft. While about 15 MiG-29s were lost to the enemy.
During the Iran-Iraq conflict, the F-14 scored 144 confirmed victories for less than 10 losses. Currently, only one Su-35 has been confirmed as shot down and its number of victories is still unknown.
Well, these are just some considerations.
Click to expand...
The question is a2g.

Su-35 with R-37M are doing airspace denial. They are forced to keep away from Ukrainian airspace - and even if they breach it, they can't realize it (no targeting pod across VKS, no suitable a2g weapon). There was simply no money for it, even when the equipment was technically available.
The force wasn't built for the mission, wasn't equipped for the mission, and wasn't trained for the mission. No surprise it can't do it.
This is the price of specific procurement/strategy choices.

On the other hand, it is something USNs' Hornets/Superhornets would've done rather easily. Because they can not only suppress a2d (and are trained at it), but also can follow on to destroy it. And then, being properly equipped, armed, and trained - they can realize achieved airspace control to enemy's detriment.
This is also the result of procurement/strategy choices.

Was it possible to build VKS differently? Argument can be made, that yes, it was - Mig-29 centric force, equipped and taught to do offensive a2g, could've been a rough analog of modern USN air wing. Especially since mig-29 is for a decade equipped to do it - even without VKS guidance and funding. They did it on their own, Sukhoi - didn't (could've done it, demonstrated it, but didn't).
Was it possible to build NAVAIR differently? Yes, it was, F-14 force could've been retained (in principle). At the obvious expense and thus leading to a likely smaller resulting force with lower readiness and sortie generation, of course, but it could.

F.L. said:
MiG-29 which for the moment has not scored a single confirmed victory against Russian piloted aircraft.
Click to expand...
It's requiring too much from an early 1980s aircraft. Ukrainian pilots are fighting against 20-30 years of technological advance and against a vastly superior force(numerically, structurally, and qualitatively). Even the very last soviet migs (adder-capable) would've been a major boost, but Ukraine just doesn't have them.
I'd argue that any modern Mig variant would've easily achieved much more.
 
paralay said:
As far as I know, only 18 MiG-29M2. Further production is stopped
Click to expand...
o_O However, 46 29M/M2 have been delivered to Egypt and 14 are being delivered to Algeria.
That is 60 MiG-29M/M2 produced at least. (plus the prototypes) :)
www.scramble.nl

Brand-new Algerian MiG-29M2

Brand-new Algerian MiG-29M2 Brand-new MiG-29M2 of the al-Quwwat al-Jawwiya al-Jaza'iriya (FAA, Force Aerienne Agerienne, Algerian Air Force), seen taking off from a Russian locatio...
www.scramble.nl www.scramble.nl
Algerian MiG-29M2 (FB-99, ~2964753840) in Russia (2021).jpg Egyptian MiG-29M (811) inflight.jpg
 
Ainen said:
The question is a2g.
Su-35 with R-37M are doing airspace denial. They are forced to keep away from Ukrainian airspace - and even if they breach it, they can't realize it (no targeting pod across VKS, no suitable a2g weapon). There was simply no money for it, even when the equipment was technically available.
The force wasn't built for the mission, wasn't equipped for the mission, and wasn't trained for the mission. No surprise it can't do it.
This is the price of specific procurement/strategy choices.
Click to expand...
The Su-35 is essentially an air superiority fighter, like the F-14 and F-15. The real Russian ground attack and bombing aircraft are the Su-34s, and these have designation pods.
Air-to-ground capabilities are secondary to the Su-35.
If the discussion is more oriented towards the Sukhois, it could be continued in the Flanker thread.:)
 
Russian sabotage suspected on ex-Slovak MIG 29:

The faults may have been intentionally caused by Russian technicians, which were present at Sliač air base in Slovakia until last year, Naď suggested.

“Even the police were investigating it, based on our suspicions. There were parts in the engines of the aircraft that Slovak technicians accessed, and then there were parts that Russian technicians only accessed. The defects appeared only in those parts accessed by Russians,” Naď said.

While the investigation did not prove intention, the Defence Ministry “felt a loss of confidence in the Russian technicians at Sliač because mistakes kept appearing in places only they could get to,” the minister added.
Click to expand...

www.euractiv.com

Russians may have sabotaged Slovak fighter jets, says defence minister

www.euractiv.com www.euractiv.com
 
While the transfer of the first donated MiG-29 Fulcrum fighter jets to Ukraine — from Slovakia and Poland — has been widely reported, including by The War Zone, the origin story of these aircraft is a complicated and fascinating. After all, while the original Ukrainian MiG-29 fleet that’s borne the brunt of the air war against Russia was inherited from the Soviet Union, the Polish and Slovakian Fulcrum fleets, portions of which are now arriving in Ukraine, have additional roots in former Czechoslovakia and East Germany, reunified Germany, as well as post-Soviet Russia. As such, it is beyond ironic that these Soviet-designed jets, many of which were first delivered to take on NATO in a fight, and that have been handed down across multiple air forces, will end their careers fighting against Russia with the backing of NATO.
Click to expand...

www.thedrive.com

The Ironic Saga Of Ukraine's Newly Donated MiG-29 Fulcrums

The MiG-29s with very colorful pasts being sent to reinforce Ukraine will ironically end up fighting Russia with the backing of NATO.
www.thedrive.com www.thedrive.com
 
In general, the MiG-29M / K/35 needs to be moved to a separate branch, they differ too much from the base machine
 
0_130c74_ba6131da_XXXL.jpg

in addition to the built-in, there are also external blocks
 
I have a question for anyone who might know. I keep hearing that f-18 vs mig-29 engagements bvr always favored the f-18 and usually hotas,ease of use, etc are examples given of why. My question is what are the specifics behind this? Looking at mig-29S for example. It looks like it had similar controls in order to cue targets, switch radar modes, etc. What was the mig-29 missing? Is it more the reliability of the mig radar to search and track at enough distance? Was it truly poor ergonomics? A mix of different problems?
 
TMA1 said:
I have a question for anyone who might know. I keep hearing that f-18 vs mig-29 engagements bvr always favored the f-18 and usually hotas,ease of use, etc are examples given of why. My question is what are the specifics behind this? Looking at mig-29S for example. It looks like it had similar controls in order to cue targets, switch radar modes, etc. What was the mig-29 missing? Is it more the reliability of the mig radar to search and track at enough distance? Was it truly poor ergonomics? A mix of different problems?
Click to expand...

The N-019 wasn't a particularly capable radar set. Fixed azimuth search volume and not overwhelming MMI in general. The SPO-15 RHAWS wasn't particularly advanced either. The MiG-29S you mentioned offered the somewhat improved N-019M and R-77, but was procured in limited quantities only (16 for RuAF). Some export derivates MiG-29SD and SE were built for some export customers (Malaysia comes to mind, forgot about the rest, maybe India and Yemen).
 
What era, what MiG-29 and what F-18's ?. Kinda feel the MiG-29M2 or MiG-29UPG with better Zhuk M/ME radar will offer decent chance against F/A-18E's Especially if it brought in RVV-SD. Unfortunately Russia doesnt seem able or even interested to finish Zhuk-A development, which will brought more parity, especially if R-37 can be used.

The older N019 might only good against F/A-18A/C with Sparrow, appearance of Amraam kinda changed it.
 
Some other personal study i did on potential RCS reduction for MiG-29 and the possible result.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1700214784988426643
View: https://twitter.com/Flankerchan/status/1700214784988426643


Some conclusions :
=Extensively treated MiG-29 platform which basically coating the whole thing with Barium Hexaferrite based RAM, can offer relatively drastic reduction, even in armed configuration down to 1 sqm in relatively wide range of frequency.

-Partial treatment, particularly on some problematic area like inlet and some part of IRST's can offer considerable amount reduction, but instead of seeking "first look first shoot" It's more like to offer parity against specific threat, as can be seen on The tweet or table below how the reduction affects detection and tracking range against an F-16 model.

F5heJWIa8AAvCig


One concern with extensive treatment is maintenance as since conventional aircraft are built without stealth considered in the first place, slapping RAM paint may incur considerable penalty on maintenance requirement as now the ground crew will have to contend with potentially toxic RAM paint but also having to be trained more extensively to paint the aircraft with precision as RAM treatment may have specific thickness to be effective.
 
stealthflanker said:
Some other personal study i did on potential RCS reduction for MiG-29 and the possible result.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1700214784988426643
View: https://twitter.com/Flankerchan/status/1700214784988426643


Some conclusions :
=Extensively treated MiG-29 platform which basically coating the whole thing with Barium Hexaferrite based RAM, can offer relatively drastic reduction, even in armed configuration down to 1 sqm in relatively wide range of frequency.

-Partial treatment, particularly on some problematic area like inlet and some part of IRST's can offer considerable amount reduction, but instead of seeking "first look first shoot" It's more like to offer parity against specific threat, as can be seen on The tweet or table below how the reduction affects detection and tracking range against an F-16 model.

F5heJWIa8AAvCig


One concern with extensive treatment is maintenance as since conventional aircraft are built without stealth considered in the first place, slapping RAM paint may incur considerable penalty on maintenance requirement as now the ground crew will have to contend with potentially toxic RAM paint but also having to be trained more extensively to paint the aircraft with precision as RAM treatment may have specific thickness to be effective.
Click to expand...
The mig-29 is such a wasted opportunity, it has an incredible climb performance and acceleration, good maneuverability, apparently is easy to maintain. Best scenario upgrades would be a cockpit like the Israelis offered for the su-25, integration with python-5 missile, Maybe some derby missiles and laser weapons integration like the upgrades added to the k-firs and why not, discrete ram applications, and inflight refueling.
 
AGS-1787 said:
Best scenario upgrades would be a cockpit like the Israelis offered for the su-25, integration with python-5 missile, Maybe some derby missiles and laser weapons integration like the upgrades added to the k-firs and why no, discrete ram applications, and inflight refueling.
Click to expand...

Most of this already achieved in Russian MiG-35 and MiG-29M/M2 or SMT-2 program. Inflight refuelling is already standard for MiG-29K and standard in Indian MiG-29UPG aircraft. Egyptian MiG-29 have Targeting pod. Indian MiG-29 even have Israeli jammers integrated.
AESA radar should be in MiG-35 but Russians never seem to be able to finish development of Zhuk-A. Despite it had headstart compared to NIIP's AESA. Leaving the MiG with Zhuk M slotted planar array radar which roughly comparable with APG-65/73 or APG-68V's.

and all of those upgrade programs i mentioned above replaced the old steam gauges of old MiG;s with MFD's.
 
Sustained turning has always been the Fulcrums weakness. The original had tremendous thrust but the conventional stable design and draggy airframe really gimps it. https://www.key.aero/forum/modern-military-aviation/5509-raaf-vs-malaysian-mig-29s
You mean October 1998's Exercise Churinga? (there hasn't been any major exercises involving the RAAF and RMAF since then, although the RAAF has been host for the Kakadu, Pitch Black and other exercises that regurlary attract the USAF, RAF, RSAF, RNZAF and others).

In October 1998, 77SQN based at RAAFB Williamtown sent 10 F/A-18 Hornets to RMAFB Kuantan for the Churinga exercises, focusing on air-to-air sorties between RMAF Mig-29N(SD)s and RAAF F/A-18s.

RMAF Mig-29Ns at the time were armed with the R-27 and R-73 (coupled to HMS), and were/are compatible with R-77s (which have not been ordered. NB, Singapore will have it's AMRAAMs delivered when RMAF -29s get R-77s).

RAAF Hornets at the time were armed with the AIM-9M and AIM-7M, ASRAAM and AMRAAM were not yet compatible or delivered (both ASRAAM and AMRAAM now arm the RAAF's partially upgraded (HUG is still underway) Hornets.

During 1 vs. 1 battles, RAAF Hornets found themselves in the defensive a lot earlier than if they were exercising against another Hornet, due to the formidable R-73/HMS, but still managed to come out of the exercises with a favourable (approx 1.2:1) kill ratio through a combination of manouevres, flares and other defensive measures, as well as offensive "kills". Note, all air battles at Exercise Churinga were visual setup 1 vs. 1 engagements, thus no BVR nor multi-ship engagements, situations that would have increased the kill ratio even greater in the RAAF's favour. 1 vs. 1 visual engagements are what the Fulcrum excels in, it was a shame there were no longer BVR and multi-ship engagements. Also, flying time was somewhat limited, due to the Mig's short (short, short, short...) combat radius, having to land when the Hornets still had plenty in reserve. The Mig's RD-33s were also noted as very smoky at military power, enabling easy visual acquisition and identification at medium or long visual ranges.

RAAF Hornet pilots noted "the MiGs were trying to keep fast so they could fly the aircraft into the vertical", an area where the Mig has a substantial advantage over the lesser powered Hornet, whereas the Hornets tried to engage the Migs into turning battles, where the Hornet had an advantage. Instantaneous turn rates in the Fulcrum were better, but Hornets had far better sustained turn rates at lower speeds.
Click to expand...
The later Migs have this but only modest engine improvements
From MMRCA
IMG_8591.png

I’m curious about the Mig-29K with the big wings though?
 
Last edited:
Yeah but I feel that very few users got those upgrades, and it seems like the platform is pretty much dead with only a few mig-35 ordered. In my opinion Mig filled to market the airframe and deliver results. Where the Indian concerns lack of support or the customer being picky?
 
F-2 said:
Sustained turning has always been the Fulcrums weakness. The original had tremendous thrust but the conventional stable design and draggy airframe really gimps it. https://www.key.aero/forum/modern-military-aviation/5509-raaf-vs-malaysian-mig-29s

The later Migs have this but only modest engine improvements
From MMRCA
View attachment 709255

I’m curious about the Mig-29K with the big wings though?
Click to expand...

The article states that the Hornet prevailed at LOWER speeds, which isn't surprising given it's modest wing sweep and large flaps.

For the MiG-29M it must be noted that it's aerodynamics have been refined, that is has relaxed stability and FBW, in addition to more powerful engines, but also a higher gross weight.
 
F-2 said:
Sustained turning has always been the Fulcrums weakness. The original had tremendous thrust but the conventional stable design and draggy airframe really gimps it. https://www.key.aero/forum/modern-military-aviation/5509-raaf-vs-malaysian-mig-29s

The later Migs have this but only modest engine improvements
From MMRCA
View attachment 709255

I’m curious about the Mig-29K with the big wings though?
Click to expand...

wow im surprised about the TW ratio of the MiG-35 and especially the new Gripen being that low.
the F-16b60 manages well despite getting fatter
 
Scorpion82 said:
The article states that the Hornet prevailed at LOWER speeds, which isn't surprising given it's modest wing sweep and large flaps.

For the MiG-29M it must be noted that it's aerodynamics have been refined, that is has relaxed stability and FBW, in addition to more powerful engines, but also a higher gross weight.
Click to expand...

Yeah, stating a weakness in sustained turn rate is certainly too much of a blanket statement. Given its higher T/W ratio and otherwise similar layout it has to beat the Hornet at corner speed, though I can believe a disadvantage once slow enough that vortex lift comes into play. Which as you say is what the original report seems to state, anyway - though I don't think the flaps come into it, landing config is way too draggy for combat. With its blunt LERX the MiG was probably not making the best use of vortex lift in its original configuration. One of the very few aerodynamic adjustments performed on the -M/K and later derivatives was a vastly reduced LE radius on the LERX...
 
Last edited:
I thought the mig-29 had even better climb rate than the f-15 and it was pretty much a hotrod
 
AGS-1787 said:
I thought the mig-29 had even better climb rate than the f-15 and it was pretty much a hotrod
Click to expand...
Original one, with extreme t:w, yes.

But nowadays migs approach the empty mass of early flankers, with thrust being almost 40% below hotrod flankers (like sm3).
 
TomcatViP said:
Russian sabotage suspected on ex-Slovak MIG 29:



www.euractiv.com

Russians may have sabotaged Slovak fighter jets, says defence minister

www.euractiv.com www.euractiv.com
Click to expand...
Or it's just craptastic standard Russian maintenance practices?



BBCRF said:
0_130c74_ba6131da_XXXL.jpg

(humpback MiG29 image)
Click to expand...
Man that is unattractive.

"What have they done to my boy?!?"


F.L. said:
An interesting comparison of the size of the MiG-29 and the Su-27.
View attachment 707206
Click to expand...
Crap, that's really stark just how huge Flankers are!



helmutkohl said:
wow im surprised about the TW ratio of the MiG-35 and especially the new Gripen being that low.
the F-16b60 manages well despite getting fatter
Click to expand...
Most fighters don't need a T:W greater than 1 at takeoff. (The exception is those that are permanently assigned to scramble interceptor status)

You want T:W>1 at roughly your combat radius, once you've burned ~half your fuel.
 
Can our experts explain the reason of the Master Caution lamp blinking in the video below, especially given that no signal lights on the right side of the instrument panel or RWR seem to glow? Is the Master Caution lamp in the MiG-29A interfaced with the radar altimeter?

 
Do you have knowledge on the differences of the Master Caution lamp operation between these early Fulcrums and the reasons that lamp was blinking in the video mentioned above?
 
It might be because he was too close to the target, or the aircraft perceived that he was going to hit the ground.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom