The classic cause and correlation mistake. A BVR weapon / system employment does not necessarily equal a BVR engagement.

The majority of air combats of the past 25 years have used weapons and systems that are indeed BVR capable, yet when one looks at facts and not just at the headlines one sees that many of the engagement ranges have been distinctly WVR.

Define the difference between BVR and WVR anyway. What is the USAF definition of those 2 acronyms – how often doe the USAF use these 2 acronyms? What is the Russian, Chinese, Indian, french, Israeli, usage of these terms?

The claim that BVR weapons / systems have now come to dominate the battle based solely on the employment of such systems rather than an objective analysis of all aspects of the engagement is false and unsafe. That doesn’t stop the usual (cowboy) suspects from playing fast and loose with the facts to support their “arguments” though :-).

I’m pretty sure the the leading air forces around the world have taken rather more than an objective analysis of all aspects of the engagement – what makes you think otherwise?

I do say, some of them were not actual BVR shots, to prove “BVR dominated air-air kills claim” is BS. Actual BVR kills would be around 20% of all kills in last 25 years.

20%? More than that.
Any kill attained with an AIM-120, AIM-7 Sparrow or R-40 is always a BVR shot. The successful pilots used their radar to detect, acquire and track their targets in almost all cases. The missiles had to use the launching aircraft’s radar and other BVR systems for guidance. And besides, most of these shootdowns happened at night when there was no visability.

Tell me, at what range does a ground based system like Buk or S-400 ceases to be a WVR system and reverts to BVR?

No, I am just wondering how much personal bias goes into such an account.

On a personal level, I sometimes race cars. I have a 25 year old Japanese sports car that I always tweak and tune and I race it when time and money allows. I have even been to Nurburgring on one occasion. The things I can do with my car I can’t do with other newer cars. I know they are better, I know they should feel better to drive, I know they are better performers overall, but if I have to race, I’d rather do it in my own car. I am a better driver in that car, I perform better. Put me in a newer better car and I may not do so well in the race, in my car I may even come top 3.

do you catch my drift? That is a deeply personal thing, so maybe that account was a deeply personal thing.. all I am saying.

I wouldn’t regard what you are are saying about your experiences with your 25 year old Japanese sports car as just a “deeply personal thing” I have no doubt what you are saying is completely true – for you. If we were to start discussing the best colour scheme for such cars, on the other hand, then it would be just a matter of opinion.

What one could make of this is another issue. I don’t doubt for a minute that the MiG-29 is a “rough around the edges” aircraft. But a “useless” IRST and an abysmal performing medium range missile? perhaps.. who knows.. On the other hand he does praise the helmet mounted system and the R-73.. it is quite probable these are very personal opinions

You have to remember that not only is the American pilot relying on his personal experience of the MiG-29 but he would also be very familar with the personal experiences of the German pilots who have been flying the MiG for over 10 years The Germans would have told him just how effective the IRST was or wasn’t. Do you think Lt. Col. Clifton is purposely contradicting what the Luftwaffe pilots told him?

TWS? No, you can very well scan the area without tracking targets. When enganging, STT allows for better range and more reliable tracking of maneuvering targets. In 4vs4 scenario between F-15/16 and MiGs pilots on both sides will assign their targets use STT. TWS is if you desperately lack SA or engaging multiple targets at the same time. Debatable, but hardly a realistic scenario.

Two missiles? More than enough. By the time they are expanded aircraft will already be in visual range.

ARH missiles? All other things equal yes. Again debatable, but a R-27RE equipped MiG would be just as capable as AIM-120B equipped adversary; R-27RE has 234% range of AIM-120B; its effective KILL range is 31% greater than AIM-120A’s MAX range. In such conditions, while ARH missile allows more reliable terminal tracking and launch&leave capability, you have to enter KILL range of the enemy just to fire your missile. If you ve F-16 pilot, irrelevant if enemy’s missile has low PK because its SARH, there is a 2-3 minute flight in the 60km zone where enemy can shoot and you can’t. Furthermore, MiG-29 will be actively jamming so without vector data, F-16 will no idea of its heading and cannot utilize AIM-120 in loft trajectory but instead use HOJ, which linearly follows the jamming source, nearly halving the max range.

In such scenario MiG pilot has the initiative, and he can safely launch R-27RE at 60 km -well within at the kill range-, then put a 45 degree angle and reduce his closure rate. If F-16 pilot is lucky and have evaded the first missile, he has lost his SA, and due to energy he wasted while evading he is in kinematically disadvantegous position. If he manages to gain SA quickly, balance shifts towards F-16; while at ~35 km, he is effectively in no-escape-zone of R-27RE, but MiG needs to illuminate its target. If he does that, he will run into AIM-120. Two outcomes would be, if R-27 reaches F-16 first; F-16 evades it he is in kinematically in pathetic position to be killed by IRST/R-73s. if AIM-120B reaches MiG first; MiG breakes target lock and evades missile, wasting energy so energy amounts are leveled with F-16. F-16 has an advantage that he still has a target lock, but F-16 is well in range of HMS/R-73. If on the previous condition F-16 pilot cannot establish SA quickly, then MiG will launch his second missile before F-16, and best F-16 pilot can do is to withdraw.

Such theoratical play is broken with R-27R equipped MiG-29 9.12. Missile has less range than AIM-120B and F-16 has the initiative; it can launch its missile first; and its irrelevant if MiG launches his missile later, because it will be too busy evading that it wont be able to guide its missile. In these conditions ARH is a decisive advantage. Despite what out good pilot said, good combination of IRST and R-27T in conjuction with his radar is his best bet, at least it has a chance to disturb F-16 so MiG could survive for CAC. But without R-27T capability on export 9.12s, I don’t see how a MiG can gain upper hand without F-16 pilot making a mistake.

You see, two scenarios, ARH does not make someone automatically win.

Everything you have written here is just poor speculation and guesswork and you have not provided any independent sources to back up any claim. The whole scenario itself is irrelevant anyway – what exactly are you trying to prove?

i dont understand the butt hurtedness here.
he’s just reconfirming what’s common
newer F-16 superior to early mig-29. ok
mig-29 hms is great and so is the mig29s thrust. ok
mig-29 had limited range and poor cockpit lay out. ok
dude thought m2000 was overrated even though other fellow pilots praised it. ok, so he acknowledges other pilots like it but he doesnt
western fighters had superior bvr over their soviet counterparts during those days. ok

so whats the big deal.

No big deal at all – your summation is pretty accurate.
What is interesting is the issue of just how much downgraded the MiG-29s supplied to the Warsaw Pact countries were and why did the Soviet Union need to downgrade its exported aircraft to its allies so much. Any international relationship which has such a poor level of trust is surely doomed from the start? Israel and Iran were receiving F-15 and F-14 in 1976 or so, the WP allies would only receive second -rate MiG-29 10 years later. The irony is that the Soviet combat aircraft would be sorely compromised anyway – by Soviet air force pilots – Belenko in a MiG-25 in 1976, Zuyev in a MiG-29 in 1989.

Too lazy to check figures?

SFC of J85-GE-21
0.99 lb/(lbf*h) at maximum military power
2.13 lb/(lbf*h) with afterburner for J85-GE-21 (F-5), 2.20 lb/(lbf*h) for J85-GE-5H (T-38)

SFC of Tumansky R-25
0.96 lb/(lbf*h) at maximum military power
2.25 lb/(lbf*h) with afterburner

I assume that your claims regd. the other parameters like MTBO were made with similar/equal knowledge level..

Quoting those figures is all very well (manufacturer’s figures, I presume), but I guess that having 2 motors in a plane instead of one is going to complicate maintenance.

IIRC; Soviet 9.12A production ended immediately in 1986, when they learned the radar designer -I can’t remember the name) sold CIA information about N019 radar.

Donald was his CIA codename if I recall, and it was the radar of the Mig-31, not the MiG-29, which he compromised.
Thanks for the info on export MiG-29 secifications.