To be fair some of the USAF comparative evaluation is based on the 9-13 MiGs purchased from Bulgaria (which the Russians gave them to get back some of their Cold War strategic equipment that was stationed there).
Also the main thing noted about the German MiGs was the structural failures at the base of the fins after sustaining training operations trying to match up against Vipers for a few years. This was where they realised the 9G limit is generous for the MiG structure (MAPO claims 12G is possible, but I guess they didn’t mind if all the pilots trying it returned or not).

Certainly at the very least the drawbacks of the MiG have to be accounted to even things out, it is not a Viper or Eagle that is even better than a Viper or Eagle, but a different aircraft which is better in some ways, not as good in others. Evens out.

I mean we might’ve had this same argument about the Mustang versus the Focke Wulf or Lavochkin. It’s not like we’re comparing the Me-262 with the Fokker Eindecker here, I really don’t think such a chasm exists or else the Flanker-B and Fulcrum-A/C would be called 5th gen fighters.

yeah but then why the MiG-29 kills were with AIM-7s and not in dogfights here look this is even with the interview of an american F-15 fighter pilot that show down a Serbian MiG-29
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-HxUFEctvs

The F-15 is not better than the MiG-29, in this series where they have Rico Rodrigez who was a F-15C pilot that shot down a MiG-25 and an outflown MiG-29 into a crash, they say it the MiG-29 is more agile, if you look at this video they say the Serbian Pilot wanted to get close why? because he knew getting close he was going to splash the F-15, the F-15 fired AIM-120.

Same is with the Flanker versus Fulcrum dogfights in africa, the MiG-29s were shot down with R-27s and just finished with a R-73 in one of the kills. what does it tells, well the MiG-29A has not a really good BVR ability specailly after 30 years of no upgrade.

kiwinopal surely you would concede there are specific cases of circumstance where the Eagle outmanoeuvres the non-FBW versions of the Fulcrum (which are the ones in service).
There are plenty of evaluations using the German MiGs of this, most particularly at lower altitudes where the MiG can’t sustain Gs like the Eagle can (and bleeds airspeed), but it is noted at higher altitudes the Fulcrum gets the agility advantage in turn.

Also evaluations of the Indian AF Flankers versus F-15C are muted by the TVC of the Su-30MKI. The regular Su-27P/S/K/M2 series in service elsewhere (using analogue FBW without TVC), are noted for their low speed handling superiority but again the excellent G-capabilities which are reliable in the Eagle can only be matched by a Flanker under certain conditions, which includes an internal fuel load no greater than 5 tons (9 is maximum). At full load Flankers are restricted to 7G and at speeds above 0.85M the MiG-29 is similarly design limited to 7G where on both counts the US aircraft are limited only by stores restrictions, the F-16 can pull 9G anytime with anything except iron bombs strapped.

The G-meter in the Flanker-B doesn’t even go past 8 (though it is recognised it can do 9 with a light fuel load, clean). The G-meter is also red past 7, meaning you’re not supposed to go that high.
Talking about sustained G here. For all intents and purposes, with light loads all these aircraft types might be characterised by similar structural capabilities with the exception of the MiG, which is celebrated as less robust than a Viper despite MAPO claims. That’s a matter of service evaluation and comparative testing experience in the west with both 9-12 and 9-13 models.

Quite simply the non-FBW and some poor structural strength around the base of the fins, plus a tendency to bleed airspeed at low alt really let the Fulcrum down. At higher altitudes like say 15,000+ft sure it’s a butterfly with a deadly sting, but up there its BVR capabilities really let it down.

The Eagle is a great dogfighter, not so much because of low speed handling which the two newer Russian fighters have but because of its ability to sustain very high G turns at low altitude, which few aircraft can.
Under the same conditions an Eagle can pull at 9G turn at 5000ft a Phantom can pull 3G and a Hornet or Fulcrum can pull 7. This is documented. I dare say a Flanker-B will match an Eagle turn for turn, but it’ll need to have no more than a half fuel load and light stores to do it…and certainly an Eagle cannot match Flanker low speed handling, so Flankers can lead Eagles into manoeuvres which bleed airspeed and take the advantage that way.

Eventually, y’know it’s still going to come back to pilot skill, experience and training.

Also, turn rates are by altitude. You need the full conditions given for the test to make valued comparative judgements, because what you’ll find is that a superior turn rate at one altitude can still mean an inferior one at a different altitude. Even excess thrust varies by altitude differently between different engine types, which plays a part here.

Interesting true but i you watched the video i left where Rico Rodrigez appears, who was a F-15C pilot and has shot down both Mig-29s and MiG-25s they say the MiG-29 is more agile and the series has interviews with Pilots that did shoot down MiG-29s with F-15s, they knew the intentions of both Serbians and Iraqies were getting close, the F-15 never let them do it, the German MiG-29s were detuned of their max engine power too.

One interesting aspect of all the Western propaganda is the claim the Germans were the best MiG-29 drivers here i can give you link to this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQByetpFgKM

watch it and tell me how MiG-29s with detuned engines flown by German pilots were better than Russian pilots flying their MiGs without detuned engines?

F-15 at sea level can pull 9g @ Mach 0.71 so this means that the max STR is ~21.2 deg./sec.
MiG-29 at sea level can pull 9g @ Mach 0.69 so this means that the max STR is somewhere around 22 deg/sec.
So it’s true – you can say that at sea level MiG-29 is slightly more maneuverable.

However @ 10k ft MiG-29 can pull only 8.2g and F-15 can pull 8.7g.
MiG-29 can pull 4.5g @ 26k ft and F-15 can do the same thing at almost 30k ft!

More of that:
With 2x AA-10 Alamo MiG is limited to 8g
Gross weight over 14200kg – 8g limit.
With centerline fuel tank limit is 4g

F-15 can pull 9g with 8 AA missiles and 3 fuel tanks.

Here i will prove you your source is totally wrong
Type: F-15C
Country: USA

Maximum instantaneous turn rate: Unknown
Maximum sustained turn rate: 16 degrees/second

source http://home.iae.nl/users/wbergmns/info/f15.htm
now i know you might say but this is a webpage what about hearing an american pilot?

The F22 can sustain a turn rate of 28 deg per second at 20,000 feet while the F-15 can get an instantaneous rate of 21 and a sustained rate of 15-16 degrees
http://vayu-sena.indianmilitaryhistory.org/exercise-red-flag-su-30mki-comparison-fornof.shtml
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ibgAQ7lv0w&feature=player_embedded

Now if you read andrei Fomin Book he says the Su-27 has a STR of 21 deg/s
So basicly you are claming the F-15 is even more agile than the F-16 and Su-27 proof
http://www.fighter-planes.com/info/f16.htm

Type: F-16A
Function: fighter
Year: 1976Maximum instantenous turn rate: 26 degrees/second
Maximum sustained turn rate: 18 degrees/second

wow your F-15 is even better than the F-16.

and it is only slightly lower than a Su-30 with TVC
The Su-30? No problem. Big airplane. Big cross section. Jamming to get to the merge, so you have to fight close… he has 22 – 23 degrees per second sustained turn rate.
http://vayu-sena.indianmilitaryhistory.org/exercise-red-flag-su-30mki-comparison-fornof.shtml

and surpasses the Gripen
Maximum instantaneous turn rate: 30 degrees/second
Maximum sustained turn rate: 20 degrees/second

http://www.fighter-planes.com/info/jas39.htm

Now you do not know a real fact is not the ability to pull Gs what makes an aircraft agile but ist ability to achieve its max Lifting coefficient at high AoA, you only get 9Gs in the MiG-29 due to the fact it is at high AoA in a turn.

The MiG-23ML can achieve 8.5Gs as a max overload, but its true ability to turn is at 7gs, you can pull 8.5Gs in a MiG-23 below Mach 0.9 but it wont turn better because it has a max lifting coefficient at an especific AoA so even it continues increasisng AoA and G load it won`t turn better because its wing is stalled.

LOL man, get real!:rolleyes:

You are free to believe what ever you think is right, but the reality is the only Western fighters superior to the MiG-29 in agility are the Rafale, Eurofighter and F-22; the Gripen and F-16 are more or less on par, from China only the J-10 is slightly better.

The F-14 is more or less in the class of the F-15 but the Eagle was only superior to third generation fighters like the Viggen , Mirage F1 or MiG-23.

If you have seen MiG-29s shot down is because most MiG-29A around the world have not have any type of upgrade and those include even the russian ones

The human-machine interface of the Russian designs were aimed at GCI-supported interception of aircraft. As soon as they operated outside their mutual support area, these designs performed miserably.

SARH-missiles are not intended for fighter to fighter combat.

In a many versus many situation, the lack of training and the bad equipment of the WP air forces would result in heavy losses. The WP-aircraft were not bad, but tailored to a specific mission. A good pilot in a MiG-23ML could do a difference, just they were so few of them.

up to a degree i agree with that early MiG-29s and Su-27 fell into that category, but in 1989 the F-15A and even F-15Cs were not more advanced in avionics than the MiG-29A or Su-27B, only the F-15E was up to F-18 standards, now in 1989, the soviets had the MiG-29M ready for production with avionics as good as those on the F-18C.

Now you are right about the AA-10 it is not designed to be as agile as an AA-11 and therefore the AA-11 will miss less targets than the AA-10 and for a MiG-29 it will be easier to cue and lock the target since the Archer is a fire and forget weapon, further more the AA-11 is slower, it is more agile and it is fired from shorter ranges than the AA-10 so it will get a better kill rate than the AA-10.
But the west only achieved superiority over Russia in the mid 1990s after new missiles and aircraft started to enter service and Russia was unable to continue the MiG-29M, Su-35 purchase for its air force

from the mid 1980s to very early 1990s the Soviet Technology was ahead.

Russia might regain its place as the second or perhaps best armed air force in 2020 if and only if they get the T-50 and the new stealth bomber in large numbers and China and the US have troubles with their stealth programs.

If we consider the actual combat use of the AA-10 especialy in conflicts over Afrca used by SU-27 and MiG-29 flown by Soviet merceneary pilots, thean the Aim-7M was a way better missiles, as it achied a 40% hit rate during Desert Storm, a percentage the AA-10 could not even dream off.

Russian equipment failed in great part due to lack of maintanance and lack pilot training.
Also even with mercenaries the ethiopian and eritrean air forces hardly can be compared to the Russian air force and much less USAF in training and technical knowledge
in 1991 the USAF had plenty of money to train and maintain its equipment and pilots.

Suchoi 30 wasn’t even operational before the Soviet Union became defunct. The MiG-31 was a pure interceptor for the huge territories up north, nothing you send in to support tactical fighters.
F-104 was never intended as fighter, at least not in German service.

—————-

The Soviet lacked training and and their aircraft didn’t allow many variations in tactics. I think the described “furball” looks a bit desperate. Since early 80ies the NATO fighters were equipped with all-aspect IR-AAM, which really changed the WVR fight.

——————

AIMVAL/ACEVAL had shown that exchange ratio evened out when numbers grew. That test was without BVR-missiles and without all-aspect IR-AAM. The AIM-7 was never really a useful weapon for fighter-to-fighter combat, and the Russian counterparts mounted on MiG-23 and MiG-29 were even less useful.
However, an F-15A with 4 AIM-9L would mean a very difficult opponent, and a good fighter pilot would rather expend his 4 missiles in quick succession before becoming engaged in a potentially deadly dogfight. That would require a lot of MiG-21 and -23 to eat up the Sidewinder reserves.

By the way: the Eastern German / Russian air force had a tactic to defeat a NATO AWACS patrolling over Western Germany. It included an entire group of MiG-21MF and loss of the entire group without achieving the objective was considered “likely”.

what i was saying is the Su-30 prototype flew in 1988, so there was a need for a fighter with autonomy that worked more independently form GCI units.

If we see what aircraft had the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact in 1989, we can see they had better fighters

In 1989 the most agile operational fighter was the MiG-29, in the same year the most advanced short range AAM was the AA-11. This missile was operational in MiG-29s, Su-27 and MiG-23MLDs.
By 1990 the Alamo was getting ready to enter service in the long range versions that surpassed any sparrow

If you consider that the best Western fighter in 1989 was the F-15 and its best missile was the AIM-9L, you can see the MiG-29 and Su-27 were going to surpass the F-16 and F-15.

Now in 1989, the most advanced operational radar was the Zaslon used on the MiG-31, the MiG-31 could guide MiG-25s, MiG-23Ps and Su-27s to intercept intruders deep in the soviet airspace..

This means the Soviets were going to use MiG-23MLDs, MiG-23Ps and MiG-21 as baits for Su-30s and MiG-31s in order to lure the F-15s.
Of course the Su-30 was years away from been operational in 1989, but the idea was already there.
I know you will say the MiG-31 was only a interceptor used in the Soviet Union, okay that is true, but the Soviets had Su-27s in Europe with AA-10 that are basicly better than late model of AIM-7s.
The Soviets had a better fighter in the Su-27.

To say the russians were going to be unable to achieve favourable kill rates is only a 1980s prejudice that started as a result of bad intelligence about the nature of the weaponry the Soviets used. Vanir said that in the 1980s most western magazines regarded the Su-27 and MiG-29 as inferior and copies of the F-16, F-14, F-15 and F-14 and in fact i was a teenager in 1989 and i remember that since i read several western books saying that.
The true nature of the MiG-29 only was realized after Germany got first generation MiG-29, Germany got old MiG-29 not even the MiG-29C, and not a　Single Su-27 by 1989 the Su-35 was already flying and the MiG-29M and MiG-29K getting ready for production.