Because they wanted a twin engine plane?
Because they needed big enough nose for radar with Soviet avionics of the time?
Because they wanted excellent rate of climb?

Take your pick, and the fact that there are smaller aircraft doesn’t make the MiG-29 a flawed design. Maybe flawed for post COld war export use, but that once again, is not what MiG was planning for.

yes i would agree, MiG-29 had a good rate of climb. big nose for radar? surely Soviet avionics were large, but the cold war Fulcrums didn’t have that great of a radar to begin with, and in fact you could argue that the MiG-23MLD was a superior aircraft at that time, the 1980s. the MiG-23MLD made a better low-hi combo with the Flanker than the fulcrum did in the 80s.

But as you said, perhaps it was not so much MiG that made a flawed fighter, but requirements that were better suited for a large airframe like the Su-27 than the smaller MiG-29, which pretty much goes back to Trident’s point earlier.

Even these days, ideally the RuAF should retire its MiG-29s already and focus on upgrading the Flankers and getting new build ones..something that’s been echoed by Haavarla.

Really, a modern day block 50 F16 is easier to maintain than the MiG 29A’s that Poland acquired a few decades ago? Where are you getting this super duper secret information? I was trying to keep out of this, but your posts are quite baseless and quite frankly stupid, you are taking your own assumptions as 100% fact and arguing for the sake of it, or so it would seem. I believe you are suffering from fanboyisism and the Fulcrum is simply not your favourite fighter jet.

they are facts.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=poland%20f-16%20problems&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CFYQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.marshallcenter.org%2Fmcpublicweb%2FMCDocs%2Ffiles%2FCollege%2FF_Publications%2FoccPapers%2Focc-paper_11-en.pdf&ei=LkoDUL3zHM6r2AXIo_i9Cw&usg=AFQjCNH0WcIf8lWkMuUSZgD_BKwpIL3U8w&cad=rja

MiG-31 was freed for export in 1992 (MiG-31E prototype first time unveiled at ILA92 in Berlin)

by that time the cold war came to a close.

MiG-29 is in the same weight class as F-18, Rafale or Typhoon – arguably all aircraft in this class have certain troubles with exports. On the other hand, you would not bet on the Su-27 export success based on exports of the F-15s, would you?

Check your sources on the weight and size, dare you to post it here. F-18 was exported to Finland, Malaysia, Spain, Australia, Switzerland, among others. Not F-16 successful, but not bad either. MiG-29 also was exported quite a bit. However quite a few MiG-29 operators have opted for Su-27/30ss when they could and others outright retiring them, some even preferring older MiG-21s. Its a testamant to how resilient the MiG-21 design is and how flawed the 29 is as it required a major re-design. the classic MiG-29 is like the T-10 of Sukhoi, except that they went ahead and mass produced it

It is quite amusing that you mention the Polish AF because they have had quite serious trouble with readiness of their F-16 fleet from day one 🙂 Also much of the trouble with maintaining their Fulcrums has something to do with screwed relations with MAPO.

as for Poland, this is what reports said:

The F-16 ranked first in the air-to-air and air-to-ground mission areas of the avionics and armament categories, as well as the overall evaluation. The Mirage and the Gripen both ranked first in other categories. For instance, the Mirage excelled in electronic countermeasures and performance while the Gripen had the lowest maintenance costs. All three aircraft ranked similarly in the majority of categories and represented a major upgrade from the MiG-29 Fulcrum A, the Su-22M4 fitter, and the MiG-21bis Fishbed N. The MiG–29 had a slightly lower ranking in the technical/ tactical parameters air-to-air category. However, its lack of armaments, electronic warfare capability, and high maintenance demands placed it significantly behind the other three aircraft in the overall assessment.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=poland%20f-16%20problems&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CFYQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.marshallcenter.org%2Fmcpublicweb%2FMCDocs%2Ffiles%2FCollege%2FF_Publications%2FoccPapers%2Focc-paper_11-en.pdf&ei=LkoDUL3zHM6r2AXIo_i9Cw&usg=AFQjCNH0WcIf8lWkMuUSZgD_BKwpIL3U8w&cad=rja

The USSR needed a point defense fighter, a role for which the MiG-29 was better suited (especially in terms of expense) than the Su-27. Not to mention the MiG-29 was well in production at a badly needed time when SU-27 was still working its issues out. I guess the VVS got it all wrong, they should have just bought the Su-27. Armchair generals at their finest, good grief….

Still waiting for proof on how it was highly flawed in its role, or how it was a “compromise that excelled at nothing”. Range is irrelevant given the VVS operational requirement.
Also waiting on how the SU-27 was revolutionary, I guess just making a huge bird is revolutionary.

So many vague nothings in your argument. Post USSR export sales are a poor attempt to damn the MiG-29 given its time of origin.
MiG-31 didn’t sell at all, what a failed design!

MiG-31 I believe wasn’t intended for export, so not sure why you had to bring in the 31. It was designed for a specific role and it did its job. Don’t hate on it.

As for MiG-29.. its big and heavy for a point defence fighter. Look up the success of MiG-21, another point defence fighter and a good one for its time.
you could even argue that by the time of 4th gen aircraft.. the concept of a Point defence fighter is already out-dated and nothing more than an attempt to legitimize the MiG-29. Smaller F-16s that were smaller and lighter than MiG-29s could fly farther and more maintainance friendly than them too, ask the Polish Air Force. If you want a point defence fighter, it would’ve been a single engined aircraft that was simpler. Not everything Russia decided upon means it was the best choice so stop trying to use an appeal to authority as its simply another logical fallacy you brought into this arguement along with your strawman.

foreigner always underestemate Chinese skill. But China can already make better stealth fighter than Russia and now China have new fighter better than F-35. nothing can stop China now. :diablo:

Pak-fa could be the better fighter than J-20, but J-20 could be the better strike aircraft. Pak-fa at least looks 10x better.

F-35 for all its fattiness has some good systems that will be hard to beat by flying prototypes 😉

lol.

Distorting your words eh?

“MiG-29 had no growth until now and it required Indian Navy orders and Russian intervention to do it. Sukhoi didn’t need that. “

These are your words, and they are factually wrong.

I will repeat, what is so revolutionary about the Su-27 then, if the MiG-29 doesn’t satisfy you? And what did MiG-29 evolve from, MIG-25 or MiG-23? :p

nope it had no growth, thats also true.
MiG-29 when it came out was not one of MiG’s best designs. Su-27 was better and fit the needs of Russia better, it had all those things MiG-29 had, bvr, hmd, etc.

It was a flawed fighter that was large and heavy but had no range and as a point intercept fighter it was too complicated and expensive. No matter how many times you try to white wash its flaws by pointing out Russian AF experiences, export customers like Germany, Malaysia, etc have all said the same things about the weakness and strengths of the Fulcrum. So you see it is highly flawed aircraft designed as a compromise that could excel at neither. MiG-29M was an attempt to FIX the problems that should not be present in the first place, but it is an incomplete system that was still being developed after the end of the cold war. All aircraft “evolve”, duh. But MiG-29 couldn’t continue growing with out life-support. Thats why Flanker sales did much better in exports. Did it evolve, yes far later in its years than most aircraft.. was it revolutionary? no.. Flanker did all the same things but better.

MiG-29M needed Indian Navy orders? Interesting…

You are aware Sukhoi (as almost any large defense company in Russia) gets substantial federal support and capital injection for R&D?

HMD’s revolution should not be owed to miG-29, Su-27 also had them. MiG-29M was never ordered. MiG can make prototypes of all the things they wish they could make but it took the Indian order to get things rolling. Anyways you are diverting it off topic.

Doesn’t change the fact that MiG-29 along with MiG-9 and MiG-19 were not so revolutionary in MiGs career line up and that Russia didn’t really need the MiG-29. Even some of its export customers have switched from MiG to Sukhoi.