Well for me it would be an airforce that spent lot of money (compared to the countries abilities) new equipment and fails to use this equipment or even keep it serviceable for more then a short time.

Originally posted by GarryB

The difference between the Mig-29A and the SMT model is the change from meeting cold war needs and meeting current needs. The datalinks are still there as is the IRST and BVR IR guided missiles. Improved computing power plus a greatly improved cockpit layout means it is far easier to do things than with older gen Russian fighters, and it is a fully multirole aircraft.

But nearly as capable in AG compared to an F-16 or F-18. Especially if you look at available weapons that have been integrated into the plane already.

Originally posted by GarryB

They compliment each other when facing NATO. Few modern forces anticipate facing NATO. For a small country a Fulrcum is perfectly adequate, for larger countries a Flanker might be better. The Russians are keeping both because their Fulcrums provide light strike ability too, while the Flankers are pure air to air (till the Su-32 is ready).

Export variants of the Flanker are very much multirole and even better tested then the SMT. So why buying the MiG then ??

Originally posted by GarryB

Why do you think that? Does the Mig-29s radar not function?

Depends on the modell – does it. The early modells had a crappy radar. The SMT might be different, but how it compares to contemporary western radars is still unknown. On the other hand the old APG-65 has been prooven to be very capable in such situations.

Originally posted by GarryB

Frontal aviation has used the old single engine types as swing fighters… ata and atg mixed roles. Have they bought a huge number of new Su-25? Have the bought a huge number of new Su-24s? They are upgradeing both types, but no more airframes are entering service. Equally the Fulcrums are not being bought, but are changing roles to meet the shortfall in capability. It is not hugely urgent and as such is happening slowly. Hinds, Hips, and Su-25s and Su-24s are doing a good job in Chechnia, though for targets the UAVs are detecting a medium range fast jet with PGM capability will be more responsive than a helo of subsonic jet… but cheaper than a Fencer.

First afaik no one really wants to replace the single engined types. In fact the russians are concentrating on the SU for all important missions. The remaining MiG-29 are set to fullfill missions for which there is no pressing need. So how much money willl go into that programm ??

Originally posted by GarryB

Export variants. The only Flanker with real AG capabilites is a Fullback and it will replace the Fencer eventually. The Su-30M and Su-35 have air to ground radar modes but they are unlikely to be used anytime soon.

SU-27SM ?? So you are telling me that russian multirole Flankers are still more or less nonexistent ?? And that it will take so much time before they arrive that it is worth to operate an interim type ?

Originally posted by GarryB
[B]

Except sales of Fulcrums, which are continuing.
[B]

Not much then, they are mostly selling used Fulcrums for really low prices to third rate airforces. Even the MiG-29K for India has not been finalized and if those planes have to make enough profit to pay the SMT development for Russia, well then poor Indians.

Originally posted by GarryB
“Nice thing is that you are always using scenarios which are tailor made for the MiG.”

It is the reverse. The Soviets were in the situation and the Mig-29 was developed as a tool to suit their needs in that situation. The situation has changed now.

“How about a sweep before a friendly attack force ??”

You mean challenge the enemy for air superiority? That is the job of the Flanker.

“How about a BarCap over enemyterritory ??
How about a CAP with only weak ground support ??”

Again the Flanker is designed for such missions, though the Fulcrums with Frontal aviation will move forward and use unprepared airstrips and roads and use GCI based on mobile radar GCI and probably AWACs support as well.
Even SA-10s are designed to move with the Russian Army… and they have radar comparable to many air defence radars used by smaller countries for air traffic control or surveillance.

“I mean there are few SMTs in service and it is not sure how eager the Russians will be to keep them going, as they seem to concentrate on Flanker variants.”

Of the remaining Mig29s in Russian service most will receive SMT like upgrades other than the 150 odd slated for such an upgrade. Very simply the SMT models are to replace the Su-17, Mig-21, Mig-27s in their ground attack role with Frontal aviation. The Flankers and Foxhounds in Russian service are not receiving air to ground capability initially, though any Su-35s that enter service will have that capability, the Su-30M in Russian service is intended for fighter/interceptor roles and battle management mini AWACs roles even though it has air to ground capability.

“Looking at the problems some MiG-29 users had to get spares, I would think operating an SMT in 10 years could be quite difficult, especially if I want my pilots to fly as least 150 hours a year.”

I´m not talking about the MiG-29 in Russian service, it is perfect form them. The F-18 would be a piece of **** under that circumstances. On the other hand I doubt the MiG-29 would be good for the needs of the US Navy…

I was looking at export customers and I think there the american hardware comes out on top. I would not want to buy MiG-29 and then SU-27 afterwards because they do complement each other.

And btw a civilian radar network is no comparison to a russian style GCI network. Most civlian networks are limited in their coverage, they have many blind spots and they are used to operate with high flying airliners.
They might spot a low flying intruder, but when it comes to engage the target and detect it for weapons employment, then it will have to be done by the pilot and the aircraft. And there the MiG comes out second.

And I fail to see hpw the MiG-29s will replace the mentioned planes in russian service, as those have been withdrawn long ago. Current ground attack planes are the SU-24 and the SU-25, while more SU-27 variants are set to gain AG capabilities. And given the influence the SU enjoys, I doubt many money will go into the MiG-29s. SU-27 is in a much better position, it is seeling world wide and the clients are paying for upgrades that can be put on Russian planes as well. Nobody is paying the development of the SMT at the moment.

Btw, how much support from Russia would a country get that would openly support the rebels in Chechnya ??

Yep, how do you dare to mention the mighty Rafale in one sentence with the Euroaccident.

It is a disgrace to Dassault and the french nation. How dare you be so arrogant …

Rafale is selling like freh bread all over the world. No export customer has yet decided against Rafale in every competition it entered.

Even F-22 and F-35 are only american copies of Rafale. And Rafale will show them which plane ist better. Furthermore this planes won´t fly before 2025, while the Armee de l´Air will field 150 F3 Rafale in 2006. 😀

Low-viz-grey is actual getting more and more popular, because of the following reasons.

– Most airforces moved from low-level ops to mid.level ops. And a dark green or something aircraft becomes very visible at 15.000 ft. A small black dot.
– second those grey aircraft are actually blending in better with a concrete runway, then dark aircraft do.
– HAs are used nearly everywhere, so you dn´t need to hide the aircraft outside. (Well one could say that HAs have become traps for aircraft after HDAM and LGBs became widely aivailable,..)

– and most important – grey is trendy 😀

Well apart from smaller issues I can agree to that.

That is what I always meant to say, for the Soviets (or any one operating in a comparable enviroment) the MiG was the better choice. For the US the F-18 is better.

You mean ne built MiG-29s vs. new built F-18s, when you say you can operate 3 for the price of 1 ??

Originally posted by GarryB
“Which makes the MiG-29 a very usefull for the former Soviet Union. A good aircraft for their needs. Under under circumstances it is much more inferior to comparable western designs. ”

Ahhh, so it is the whole Soviet way of fighting that is inferior?
Strange. Could you explain how the west fights? do they just send up planes that fly around and use their big powerful radars to find targets themselves, and their super missiles to bring anything down that they aim at?

GCI certainly worked for Britain during the Battle of Britain, but modern western pilots are so super trained they don’t need any support from anyone and can work alone without any support.

Apart from the more agressive model that allows it to go to foreign countries based on airborne assets like AWACS and Hawkeyes and JSTARS etc they are almost identicle. The difference is that the Soviet system was purely defencive and included an entire layered SAM network to defend right up to and including from ICBMs around Moscow.

The Mig-29 early models don’t fit the western model any better than the rediculously expensive Hornets fit the Soviet model. Why do you think that makes the Hornet the better aircraft? The irony is that the Hornet is a multirole aircraft… multirole aircraft are supposed to be cheaper… the hornet isn’t.

“I thought we were discussin the A modell, and being the export variant does not mean they carry less fuel. And the engines were derated yes. Well somehow an engine barely achieving 300 hours before overhaul was not quite efficent to operate in 1991. 9”

The A model migs the Germans operate are called B model export versions of the A model that was used by the Soviets. During those 300 hours they need very little attention at all. The Mig-29 was designed for war, not peace time. While your Hornets are getting a little maintainence the Migs will be in the air. One of the first upgrades the S model upgrade included the capability to carry the R-77… the fact that they decided not to use the R-77 and wait for the R-77M is not important… they could certainly make them if they needed them.

Nonsense. You should know better about the differences between Spviet style interceptions and western style interceptions. The western pilot is much more in control of the intercept as the russian pilot. The Russian pilot is guided to the target and only engages his radar shortly before being in a good attack position. The early MiG-29 have no real Track-while-Scan ability. So once he commits to fire a R-27 is virtually blind to the surrondings.
The western planes also depend on AWCS to guide them to their target, but their radars were more capable of target detection and if needed they are more capable to operate on their own.

The maintenance issue is wrong. The MiG-29 are extremely costly to operate. They need more work then the F-4s do.
And the idea that the MiG-29 was designed for war and the F-18 not is wrong. The MiG-29 was designed for WW3, then western planes not only for WW3. A WW3 scenario would have seen the advantages of the Soviet desgin. But apart form that scenario the MiGs were inferior when it comes to maintenance.

And I fail to see operational value of an engine being able to allow an aircraft to do a tailslide …

Originally posted by GarryB
“Well the datalink feature was/is of very limited use in the early modells.”

Yes, of course… the whole purpose was for the Mig-29 pilots to take off and just fly around for 3-4 hours trying to pick up targets with their radars…

The datalink WAS the fighter pilot in the first models. Now of course I am not suggesting the Pilots were untrained for their job, but the guys on the ground had radar systems that covered thousands of square kms and had rather better SA than even AWACs crew do today. They vectored the migs to the target on an interception course and provided target information that allowed the IRSTs and Radars to start looking in the correct part of the sky for the target. They often took off in such a hurry that one engine was fully started and in burner in takeoff and the second engine was started in mid air. The target is unlikely to have known what hit them. The only opportunity to see a Mig-29A operate properly the way it was designed has passed, and the changes in design reflect that.

“It is more or less a link to the GCI officer without talking on the radio. Not even close to a real tactical datalink.”

What are you saying? A real tactical datalink is a GCI officer talking to the pilot? Even Mig-23s weren’t fitted for such primitive communications. How can you verify authenticity with verbal commands?

“Just to put up a reminder german Fulcrums had to go up with the centerline fuel tank to train ACM against french or swiss hornets, while the hornets could fly in a clean configuration. And even then the MiGs reached bingo earlier. “

Yes, The German Mig-29s. Downgraded export model As which the German AF derated their engines to extend life, which increased fuel consumption. Excellent comparison.

Which makes the MiG-29 a very usefull for the former Soviet Union. A good aircraft for their needs. Under under circumstances it is much more inferior to comparable western designs.

I thought we were discussin the A modell, and being the export variant does not mean they carry less fuel. And the engines were derated yes. Well somehow an engine barely achieving 300 hours before overhaul was not quite efficent to operate in 1991. 9