there is another comparision also. PAF and IAF has lost more F-16s/M2Ks than IAF lost MIG-29s during the 20 year period. while the quantity of MIG-29 is alteast 1.5 times to quantity of F-16/M2K of each. not a bad record consider the poor quality of MIG-29 of that era.

How many losses per sorties/flight hours are that for the aircraft? What kind of losses are we talking about? Engine failures are surely on thing, operational losses like mid-air collision or controlled-flight-into-terrain are independant of the aircraft. Things like take-off and landing accidents may be due to aircraft, but various other reasons are more important.

That would be F-16C versus MiG-29M…

With the little difference, that only few MiG-29M were built, most of them test aircraft. The F-16C was built in large numbers for various customers. It was used in combat, however, not really in the air-to-air role.

So, what you will compare is the proposed M-version which was never purchased by any customer against a real life produced aircraft. Fair thing?

The F-16 was produced as following variants in 1992:
F-16A Block 15 and 15 OCU
F-16C Block 30/32
F-16C Block 40/42
F-16C Block 50/52
The last had this HMV thing, too.

So, please pick the variant you like and tell us your results.

Bush’s low poll numbers doesn’t mean the MAJORITY of Americans believe the best course of actrion is to pull out immediately. It just means they’re tired of the war (which gets uniformly bad coverage in the US media). Most Americans are smart enough to know that pulling out US troops before Iraq is stable (which it certainly is not now) would mean the losses and expense were for nothing.

And we should take in consideration, that there are other topics of interest for the American voter than Iraq. People get more and more used to it.

It’s not combat aircraft the US lacks, it’s the transports and “infrastructure” necessary to carry out a large scale conflict. Transports, tankers, CCC assets as well as people would be in short supply.

I know many of you would like nothing more than to see a neat airwar live on TV (especially if it’s not your countrymen fighting) but it is not going to happen.
If you think “it’s all politics” consider that the US is having a “mid-term” election this fall where all the members of the lower legislature (the U.S. House of Representatives) are up for re-election along with 1/3 of the upper chamber (the Senate). Starting another war without undeniable provocation (Iran attacking US or allies) would hand the conservatives a loss that would take years to recover from.
If you want to see F-22s and B-2s in action, you”ll have to be content with video games. :rolleyes:

If they would start a real conflict with Iran, it would mean a reactivation of a lot of reserve units. After all, it is not possible under the nomral peacetime conditions. The US has problems finding enough soldiers for its army. But in terms of armed aircraft they can fight 2 Irans at a time, especially because after a couple of weeks of punishment the air space above 10.000ft in Iran will be so peaceful, that any AMARC veteran can do the job.

The money is split by the level of manufacturing. Germany produces the center fuselage, Italy and Spain the wings and UK the front (and aft?) section. As all these manufacturers act as subcontractors for the individual assembly lines, the money for production will be split accordingly.
the engine is also a joint-venture, same apllies for the radar and some other key components. In general, the workshare is divided proportional to the intended number of buys by each country.
The question is where the final assembly will take place and who will do the after-sales support. That will be on the long run a lot of money.

With the Indian speed of meeting decisions and proposed delivery schedule reaching somewhere around 2009, why on Earth would you require a flying full-spec example today? BTW, none of the contenders actually exists, not even F-16 Block 70.. So what is your point?

See my previous point. It depends on what level the changes are and if they can be taken “off the shelf”. What I read the MiG-35 would be a nearly new aircraft with even the later MiG-29s are not really evaluated in larger numbers. You would buy the 8th improvement of a end-1970 design of which the previous 7 improvements were only produced in low numbers and never saw any real service (I am not talking of combat record, but just normal daily peacetime service). The F-16C was delivered by the thousands to nearly a dozen different customers.

So, the Indians can expect a completely different level of maturity from a MiG-35. If they really want it by 2009, they get a bunch of prototypes.

how is MIG-35 a paper plane when MIG-29M2/OVT is flying and same klimov TVC is going to AL-31 engines destined to China. there is 90% comonality with MIG-29K of IN. they redesignate it MIG-35 because of AESA.

The MiG-29 OVT made a display at an air show. The level of TVC-integration is unknown and most likely low. Using TVC is not just simple plug & play. you need to redefine the whole flight control system, which necessitates excessive testing. The display was flown by an experienced test pilot. For any other usage the TVC has to be integrated.

AESA is also a paper-thing. Like with the Rafale. I doubt the French will do it, so I doubt MAPO will do it even more. Both Dassault and MAPO are looking for a strong customer justifying the big investment and hence opening new export markets. MAPO cannot afford to improve the MiG-29 on own expenses and it doesn’t get a deal in the next years, they can scrap the MiG and apply at Suchoi.

So, comparing any existing design with MiG-35 is complete non-sense but actually fits to the supporters of the MiG, who always mix between

– in-sevice aircraft
– pre-service aircraft in military evaluation
– test aircraft on company level
– prototypes
– projects under work
– proposed projects (pre-design phase)

Just take the MiG-29 (A-version or 9.12) as example and give me a date for each stage. I’ll make a quick try, feel free to correct me

end 1960s, beginning 1970: proposed projects (pre-design phase)
1972 to 1977: projects under work
1977: prototypes
1977 to 1980: test aircraft on company level
1979 to 1983: pre-service aircraft in evaluation
from 1983: in-sevice aircraft

And please note: that was cold-war times with excessive budgets. It looks similar for Eurofighter or F-22, so don’t assume any bashing. Just get straight on different design stages.

WHAT DID YOU SAY the U.S. didn’t have considerable losses? : 3200+ planes is’nt a lot? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_losses_of_the_Vietnam_War

These aircraft were mostly downed by AAA, partly by SAM and less than 10% were downed by MiGs. The success was mostly due to relentless Vietnamese resistance and the inadequate strategies and tactics of the USAF during Rolling Thunder. One has to check out first how many aircraft were lost over North Vietnam and can be credited to an organised Air Defence, not to lucky shots of unguided gunfire (which after all still made the most scores).

Yes and NATO went to stop Serbia from building a pipeline from Greece to Southern Serbia, near KOSAVO, thats why out of the blue NATO was so cal;led needed to save the day, but don’t you worry your little heart, NATO will be punished by Russia, when you least expect it, and you’ll see it in OUR life time.

There seem to be a number of unrelaxed Serbs around here. They seem to have a very different way of writing history. BTW: The Nazis didn’t pull out of Serbia due to the Serbs (although they delivered a very tough and successful guerilla war), there were some issues in places like “western front”, “eastern front” and “Italy” that made the Wehrmacht re-consider their engagement in Yugoslavia.

MIG-29 advanced version sale is like selling F-18E in export market in presence of F-15. The fact that IAF chose to upgrade MIG-29s but left M2k alone shows that fighter has a future. There is MIG-29K. And new MIG-35 is competing against Rafale/F-18E/EF.

The MiG-35 is a proposal from MiG to have chances in the competition. They don’t have the prototype, lots of key areas are still in doubt (TVC, radar). India is interested in Russian bids to pull down prices. After all, the presence of cheap Russian hardware with sometimes pretty reasonable performance reduces the price tag of an F-16 or F-18.
The MiG-29 haven’t been used in large numbers in any “advanced” version. Even the Eurofighter is due to pass the non-A models in service by the end of this year. the F-22, having 3 to 6 times the price of any post-A model, will be deployed in larger numbers from 2007 on.
Once again, the MiG-29 is a great design, but it was (like many MiG designs before) a very specialised airframe for the use in the PVO under cold war conditions for a clearly defined mission. Later models lacked the political and financial backing of a strong partner country. It is, however, interesting to see how half of the objectives for MiG-29 development were failed and the whole project was in jeopardy in the middle 1970s.