Nice picture of the SMT up there, although there are no current plans to put this upgrade into service. The SM upgrade for the Flanker is underway and Su-30MKK, an M upgrade for the Su-33 is earmarked and the Su-34 has orders to fill and that’s about the limit of Kremlin’s budget I think presently.

It appears for a variety of reasons the MiG-29 is being phased out in CIS service and has a limited update life in exports. It will remain in service for up to another ten years however, as a second echelon fighter in the 9-13 series form but it is unsuitable for a front line fighter role in the air force of a major power.

It is a great aircraft and one of my favourites, but there are many comparative problems. One of the things it is most famous for is achieving a parity with digital/FBW aircraft such as the Block 40 F-16 and F/A-18A/B fighters, Mirage 2000 and so on, using analogue translation of boosted hydraulic controls.

This is also one of its great drawbacks in the 4/4++/5 gen environment, in a sense the Fulcrum-A/C can be thought of as a 3++ gen fighter with a 4th gen parity, but it is one the pilot has to work very hard to achieve. A lot of workload normally taken by the digital flight computer is left to the pilot and the hydraulics are sluggish in translation compared to FBW. The Fulcrum is built like a 4th gen fighter, with composites and lerx but it has the controls of an F-4 Phantom and a radar/weapons package not much better.

The success of the Luftwaffe Fulcrums in CWC engagements is primarily attributed to the superiority of the Archer/HMTD combination, at the time only South Africa and the Israelis were working on similar projects, and the EOS had no NATO equivalence (it is more sophisticated than IRST).
At low altitude however even the Block 40 F-16 was found to be more manoeuvrable, although they evened out at higher altitudes, whilst the Block 50 has quite a bit more power on tap and is regarded superior in all respects.
Meanwhile the Hornet has a much better turn at transonic speeds (above 0.85M), which considering all these types high power/weight ratios is an atypical CWC speed. At the other end of the scale the MiG loses most of its manoeuvrability at low speed because it lacks a digital flight computer, whilst at any speed it can’t match control authority (such as roll rate).
Most MAPO claims about MiG engineering tolerances (such as its 12g limitation) are also universally regarded exaggerated by NATO with experience gained from German Fulcrum-A and those Fulcrum-C bought from Moldova by the USAF in 1997. Used under the same conditions as F-16’s for extended periods, Fulcrums displayed cracking around the base of the vertical stabilisers, the Vipers well within tolerances.

The final problem mostly for export operators is the engines, which are very high maintenance and by that I mean detuning is advised to preserve operational life. German Fulcrums were detuned and the practise was followed by Rumania and you’ll probably find every other independent operator outside the CIS as well. The engines were probably the main reason the MiG-29K was overlooked for the AV-MF (Naval Aviation) for its shipboard complement, in favour of the terrifically expensive Flanker with its infinitely more reliable and trouble free Lyulkas (the other consideration was unrefuelled range).

With detuned engines the power/weight ratio of the Flanker drops to the Hornet class, which takes away its primary advantage and it doesn’t change the relative inefficiency of the max afterburner thrust, which uses fuel very quickly (it has two sets of afterburners for the core airflow and bypass to give it the powerful 81.4kN rating, though closer to 77kN detuned).
Dry operation of a fully tuned RD-33 is the same as an F404 anyway, but it has a lower overall pressure ratio in the HP compressor (loses momentum in sustained manoeuvres), and a low engine life (overhaul meant scrapping in one mechanic’s description I read, but a consistent supply of parts and kits from Russia helps a lot).

So even when you take away the problem of its terrible and archaic radar set, navigation system and other avionics installations (only slightly improved in Fulcrum-C, the radar is slightly updated and can track 2 targets…um sometimes, and it has internal ECM jammer), the Fulcrum still falls shy of staying with the head of the pack in Hornet/Viper terms without very skilled piloting under very heavy workloads with very poor SA and just about everything stacked against you.
It has the one bonus of Archers/HMTD but the AIM-9x and Python-4 are better than the Archer by repute and helmet sights are becoming integrated into NATO aircraft.
Other than that it is better than trying to face 4th gen fighters in an F-4, a MiG-21/23, yet still cheaper than an F-16 so it serves as a compromise.

The thing about the Fulcrum which is magnificent is how it serves what it was designed to do. The vast problem here is everybody trying to use the Fulcrum like a western fighter and it just wasn’t ever meant to do that.

It was built to a very specific requirement, to operate from well supported although rough surfaced frontal airfields near to the combat arena in order to counter NATO F-16 aircraft in use by tactical air forces if the Cold War turned hot. When attached to an Army as part of the Soviet Frontal Aviation divisions, such as in Poland or East Germany its capabilities are excellent, you’re virtually in CWC ranges with e/a immediately upon take off and its performance in this realm can at least compete with Block 40 F-16 on equal terms and probably in greater numbers (less than 450 is being operated by the RuAF now but the Soviets had over 800 in service just before collapse and most of these at first contact Frontal defence bases).

The Fulcrums problems only begin when you export them or stop funding continual maintenance/upgrade programs pretty much around the clock whilst you’ve got them in service. Those are Cold War measures the Russians can no longer afford, and export customers just can’t do even if they had the money.

The Flanker is much more like a western contemporary, the Fulcrum is much more like a manned MRM SAM site and not really contemporary with complex modern export fighters or the current combat environment. They still work for CIS border defence, but any expensive upgrade program is doomed from the beginning by their inherent design limitations, ones the Flanker doesn’t have despite being so much more expensive. Upgrading the Fulcrum, say a digital/FBW SMT with all new modern avionics throughout is going to be such a big job you might as well just equip 0.75 times SM Flankers and call it even, call it better in fact.

The best thing about the Fulcrum, the fact it is produced in refrigerator factories (which continue making household refrigerators alongside it), it is completely muted by the fact the modern combat warplane requires such sophisticated avionics and systems. You can’t put thousands of them into service anyway, so it makes no difference if you design the airframe to be built by the thousands at the hands of semi-skilled labourers. This isn’t WW2 anymore.

And the funny part, the most appropriate place for the Fulcrum is in Chinese production pretty much as it is, to be put in service as a 3++ gen warplane by the thousands and replacing the J-7, but they’re building a small force of titanium Flankers for about the same cost/complexity and keeping the 21’s.