a89The table below shows the fuel load in different MiG-29 variants. Data for latest versions could change as there are photos of MiG-35 with 4 drop tanks (and a refuelling kit).
[ATTACH=CONFIG]246998[/ATTACH]
http://alejandro-8en.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/fuel-load-in-different-mig-29-variants.html
a89(does anyone even know what/if anything Ukrainian is on the K/KUB?). Indian K’s don’t have any extra equipment that Ukraine produces AFAIK.
As you say Russian and Indian MiG-29Ks should be almost identical. One of the advantage for the Russian Navy in acquiring MiG-29Ks was that the aircraft was already in production.
a89Those PGMs are from Soviet stocks/exchanges with Russia from years ago, no?
Kazakhstan also got spares and equipment in the 90s, when they traded Tu-95 with Russia.
on #2. So KZ is getting Russian prices plus financial assistance.
They should do as Kazakhstan is CTSO member.
a89Sure with conventional bombs (esp. when you figure in all-weather capability) but for PGM’s, MiG-27K and Su-17 would have worked fine for kind of operations like in 2nd Chechnya and Syria, while costing probably like half of what Su-24. Even in early ’90s it was obvious that PGM’s are the future.
Another advantage is that single engine aircraft would provide more flying hours to pilots with similar fuel.
Also for tactical recon, in fact wasn’t that the last role Su-17 had in RuAF?
Yes, Su-17s were kep in this role until the mid 1990s IIRC. I think they flew some sorties over Chechnya as well. The last unit to fly MiG-23s was based in Western part of Russia, near Moscow. There was a good article a few years ago in a Russian magazine about it. It stated some of the advantages: plenty of spares, cheap to operate…
Would Soviets have produced similar upgrade packages for MiG-21?
It is difficult to tell because Warsaw Pact were receiving MiG-29s and still operating MiG-23s. Countries like Romania would definitely have been interested because they did not operate large quantities of MiG-23, and MiG-21 spares were produced locally (same with maintenance).
The MiG-21bis was much cheaper to operate for former-Eastern-bloc countries until better options or requirements for NATO compatibility became apparent. Aerostar and IAI had upgrade programs for the MiG-21 in the 90s, but they never really took off aside from the Lancers in Romania. MiG came out with the MiG-21-93 which evolved into the Bison for India, which turned out to be a nice upgrade.
Romanian case is mentioned above. MiG-21bis also had longer life than MiG-23s.
I think the much greater capability of the Su-24s on-board suit won over the cheaper single engine attack birds.
Regarding Su-17/MiG-27 retirement, maybe there were other factors. The Air Force might have preferred to keep more complex and powerful aircraft.
a89It was stupid, of course they had huge surplus of both airframes and types, but it was wasteful to keep so many Su-24’s around when a cheaper type could have performed much of the jobs. They should have kept either MiG-27 or Su-17, preferably latter.
Thats’s a way of looking at it but Su-24 had more development potential. Upgraded MiG-29s could take over over MiG-23/27/Su-17 roles.
Right esp since the Mig-21 with 4 x R-60 and 2 K-13 had a nasty bite by late 80s standard
AFAIR MiG-21bis had 4 hardpoints for missiles. I don’t see how K-13 in the late 80s was such a good thing as the missile was obsolete.
a89I don’t mean just a vanilla flanker but more the new models. Could the west really do with a su-34 size strike fighter/bomber or a su-35 multi role fighter.
“West” is quite a broad term, and includes countries like Belgium, Luxembourg, Spain and West Germany. As MSphere has mentioned, the F-15 is a broad equivalent. Most countries chose F-16 due to cost. A larger and more complex aircraft is more expensive to buy and operate, while the extra performance was not seen as critical.
I do not think it has been a mistake, as the F-16 has been adapted to many roles.
a89I was of the opinion that at some point after the Cold War ended Russia decided it was taking out of service single engined fighters. Mind you the most modern aircraft were dual engine and older ones single engine so I doubt it was as simple as saying I like 2 engines it looks nicer.
Is it better to have one big engine versus 2 smaller engines I don’t know I imagine advantages of both types
This decision happened under Yeltsin, not Gorbachev. It made sense only because there was no money to keep single engine types. VVS lost reconnaissance/strike capability when Su-17 were retired. Many of the retired aircraft were not that old.
a89MiG-21s could still be found in a few regiments in the mid-late 80s, but most of the fleet had already been replaced in the 70s.
how long did it survive and given that the mig-29 was plentiful by late 80s ( almost 450 according to most sources in VVS) what possible reason did it serve ?
Most were gone by 1990. Back in those days the Soviet Air Force was massive. MiG-29 were mainly deployed in the West, and were not enough to replace MiG-21/23.
In the link below you can find a summary of the VVS and PVO regiments, together with the aircraft they operated.
http://www.ww2.dk/new/air%20force/regiment/iap/iap.htm
In the mid-late 80s the following regiments were still equipped with MiG-21s:
– 18th Guards Vitebskiy twice Red Banner order of Suvorov Fighter-Bomber Aviation Regiment
– 27th Guards Vyborgskiy Red Banner Fighter Aviation Regimen
– 104th Fighter Aviation Regiment
– 15th Guards Orshanskiy orders of Kutuzov and Aleksandr Nevskiy Fighter Aviation Regiment
– 145th Fighter Aviation Regiment
– 159th Guards Novorossiyskiy Red Banner order of Suvorov Fighter Aviation Regiment
– 927th Kenigsbergskiy Red Banner order of Aleksandr Nevskiy Fighter Aviation Regiment
– 192nd order of Kutuzov Fighter Aviation Regiment
– 308th Fighter Aviation Regiment PVO
– 343rd Instructor Fighter Aviation Regiment
– 15th Pomeranskiy order of Bogdan Khmelnitskiy Fighter Aviation Regiment
– 582nd Fighter Aviation Regiment
– 582nd Fighter Aviation Regiment
Note that not all were equipped with MiG-21bis.
a89Kinda weird seeing air refueling probe in MiG-23. This was a modification for some Arab air forces, no?
Yes, it has been done using Mirage F-1 probe.
a89Interview with the Glavkom of Kazakhstan’s Air Defense Forces.
No comments on new fighters. Interest on MiG-35 and Su-35 has been mentioned before.
Good news for Ansat. I am surprised UAC has not put more enphasis on this product. The light helicopter market is huge.
You might mean the old 9.31 but that is a goner. AFAIK, they have dropped the MiG-29M2 airframe for MiG-35 (9.61 and 9.67) due to commonality reasons and the future MiG-35s shall be basically MiG-29K/KUBs (9.41 and 9.47) without tailhook and naval landing gear.
Yes, all versions were unified, which made sense at it would provide more focus and simplicity.
a89MiG-35 will be supplied to the troops
Has RSK MiG informed on commonality between MiG-35 and MiG-29K versions? I vaguely remember reading a figure, but it came to my mind after reading criticism on F-35 different variants.
a89Likewise, many problems with MiGs were caused by their operators, not MAPO.. Early in the 90s, in the wild post Soviet times, one could get an used KAMAZ army truck for few bottles of vodka. The same way one could get a nice stock of spare RD-33 engines – but you needed hard currency and that was a problem..
This also affected accident rates, as some countries chose to buy MiG spare parts from Eastern Europe or former USSR in dodgy deals.
a89I think it is really hard to compare these parameters as there are not enough data. India did struggle with it’s MiG-29 fleet but country that sold them had disappeared, but this was 20 years ago. IIRC Poland has been struggling with F-16 spares. South Africa struggles to operate the Gripen due to financing… there are loads of different circumstances.
a89Requirements were different: French wanted a strike fighter with long range, other Europeans wanted air defence oriented hot-rod fighter. So those might have been a deal-killer even without French military-industrial demands sabotaging the co-operation.
In any case both configurations were similar: 2 engines, canard, delta wing, single tail. The only difference was the size. The British wanted a larger aircraft with more wing surface. The French proposed the ACX (which later became the Rafale). The Germans, Italians and Spanish supported the British option.
According to the Spanish representative in the meetings, the French were rather arrogant. They had been very succesful with their Mirage fighter aircraft, and the Mirage 2000/4000 were top aircraft in those days. They underestimated British Aerospace, which had suffered a huge blow due to the 1957 Defence White Paper (giving priority to missiles) and prevented more development after BAC Lighting. Rolls Royce was also underestimated Rolls Royce, which was more powerful than SNECMA.
a89These are almost incomparable figures.
x2. It is always very hard to compare. I usually don’t bother if they don’t come from the same Air Force. The data in the link are for Poland.
http://alejandro-8.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/fuerza-aerea-polaca-costes-de.html
Even in this case, there can be circumstances affecting the cost. I am sure there are loads of spares available for Su-22, but not so many for MiG-29 or F-16.
The F-16 I find more puzzling, not impossible but puzzling. Considering the US is rapidly converting F-16 into target drones it would have to be a hot swap of active ANG or USAF airframes which are an increasingly scarce commodity.
IMO there are not that many F-16 in storage with low hours. The entire fighter fleet has seen much more use than expected, and there aren’t that many in the second hand market due to budget reductions and so on. Romania has acquired third hand F-16 from Portugal.
Sign In
