SrbinThis is what I am going to sum up regarding the two planes.
Ok lets assume that the F-18C/D can be bought new and can be put into production again.
I think the F-18C/D is a better plane than the Mig-29M in terms because it has little more range, can haul a little bigger load, little cheaper and easier to service and such but the gap is very small, therefore not a large advantage. The Mig-29M of course is more maneuverable and is a better dogfighter, R-73M2/HMS and AIM-9X/JHMCS are there somewhere but this is not such a big advantage and the gap is once again rather small and no big advantage. The Hornet clearly has superior selection of shorter ranged A2G weapons and can haul em a little longer, while in AA they will be even, the Mig-29M has a littel bigger array of AshMs, not only does it have a Harpoon equivelant, but about 3 other different kinds of AshMs which will be an easy kill against any other Navy except USN and possibly French and British Navies.
So what big advantages do they hold over each other
1)Mig-29M is twice as cheaper
2)The F-18C/D has much better shorter ranged weapons like JDAM currently as opposed to Russians having to stick with Kh-25, KAB-250/500/1500, Kh-29 and etc. Though KAB series are coming into GPS versions so this is not going to be a very large advantage. Longer ranged weapons are there for both sides, like Kh-59MEh, JASSM, SLAM-ER, JSOW and whatever.
3)The Americans are good to buy from if you’re close to them, however do not expect any other nation to be able to afford or even get for that matter a Hornet especially with weapons like JDAM and AIM-120 or JASSM or whatever. The Russians meanwhile will supply anything because they need the money and to anyone.
SrbinIn general, the Mig-29M2 can carry 6,500Kg of weapons vs the F-18C’s 6,000Kg.
Mig-20M2 cannot carry 6500kg, no way. Not sure about F-18C/D’s
For A2G purposes, the Kh-59Meh is equal to the JSOW, if not better. The newest Kh-59Meh has a range of some 280Km, 80Km more than a powered AGM-154. The 225Kg warhead of the AGM-154C/E is also not as powerful as the 285Kg penetrating or 325Kg blast warhead of the Kh-59Meh.
There is not much info on the Kh-59MEh, that is all thats known about it. It received the same changes as the Kh-59MK, except that this one is for land attack. It’s I still think a little bit too early to judge teh Kh-59MEh.
The Kh-25/29 series offer a combination of range and extreme firepower, and each outdo the AGM-65 in several areas.
The Kh-25 is very well comperable to Maverick, however it’s range is only some 10kms. The Kh-29 is in totally different class, Hornet has no equivelant except possibly future JDAM variants.
Someone on this forum has also stated that GPS guided bombs like the JDAM are only really effective(useful) in bad weather conditions, and that Laser and TV guided bombs are still more accurate in normal weather. Not to mention the Russians are finalizing the Kab-500/1500S models, which will be GLONASS guided (Russian GPS system).
The JDAM is good in both bad and good weather, the TV and Laser bombs only in good weather. The KAB-500S is around, however I am not sure how much longer for KAB-1500 or KAB-250.
As for Anti-Ship purposes, we can look to the Kh-35E (extended range Kh-35), the Kh-31A, or the SS-N-27 Klub (no Kh- designation known). For real destruction, the SS-N-27 is the weapon, and up to 3 can be carried, and the weapon is real wonder with its multiple stage attack profile and large 350Kg warhead. AGM-84 has no chance here, as it’s not very versatile (or rather doesn’t add to any versatility to the Hornet) or useful.
I think the Klub/Alfa is one of the best AshMs around, if not the best. Though there is the Yakhont. Both would be an overkill for any Navy except USN and possibly RN and French Navy which have some good AAW capabilities. As for the extended range Kh-35E1, well there is the SLAM-ER which can be used for anti-ship purposes too.
The AGM-88 is much shorter ranged (some 50Km vs 120-200Km) and carries a much smaller warhead (50Kg vs 90Kg) compared to the Kh-31P.
It’s not so much the warhead, because even a 10kg warhead smacking m2 will do a lot of damage to any radar to hinder it incapable. The real difference is that teh HARM has a speed of m2 with range of 50km, while th Kh-31P has a range of 120km and a speed of m3-4. Kh-31PM/PD has a 200km+ range.
Maximu warload for the F/A-18C is around 7,700-kg. The Super Hornet can carry a bit more at about 8,000-kg max.
I believe the F-18E/F figure of 8t, but I highl doubt F-18C/D can only carry 300kg less, thats just something you or someone ele pulled out of their ass.
While I’m hearing that the M can carry up to 6,500-kg I have trouble believing that because generally speaking the maximum I’ve seen for the MiG-29S for example is about 4,400-kg.
M/K are totally different airframes from S/SMT.
I ask the same question I did above. I have my doubts about Russian weapons (particularly AAM’s) in general when you look at the past history of Soviet AAM’s (Atoll, Acrid, and others come to mind).
I agree, the Americans seem to be ahead BVR tech, with AIM-7M, AIM-120 and Phoenix being rather proven missiles, while we’ve yet to see how R-27 performed in Ethiopia-Eritrea. R-77, R-33S, R-37 have all hit a lot of different drones in tests, but against real combat aircraft that has yet to be seen. Only AIM-120 is in service now
Yes, the MiG can turn tighter than the Hornet, but the Hornet still has some incredible high Alpha performance and you can’t deny that. You really believe the Hornet is a slug in a dogfight? I hope you’re joking. It’s one of the best WVR fighters there currently is. With the JHMCS and AIM-9X, the match is just too close to call. What makes you say the R-73 is better than the AIM-9X? The AIM-9X was designed to counter the R-73, and has done so with the latest IIR seeker plus thurst vectoring and increased range over earlier AIM-9 models. The latest R-73’s are on a par at best, and certainly not better than.
Do you even know anything about the latest R-73’s or latest Russian HMS. The Latest R-73 like M2 has a much longer range, improved seeker and bunch of other crap. It may be replaced with a totally new missile like the K-30, but not much info is known about it except it would get designation R-75. Though I agree, that the WVR deal will be close and mostly come down to whose a much better pilot. The Mig-29M will have much better T/W ratio, can turn tighter and pull more Gs but these advantages are not significant especially if the Hornet has AIM-9X+JHMCS
And on what are you basing that assumption? JSOW is about as accurate as they get for stand-off weapons. Other long-range weapons carried by the Hornet include the SLAM-ER which has the same range as the 280-km you claim for the Kh-59.
The SLAM-ER is more of a counterpart to the KH-59MEh, while the SLAM is more of a counterpart to the Kh-59M. The Kh-59M is rather very accurate.
As far as the anti-ship mission goes I consider that a nice feature for both jets to perform, but they aren’t exactly the ideal platforms for it. The MiG in particular has range issues, and just how far do you think it is going to get with three of those huge Klubs or Yakhonts underwing/fuselage? You drop the load to one to allow for external fuel, and you better hope that thing doesn’t miss. Weapons like Harpoon and Kh-35 are great for fighters, and I do like the capability that the Kh-31 offers although from what I can gather by looking around it doesn’t have the range of the Kh-35 or Harpoon.
The Mig-29M carrying 3 Alfas will not get so far, it’s range would be halved probably, but it’s still a significant capability no matter what, besides a missile like Alfa will be launched twice as shorter distance than a Harpoon or Kh-35. A single Yakhont or Alfa may not do much against a US Carrier group, same obviously with 2 Kh-35s or 2 Harpoons, but against any other country out there, they will have a hard time countering such missiles, whereas a Kh-35 or Harpoon will have a hard time getting through a CIWS. The Alfa will be launched at twice a longer distance, and Yakhont even longer than a Harpoon or Kh-35. As for Kh-31A, well yes it only has a 70km range, though a special variant with 150km++ range is being developed for China, called Kh-31AD/AM.
SEAD-wise the Kh-31 seems to be a good weapon, but yet again it brings up the quesiton do you want proven and tested or do you want to take a chance? The HARM for all its shortcomings has proven to be a very good DEAD weapon. And why do you need just a huge warhead on an ARM? What type of radar do you know that can withstand the blast of a weapon such as Shrike much less a larger warhead from the HARM or Kh-31??
The Kh-31P has been tested in Chechnya and other places in Russia.
Yes the Kh-29 is a better weapon than the AGM-65, but it could be said they aren’t really in the same class. The Hornet has other weapons that can fullfill the role of the Kh-29. The Kh-25? I’ll go with the Maverick for reasons I’ve stated before.
I agree, the future JDAM variants can easily do this. Besides, Kh-29TE’s 30 km range is so useful and advantageous for what?
Let’s look at a typical strike loadout for each of the two airplanes and then decide which one will be more effective. Say its a strike using precision-guided bombs. The Hornet comes in loaded with three external tanks, two GBU-31’s, two AIM-9, and two AIM-7 or AIM-120. The MiG would have two external tanks, one SAPSAN pod, two KAB-500 or 1500, two R-77, and two R-73. Well owing to the fact that there are as of yet no GPS-guided weapons the MiG has to start-off with LGB’s, thus taking away one hardpoint for precious external fuel. And when you look at the fact that the MiG has a shorter range than the Hornet to begin with that’s not looking good for the Fulcrum. So less fuel and less range to begin with equals much less range than the Hornet. Not to mention the MiG’s stores aside from the SAPSAN are ALL underwing on nice draggy pylons, while the Hornet’s two AIM-9’s are on the wingtips and the AIM-7’s or AIM-120’s are tucked nicely into their fuselage stations, meaning the drag is only really felt from the three tanks and two JDAM’s. If you want I could be nice and remove the centerline tank, therefore making the maximum range for the two a bit closer although the Hornet will have less drag. Oh you think it should have the same drag? Well then put another JDAM on there. Roughly similar range, but now the Hornet has an extra weapon…..and in the case of JDAM that could mean an extra target to engage on the same mission.
True, because teh Hornet has little longer range, payload and better options of A2G weapons, solely the JDAM, which I think is better than Kh-25, Kh-29 or whatever. But this advantage is not so significant. Like I said, I don’t see the Hornet being twice as better than a Mig-29M, according to their prices.
Negro please! You whine so much about political strings yet are so blinded by reality. Ask the Taiwanese, Argentinians and Israelis their experiences buying French.. ask the Peruvians about French business practices.
As for the Russians, they’re nice, if you’re patient enough to wait for your spares and weapons being delivered waaay beyond time, and often of shoddy quality, just ask the Indians and the Chinese. Political strings with russian weapons, ask the Bulgarians when they tried to upgrade their MiGs, or ask the Pakistani’s why t hey have hordes of Russian weapons
And the French? We’re talking Americans and Russians. The difference between French and Americans is that the French are not any less bitchier about embargoes and such, except they are willing to sell anything in peacetime if you pay a big price for it. Yes there is a problem with the Russians and their spare parts and such, they can be late a lot but I am sure this will be fixed, and there are less and less problems. Some customers like the Malaysians I do not think had any problems with the Russians.
Describe me the Pakistani and Bulgarian circumstances more please.
Ummm let’s see, what kind of target are you talking about here, a BOMBER? 175Km for the APG-73.. is ridiculous. SHOW ME EVIDENCE with RCS details. and will an AMRAAM fire 175Km (if ur right) i dont think so.
Agreed, it’s not such a big deal if a APG-73 can detect a fighter at 100kms or at 110, same with Zhuk, because neither would be able to launch their BVRAAMs before some 50kms probably
you miss my point, GPS is nice for bad weather AND good weather, but it’s not as accurate in good weather as the MORE accurate laser/TV bombs in good weather (and cheaper)..
Big deal if a Paveway II LGB has an accuracy of 1m vs 2 m for JDAM(not realistic figures just a comparison). Besides, what are you gona use in bad weather. Are you gona buy lots of JDAMs + Paveways or are you just gona buy JDAMS? I would buy lots of JDAMs anytime any day, for many reasons.
apart from the seeker improvement the AIM-9X is still old crap for a rocket. The R-73M2 will outright outdo it. i wont restate technical details.
I dont think you know what you’re talking about
where did i mention yakhont or moskit? i said flying with 3 Klubs which isnt a massive load.
There is no way a Mig-29 can lift a Moskit. BTW 3 Klubs is a HUGE load.
as i mentioned, the Kab 500/1500SE versions are coming into service (or production) (if they haven’t already) so the Mig-29M2 can also have satellite guided weapons.
I don’t think they are coming into production just yet
And prices? As others have stated the M’s price “advantage” if wish to call it that..isn’t so pronounced when comparing it to the C/D model Hornet. So what advantage does the MiG have?
Apperantly it’s kind of useless arguing with you, since there is nothing I can say to change you mind
SrbinAnd no we didn’t not agree on the anti-ship missile, anti-radar missile topic. I brought up several points about the validity of a MiG-29 trying to carry something as massive as the Yakhont and I was simply met with “well I think it can carry up to 3″………what kinda range you think the Fulcrum will have with those massive things and the drag they create.
Any large weapon like KAB-1500, Yakhont, Alfa or Kh-59M will decrease it’s range and speed, obviously, same with teh Hornet, it’s not like it has internal bays.
Furthermore, weapons like the Harpoon and HARM are not only battle proven but continuously being updated
Harpoon is not a bad weapon imho, but the Fulcrum has a much bigger variety of AshMs than ANY other Western aircraft ever will. I don’t consider the HARM a great missile, it’s slow, and rather short ranged. It may be proven, but I’d take the Much better Kh-31P any day. Besides, the Kh-31P has been tested and already exported to few countries.
AAM’s? KS-172? I highly dbout it.
What’s there to doubt? That it wont work? That it won’t be integrated? If it’s the whole deal with “it’s not proven so it may not work”, well quite a few of Hornet’s weapons in teh future have yet to be tested, as for integrated, well the Russians will be willing to integrate just about anything these days as long as you pay a fair price.
R-37? Yet again I highly doubt it, and what’s the point of the R-37 when the radar in the nose of the MiG doesn’t even have the range of this weapon.
True, but you can always have AWACS helping guide it. The point is, that it’s an option.
R-77? Who’s to say it’s better than AMRAAM? All I’ve heard is propaganda thus far.
Whose to say it’s NOT better than AMRAAM? The AIM-120 was used in combat and scored kills, R-77 wasnt. Saying that it was proven just wont cut it sometimes
R-27? Less than ideal combat performance in the times it has been used so far?
Agreed, R-27’s time has come.
R-73? AIM-9X and JHMCS can counter that will little effort.
Thats a stupid and quick conclusion to make. You must be thinking of 80s R-73s and HMS, the R-73 has evolved and so has Russian HMS I believe. The Mig-29M is still a better dogfighter than any Hornet or Falcon ever will be. That’s been proven more times than we can count.
In air-to-air combat the two planes are roughly equal. Let’s say these Russian AAM’s are as good as AMRAAM (I have my doubts….), then in BVR there’s no clear winner, and in WVR the AIM-9X and JHMCS combined with the Hornet’s already outstanding close-in agility doesn’t really give the MiG much of an edge if any. So let’s sum it up shall we?
Agreed that at BVR they are both somewhere there and here. However even if the Hornet was better at WVR, it doesnt mean that it will win the air battle, because these two will probably smack each other at BVR and things will be decided there before a dogfight occurs.
The Hornet is the better striker, has longer range, easier to operate & service, slightly better view from the cockpit, more user-friendly internal cockpit layout, better targeting systems for strike missions, better radar, JTIDS, and most weapons systems are tested and battle proven. Many C/D aren’t even that old, so airframe life isn’t an issue. The Hornet is a sturdy airplane to boot.
The range, servicibility, and little better cockpit views are not such a great advantage, the Mig-29M will cost something like ALMOST TWICE as less than a new F-18C/D probably, if not 1.5 times less. Besides, a new plane is always better than an older one. If you’re planning to buy used hornets, then forget it’s little servicibility advantage because it’s operating costs will eventually go through the roof the older and longer you operate it. F-18’s advantages are very slight in these fields, but for it’s costs, it’s definitely not worth it.
The MiG has a shorter range (especially true if you want to carry all these huge wonder weapons you speak of), has a slew of potential weapons systems that aren’t proven or tested in some cases, no counter to weapons like the SDB, JSOW, and JDAM, slightly poorer visiblity from the cockpit, and last but certainly not least, no MiG-29M’s are in service anywhere, so little in the way of a spare parts base. And as was pointed out earlier, the Russians aren’t always the friendliest when it comes to getting customer support & service.
I agree on some of the A2G weapons, but if thats the case, then weapons like JSOW and SDB “are unproven”. Phantom, I always see you make a statement, then contradict it in another way.
yes the Mig-29M is nowhere in service, the closest thing is te Mig-29K in IN, however if a customer may wish, it may purchase it. As for avionics and crap, a lot of it’s avionics are similar to the Mig-29SMTs which in the future is going to Yemen and Algeria.
In short I think you highly overrate the MiG-29M…..perhaps the Russians are on the right track when they decided they don’t need it. At the same time you downplay the Hornet by trying to give excuses like “well the Americans are bitchy, etc.” As was pointed out the Russians can be the same way.
I think the Hornet is a better aircraft itself, yes it has little longer range, better avionics and such, it’s a little easier to service, etc however when it comes to weapons and such, the Hornet clearly has better A2G weapons, however I will prefer Mig-29M’s weapons selection of better ARMs, AshMs and few extra AAMs, but it is not in production either like the Mig-29M nor are there ANY plans to ever put it into production AGAIN, only used ones can be bought. The Hornet is MUCH more expensive and many political strings come attached with it. Only those who are close to US can buy it.
I’d rather compare the Mig-29M to something like F-16C/D/M2K-5 than the F-18C/D which can no longer be purchased used.
SrbinNo, it’s recognized as part of Bosnia, it doesnt recognize itself as an independant country or part of SCG since like Dayton when it was made to stay as part of BiH.
Anyways, I think currently Republika Srpska AF could actually retire it’s Oraos, Galebs, Jastrebs and upgrade it’s Super Galebs the same lines as the Serbian G-4M, but I dont think the G-4M is so great. It could get the small Kopyo-F on it, R-77, other weapons like Kh-25 series, KAB-250/500, Hermes, etc. This will be enough.
When time for G-4s come to retire them, replace them with another AJT of similar class like Yak-130.
SrbinIt’s because many Western countries would’ve rather used their subs to crack these heavy targets, that was their plan for most of the way. Do you think that a Harpoon armed Ticondoroga could crack an Granit armed Kirov or even anything Moskit armed?
SrbinYahh I agree, in the future they will put the R-77-PD in service, but for R-77-ZRK they will have to use R-77M which is not gona go into production, this will be rather unconventional.
I think they will eventually pick the MRADS with 9M96E+9M100 or MSAM with only 9M96E. The MRADS configuration with 9M100 only will not be so great, I mean this missile only has 8km range, who’d want to buy it when there are a lot of SHORADS out there. Now, what is the real need in the 9M100 to complement the 9M96E? For destroying UAVs and Cruise missiles? Is there a real need for this since there is a lot of cheaper AAA out there and such. MSAM seems to be the best option, but with 40km range, and some ATBM capability, it’s only a little less capable than the BUK-M2 with 50km range. Though their ceiling is similar, the MSAM will probably be much cheaper considering it’s VL therefore less capable and on top of all of that the MSAM holds 12 ready to launch 9M96E missiles, while the BUK-M2 holds, what 5-6 ready to launch 9M317s?
SrbinI don’t think Western countries ever needed large anti-carrier AshMs, because the Russians simply never had large aircraft carrier fleets, even in the late 1980s there was the Kuznetsov protected by various ships, but it was still probably not significant enough to build large and heavy AshMs like the Russians have been doing for past 50 years.
SrbinThe Tu-330 is being developed as a competitor to the Il-214 MTA, and has been proposed in Tanker version.
Any more info on the Il-96-400T cargo version? I cannot seem to find any info on this baby
SrbinI think the NSM is the best all around missile, to be installed on Helicopters, Ships, Fixed Wing aircraft, Coastal Defences and etc, however it cannot in anyway sink a carrier group no matter how stealthy it is, it’s just too slow and it’s warhead is too small. You need much bigger weapons like Moskit, Alfa and whatever.
I would agree with Garry, I think the Klub/Alfa is much better than any Yakhont or Moskit and such, it will have a much better chance of sinking a carrier than a Yakhont would since it will come down low and slow then once it’s found it will speed up and drop even lower making it even harder for defences to detect it unlike the Moskit and Yakhont which will be going supersonic all the way and lighting up enemy screens. If you compare the air launched Yakhont to air launched Klub, the Klub maybe shorter ranged by some 50kms, but it would be launched at a lower altitude, and not only that but it weighs almost a tonne less. Even this, but it comes in a submarine launched version too, and even a land attack(300km, 1780kg launch weight, while Yakhont is 3000kg for 300km) and ASW versions too.
An aircraft like Su-30MK should be able to carry 3 Yakhonts, while some 5 Alfas. A mig-29M should be able to carry a single Yakhont while up to 3 Alfas may be configured.
SrbinYes, obviously but its used while the Mig-29Ms would be new. Besides, thoe F-18C/Ds even with life extensions would not be able to fly as much as ANY new plane, on top of all that the longer you operate something older, the more expensive it always becomes.
SrbinPhantom, we’ve already kind of argued over the Mig-29M vs F-18C/D.
We’ve already discussed it. To basically sum it up: When it comes to F-18C/D vs Mig-29M, they are pretty close in everything, the F-18C/D is a little easier to service, it has little more range(cuz F-404s provide less thrust and sack up less fuel=less performance). Weapons wise, the F-18C/D will clerly have superior striking weapons when it comes to JDAM/SDB/LOCAAS while Mig-29’s ARMs, AshMs are much better, AAMs are all around there.
Now the real big difference is that the Mig-29M is much cheaper, I am not sure what an F-18C/D would be sold for now, but I doubt it would be cheaper than a F-16C/D, ie some 50-60mn. The Mig-29M would be sold for around 30-35mn if it went into production. Russia would be willing to give anything to anyone, they are not like US and are not bitchy about exporting BVRAAMs and other weapons.
SrbinYou cannot possibly compare early Mig-29As with modern F-16MLUs, latest M2Ks or F-18C/Ds. The Mig-29A was a short legged expensive point defense interceptor, it was the best dogfighter out there, and would’ve owned any F-16A(which had no BVR capability), F-18A or early M2Ks in dogfights. The M2K was BVR armed and it and Mig-29 would’ve mixed it up in BVR with Super 530s and R-27s. However, the M2K and F-18As were more of multirole machines, while Mig-29A was a strictly an interceptor while the F-16A strictly a striker with only AIM-9s.
Today, all of them are modern multirole fighters. They all got some significant changes.
The Mig-29A and F-16A got the biggest changes to make them good multirole fighters. They both grew in size, thrust and etc while the F-18C/D and later M2Ks did not posses as many changes. The Mig-29SMT got quite a lot of extra fuel, and the MLU changed quite a bit.
I still think the Mig-29M is still a little less shorter ranged that it should be, but it’s not signiciant compared to the F-18C/D. When the costs come into play, it’s a lot more cost effective than any of those.
SrbinThe movie behind enemy lines was just bunch of ****, not only a SAM like that cannot be chasing a plane forever but come on, the whole ending with the tanks and helicopters was just bunch of crap, not even funny.
SrbinYes, those were the earlier Mig-29As, which were rather big planes with little fuel therefore very short range and expensive to run. They were expensive to maintain. However the Mig-29M1/M2 is rather much lighter, cheaper to maintain and run and a lot more capable with more fuel efficient RD-33 variants.
BTW the RD-33 is smoky unlike the F404 on the F-18, but I think it was a little more fuel efficient, though I think it sacked up more fuel because it provided more thrust too.
SrbinI am not sure about the Mig-29M1/M2, it costs about 30mn, while the much more bigger and more capable Su-30MK costs what, 35mn?
Sign In
