There was no such model of a MiG-29, the Third World export version 9.12B only marginally differed from 9.12A for Warsaw Pact. Not only that, in mid-80s the economy of WP countries already started to crumble and many countries (India, Iraq) got their Fulcrums before any WP countries started to get their (very limited) deliveries.

I am aware of that, I was speaking on general terms.
In many cases, ‘export versions’ were actually used Soviet ones, refurbished and slightly modified for export. IIRC Yugoslavian MiG-29’s were examples of this.

That is factually inaccurate.
– lion share of Soviet Fulcrums were of the 9.13 version, 9.12s were quite rare and later almost exclusively destined for export
– the “couple of dozen” you’re talking about were further upgraded 9.13S assigned to Guards regiments which already got N019M with TWS mode. Externally hard to distinguish from a normal 9.13, though. Here is one, testing a load of R-77s.

Ok, the whole Fulcrum lineage is kinda confusing, and NATO designation is misleading since difference between Fulcrum-A and C is based purely on external appearence.
I got the impression that 9-12 type planes were majority in Soviet service as well, nearly all examples which visited West were 9-12’s. Strizhi also flew 9-12’s.

– I have never heard about 9.12S. I think you might be mistaken here..
– it was 9.13 which added Gardeniya jammer. 9.13S added N019M radar and R-77 capability (the missile later not adopted for Russian service)

Few additions:
– the only foreign Fulcrums equipped with R-27T and R-27ER are Algerian ones. Of course, 9.13 aircraft passed on Soviet successor states like Ukraine or Uzbekistan, too have had this capability but these were originally Soviet birds.
– the same is valid regd. underwing wet pylons, these were exclusive for Soviets. Of course, today you can also find them on some Fulcrums which were bought from ex-Soviet stocks (Peru, last batch for Slovakia..) which adds to the confusion. German MiG-29Gs also had wet pylons rework made by EADS to fulfill their NATO aggressor role – they are now serving in Poland.

Aren’t Malaysian MiGs 9-12? They lack the ‘fatback’ but do have wet wing pylons.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]235150[/ATTACH]

Ten were sold to Brazil, not sure if there were other foreign sales. Most converted to 5F or retired: AdA C’s are the oldest production run, most of the aircraft are running out of service life.

As for this:
“It’s a good airplane, just not much of a fighter when compared to the West’s 4th-generation fighters.”

Well, he was basically comparing the ’80s MiG-29 to ’90s F-16. His main complaint about MiG-29 as a fighter seems to be short range of Alamo-A missile – hardly a shocking revelation! As he points out, most F-16’s lacked a BVR missile altogether until 1991.

It is obvious that he’s a big F-16 mark – as evidenced when he was assigned to F-15 unit and was disappointed (!). Nearly all pilots love their a/c (ditto for tankers and tanks, infantrymen with rifles) and always bring out points to portray them in positive light. However, I don’t think his comments about the MiG are particularly negative for a Western pilot, quite the contrary if anything. For example, some others complained about Fulcrum’s T/W ratio, because LW tended to fly them with engines derated to prolong service life. He, OTOH, says that MiG has plenty of power.

His comments about F-16 vs MiG-29 don’t really bring out anything new to discussion. More interesting are his assessments about F-5E and F-15A.

Leader is the project name for the new destroyer. Will be laid down sometime this decade. There is a lack of clarity if the ship will be destroyer, or small cruiser sized (and potentially nuclear powered). Supposedly they are leaning towards the larger design.
22350/22350M in any case will be a more than adequate replacement for 1155s and 956s.

In the sense that they provide similar capabilities in a hull of half the size. However, for endurance, seakeeping and sensor capability, there is no substitute for larger ship. Only question is how many they perceive to need.
Also, the new ship will almost certainly have 2 helicopters, like Udaloys have. They also will need flag facilities as eventually they’ll need to replace Slavas too.
Nuclear propulsion seems unnecessary expense for a ship of this size. OTOH maybe they’ll think about growth potential, possible future power needs for new sensors and directed energy weapons.

Maybe they’ll build both conventional and nuclear powered versions, a’la Leahy/Bainbridge.

The current state of the Navy is this:

3 x Type 21 Frigates purchased in in 1993 from UK

Scrap two, leave one as (possibly immobile) training vessel.

4 x Peacock-class corvette built for Minitaya in 1982
2 x Castle Class Patrol vessels bought from UK in 1995

Scrap.

12 x Hawk T1
24 x F/A 18 were sold to Minitaya as part of the Air Base short term lease in 1990 from the US

How old are these? Hawk T1 (I assume in this context Hawk 50) hasn’t been produced for like 30 years, so they’re goners. If the Hornets are A/B, they’re going to need replacement soon-ish. C/D would be good to go for another 15 years.

4 x P-3 Orions arrived in 1998
3 x C-130 transports
1 x 737 Leased from national carrier as troop transport to help with recent deployment to Timor.
1 x 737 Presidential jet
8 x Puma Helicopters

No word on hours, but other than they seem good to go for bit longer.

With that kind of budget limits, and Minitaya being an island nation with broad economic interests, high-end warships seem out of the question, so do submarines. So I am concentrating on power projection and maintaining the number of hulls:
-1* Absalon type command ship á 500 million USD. 1*127mm, 1* Mk41 (8 cells) for ESSM, SMART-L air defence radar.
-2* Gepard 3 -series corvettes á 250 million. Similar to Vietnamese units, maybe sans Palma. SIGMA 9000 -variant is possibility too, but may be too expensive.
-2* Large OPV á 100 million. 3000 tons, 20 knots.
-4* Small OPV á 50 million. 500 tons.
-1* Antarctic research ship/icebreaker. $50 to 100 million. Can do double shift as a supply ship.

I’d like to include some mine countermeasures vessel, but can’t fit it to budget. Oh well. Maybe some of the OPV’s could have MCM modules. Some landing craft would be needed too but can’t bother getting into details.

For air force, I’m working under assumption that Hornets need replacement too:

-16* FA-50
-16* T-50: lets say these cost $1 billion all in all. They’ll replace both Hawks and Hornets. First-line fighters are too expensive to fit to this budget.
-3* EriEye AEW&C aircraft (maybe Embraers). $300 million.
-UAV’s and upgrades/service life extensions for existing assets: $200 million.

The Mirage-2000 would in total exceed the 6000 hours original service life with additional few thousand hours, but there is no source for how much additional service life is going to be obtained. FYI, HAL had reported that the Mirage airframe was exceptionally robust, with overhauls revealing no fatigue issues with the airframe at all, unlike in the case of the Jaguar where every 1 out of 5 Jaguars overhauled had some fatigue cracks reported.

Hmmm. Didn’t Taiwan complain that Mirage 2000 was running low on airframe hours quicker than expected?

Somewhat surprisingly, FAF has recently reported that without refurbishment Hornet airframe will struggle to make it to 4500-5000 hours in Finnish service.

Given the expense and scope of the work required for 1144’s modernization, surely there is no point upgrade more than 2 of the vessels. Lazarev’s new paintjob simply keeps the hull from rusting until the ship can be properly dealt with.
Although, is there any info which ones are in best shape? ISTR some rumours that Lazarev was actually in better condition than Nakhimov, but I might misremember that. There were calls to restore Kirov due to its historic signifance and status but I doubt that is justifiable by any sensible means.