Bagladesh and Romania aren’t exactly fantastic examples of countries with the resources and elan to keep professional air arms with high-tech aircraft running (really, MiG-21 Lancer force? You might as well not bother with an AF at all, they’re only good for air shows).

But, Vympel, that’s exactly the point. Romania is giving up the Mig-29 in favor of the Mig-21 in spite of the former’s obviously better performance and capabilities. Maintenance-wise, the Mig-29 is a beast for countries to operate. Obviously, if either Bangladesh or Romania could afford it, they could continue to operate the Fulcrum as long as they are willing to spend.

Or if they had the money, they could go buy something that is a less of a pain to operate. Like Hungary, which is leasing Gripens and moving the Mig-29 to backline units where they are expected to fly even less.

Read AFM’s April edition. The Hungarian Mig-29 pilot could only fly 60 hours yearly. Not because Hungary is trying to save money on fuel, they actually want their pilots to fly more because the NATO requirement is 180 hours. That’s why they opted for Gripen even though it’s much more expensive (much more than making their current Mig-29s NATO compliant.)

Also, operating small numbers of advanced aircraft isn’t seen as exactly the most efficient course of action; part of the reason for Germany’s transfer of its small number of MiG-29s to the established operator that is Poland. There are a lot more MiG-29 operators who can operate the aircraft than there are those few ‘peasants’ (for lack of a better term) that can’t cope.

Poland’s initial choice was the Gripen and now it’s the F-16, the Mig-29 fell by the wayside a long time ago. If the Germans hadn’t offered it for free and if it hadn’t been German (and therefore well-maintained, in spite of the costs or hardships), Poland wouldn’t have even considered them. If they’d really wanted them, they could have bought the 8 off the “peasants” in Bangladesh.

Seriously, neither Hungary or Romania (which has an aviation industry for goodness’ sakes) could be considered “peasants.” Bangladesh is a country of over 100 million which is already tendering a contract for new fighters. Just new ones that they hope are more easily maintained.

In all fairness, the Mig-29 is probably the worst example and has a horrible serviceability record. Its reputation certainly isn’t helped by news such as Bangladesh failing to keep even 8 running and Romania, which had operated the type for years, abandoning it for an all Mig-21 Lancer force (AFM, April 2004).

But on the other side of the argument, there are 1000s upon 1000s of two engined J-6s and Q-5s which served the PLAAF for years. The same with the F-5 which was and is operated by many poorer third world nations. While the turbojets in the J-6 had a short life and were overhauled and replaced often, obviously the cost of doing so wasn’t prohibitive.

Now it is possible that two older unsophisticated WP-7s are probably less expensive and easier to maintain than a single AL31.

There is no doubt that two engines will require more attention and consume more fuel than one of the same type. The F-16 would cost less and require less maintainance than the F-15 using the same Pratt & Whitneys.

But a F-6 with two WP6s would probably cost much less than a F-16’s single powerplant but consume much more fuel 😀

I remember that too. I have a pic I saved ages ago. (turns out to the same as Srbin’s)

That’s the most common PAK-FA picture I’ve seen but is it something released by Sukhoi or just artistic speculation?

The J-XX project has been around much earlier than PAK-FA, US Naval intelligence drew a speculative picture of it years ago (actually, you almost always see mention of the J-XX in articles about the J-10.)

Oops, “was” as when the Cava was designed. Oh yes, SA still has formidable tech base. Aside from China, the only third world nation producing a bvr 🙂

Of course, part of SA was never “third world.”

Great picture!!!

Nice post, HK_Dragon