at least three people have called you out. learn the difference between operational load and an airshow.
Very well, name them, or show me their IDs.
airshow mode
operational mode
airshow
http://www.airshow.com.cn/
Your post is really funny.
You are still unable to explain what difference of air show model and operational model are.
And what model of this is?
F-18s have a range problem like MiG-29s, so they carry fuel tanks duh.
What’s kind of problem?
Also F-18s are often used for ground attack missions and they carry fuel tanks to reach their destinations duh.
So does MiG-29.
That’s the difference between real operational configurations and all your pictures that are air show configurations.
Between real operational configurations and what?
Do you mean the configration of MiG-29 in air show merely was a mockup?
Also no point in posting pictures of MiG-29KUBs with 4 fuel tanks. They are configured for tanker operations. It’s not the same thing.. unless you think the Indians plan to drop empty fuel tanks on the head of some poor Pakistani soldier..
As you can see what were F-18 able to carry, that MiG-29 can load as well even more.
4×1500L + 1×1900 for MiG-29 vs 5×1400L for F-18A/B/C/D:D
lol so now you use the SMT figures even though we were talking about Kagril conflict. In case you didn’t know, no SMTs were used. Throw your useless figures out the window again just as your images
Who were talking about Kagril conflict. You conflict has nothing to do with the truth of maximum payload for MiG-29 vs F-18. An aircraft could carry gun only to join an action or achieve a mission. Also an aircraft with single gun doesn’t mean its full payload.
And which airshow this one were in?
Other member already show you similar load in flight.
not drunk enough to know that two of those pictures are of unfinished aircraft. Perhaps you don’t know the difference between a demo and an operational aircraft.
A demonstration is also an operation, which perhaps you don’t know.
well sherlock, in case it wasn’t obvious, even the F-18 which is the same class of multi-functional aircraft as you said, also needs fuel tanks to carry its bombs duh. you think your pictures of loaded Fulcrums will go anywhere with out fuel?
Your declaration sounds like your F-18 will be able to go anywhere without fuel? Further, do you suggest that F-18 in your image were carrying empty external fuel tank since it had flown?
that was not my question and it wasn’t even a question it was a statement. Do you not understand?
So what is your position?
no it does not, the Mirage has higher ferry range
Are you absolutely sure of that?
Internal fuel for Mirage 2000 is around 3 tons. plus maximum external fuel 2×2000L+1700L extend its original range to 4000km at top.
The internal fuel capacity for MiG-29SMT is 6100kg. Maximum external fuel tanks is loaded totally around 6 tons as almost same as internal fuel. Even only three will reach 3400km.
Топливо, л
внутренне 6100
ПТБ 3800
all of those aircraft except two of them are prototype airplanes that never got developed. the other two are MiGs that used up almost all of its pylons for fuel tanks, no space for bombs
No space for bombs?
Does your eyes had any problem to see the images or you are selectively blind. Or you’ve drunk too much in SpringFestival?:diablo:
notice that? all of them have at least two fuel tanks. you need fuel to take your bombs to the target. duh.
Very interesting, now you have to move to the F-18 series.
That’s ok. since F-18A/B/C/D and MiG-29 are same class multi-functional fighter or as long as same class, there is nothing to fear for MiG-29.
The maximum external fuel that F-18A/B/C/D are capable to load will be five 1400L DTs whereas 4×1500L + 1900×1 for MiG-29M. The last post I did wrongly with error memory. That is not 1650L for centerline.
Except DTs, still four pylons remained for MiG-29 and F-18A/B/C/D to both.
However, while all pylons occupied, there is no space remained for O-E system pod on F-18, in other words, O-E pod would occupied one pylons of F-18 at least. So MiG-29 not only win for external fuel capacity but also station flexibility.
if the MiG-29 had such great payload capabilities for a2g then why did the Indians use the Mirage 2000 for bombing instead of the MiG-29 during the war?
In which war?
Your question are so childishness.
Generally, A country will purchase more fighters than attackers and bombers, I don’t think you are such stupid to be confused with this. India ordered slightly more MIG-29 than Mirage 2000. This is the one of reason for your question.
The deployment will be another aspect. Since the ferry range for MiG-29 will be significantly longer than MIRAGE2000, the Mirage 2000 will naturally be used for interdiction more than air-superiority.
On the other hand, if any air force position their any kind of aircraft as multi-roll, then any fighter can be an attacker for bombing, any ossified thought for usage will only bring lost back, nothing else.
BTW, I can not recognize the aircraft in those image below, could you help to identify them?:p
your MiG-29 image on the left is the old MiG-29M produced in the 80s and tested in the early 90s. That picture is of a test model with dummy missiles. That particular MiG never got further in its development and fully integrated its air to ground. You can show all the a2g weapons hanging off its pylons but plastic bombs don’t win wars. Secondly even if fully integrated with weapons, the MiG-29 has poor range and needs fuel tanks. The MiG-29M fixes some of the range issues but will still need fuel tanks to be useful in A2G just like the F-16 and F-18. So that MiG in your picture will lose 2 of its a2g weapons and also add in a center fuel tank to make 3.
First, could you prove that inboard pylons on MiG-29 could barely load plastic missile like X-31?
Secondly, did you know the internal fuel for MiG-29M as latest version had already reached 4.5 tons so that its combat radius approached to 1400 km?
The 4.5 tons is a fuel capability for none external fuel tank.
The current MiG-29M or MiG-33 whatever you call it is different than the other MiG you posted if you didn’t know.
They are still MiG-29 Fulcrum not something else, just like F-16E/F or F-16C/D as some kind of version improved from F-16.
the F-16 can carry as much fuel as that MiG if needed.
2 wing fuel tanks, 1 center tank, and 2 conformal tanks makes five and there’s still room for a2a and a2g weapons. That picture is just an F-16 in testing but production models can do the same and the F-16 has already integrated this weapons.
You want do math? let’s count it:
Your F-16I with two CFT which gives total 1.4 ton fuel plus internal fuel 3 tons. Now it has 4.4 ton. Two 2200L on inboard with 1134L under centerline, equal to 5534L, less than 6000L for MiG29. Both of internal and external fuel are less than MiG-29M.
And I am waiting to see your F-16 loading four external fuel tanks under wing for refueling mission.
And I didn’t mention the CFT disrupt the F-16I’s aerodynamic body, so it will no longer be a fighter for air-superiority as long as CFT fitted.
Is your CFT droppable? :diablo:
yes we have seen many models of mig variants before and its very easy to sling whatever weapons you want on a model. Real life is different because it takes years of software integration. Look at meteor.. or especially look how long it took India to fully get all the SU-30MKI’s weapon systems fully operational.. like the MiG-29.. there were a ton of models, mock ups, and actual aircraft with dummy weapons to show off its “POTENTIAL” but it took much longer to actually integrate the system. Secondly is the range issue.. such a load out leaves almost no room for a fuel tank except for the center pylon. If its going to do serious air to ground work then it would need at least two or perhaps 3.
not the most impressive load out, but one that’s actually real and used.
Very well. Facts speak louder than words.
Here are real, even not full load.
Now we can see that MiG-29 are able to load 4×1500L ETs and one 1650L under centerline, totally 7650L for external fuel. How many could your F-16 carry?
Does your F-16 will be able to load 4 heavy air to ground missile plus 4 M-R-AAM? If it does, show me……
lots of talk about AESA on MiG-29 but when will its development be completed? the version used in the MMRCA trials seemed to disappoint the Injuns. What you are pointing out is indeed growth but fail to see how this puts it over the F-16’s growth. The only thing I concede is that the 29 certainly should have more thrust coming out of two engines than the F-16s single glowing hole but then again the 29 is also heavier and larger.
It doesn’t matter heavier or larger but T/Wr, since the development you called, the rate of weight for F-16/52/60 grows much faster than MiG-29/35 so that deterioration on either T/Wr and Wing Load for F-16 newest version is much serious than MiG-29/35.
The total thrust for MiG-35 reaches 17 ton, but weight stay at 11 ton.
The newest powerplant gives a less 13 ton thrust for F-16 but its weight approach to 9 ton.
A almost 9 ton for weight of F-16 deteriorates the WL of F-16 also.
And here is external payload for MiG-35. what makes you think MIG-29M2 will be unable to carry big weapons while the inboard pylon occupied?
Sign In
