announced DCS MiG-29A

[sylkhan]

32 minutes ago, Wizard_03 said:

Well I wouldn't want to take the MiG up against the F-15 in BVR, amraams or no, Harli is right it's real comparison should be against early F-16s and with that in mind its actually very much the Superior aircraft. It's hands down the better daytime dogfighter. Not only can it straight up out perform the F-16 it can also out weapon it. 

Correct.

[Airhunter]

Is this thread even about the Mig-29 anymore?

[Harlikwin]

27 minutes ago, Airhunter said:

Is this thread even about the Mig-29 anymore?

 

Hey, I'm tryin to keep it on track.

 

Really the whole F15 discussion needs to go in the F15 radar thread or something. A mig29 was never designed to go head to head with the F15, rather its was the "low" of the Russian "hi-lo" mix. And in that regard it was better than the F16 (low), but unless it merged with an eagle it was gonna be outclassed, and at a guess if the F15's ECM was running the 29 wouldn't get much of a chance at BVR shot. More or less the Mig29 was a more maneuverable mig23, though again, the late models weren't terrible in BFM either. But if you look at the weapons loads, cockpits etc, you can more or less see the lineage. 

[zerO_crash]

7 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

 

Hey, I'm tryin to keep it on track.

 

Really the whole F15 discussion needs to go in the F15 radar thread or something. A mig29 was never designed to go head to head with the F15, rather its was the "low" of the Russian "hi-lo" mix. And in that regard it was better than the F16 (low), but unless it merged with an eagle it was gonna be outclassed, and at a guess if the F15's ECM was running the 29 wouldn't get much of a chance at BVR shot. More or less the Mig29 was a more maneuverable mig23, though again, the late models weren't terrible in BFM either. But if you look at the weapons loads, cockpits etc, you can more or less see the lineage. 

Wrong. Mig-29 was a point defense fighter and was supposed to go up against everything that entered its defense area that was hostile. That means everything. With F-15 operating in its area, the F-15 would be over hostile territory and thus, would not only be up against Mig-29 with GCI support, but effectively any ground AAA and SAM system. Therefore, you bet your ass that the F-15 would be out of luck in both a numerical count as well as a tactical situation, sport.

 

Worse yet, for the price of one F-15, 2-3 Mig-29's could be bought. At that point, it's a matter of numbers vs. technology. And just about every single time, numbers prove the winning factor, if tactics aren't counted. That can be seen everywhere throughout history. That's also why statements like "no F-15 has to this date been lost in air battle" (they have been lost to ground fire!) are absolutely idiotic to make. Why? Because not once in its career, has the F-15 ever entered a conflict in unfavourable numbers. It has had numerical superiority just about every single time, and that in low-intensity conflicts (air-wise). The F-15 has never been tried in war in the concept of 1 vs X (X > 1) that is often quoted as its field of play. All this stuff related to F-15 is a marketing technique designed to increase the budget spending of the air force. The idea of 1v1 is naive, especially when looking at how many F-15s there have been vs. how many "Cessnas" of the opposing force (far more F-15). Not even the Air Force believes in that scenario, its pure neccessity and desperation. At that point, a cheaper fighter would do.

 

Ultimately, just to coffin this whole discussion of "how the F-15 should still be great, when Mig-29 ASM comes", even most military pilots and commanders, when asked what they would prefer: the technologically advanced F-35 vs. more, newer and cheaper F-16/-18, they vouch for the latter. Numbers gentlemen. Additionally, there is the question of reliability in actual conflict, where the maintenance is according to war-time schedule.

 

In war, you do not get asked if you "want" to go. There are orders, and you are to obey. As has been shown before, technical innovations don't matter a least bit overall. If even to trade a Mig-29 for a F-15, it would be a decent trade, cost-wise. I see however that there are very few strategic heads in these forums, so I guess the tactical analysis is a foreign language to most here.

 

Let this remain a Mig29 thread, as the title implies.

Edited September 1, 2021 by zerO_crash

[Dudikoff]

The R-27R missile was required to outrange the AIM-7F so the MiG-29 could intercept an F-15 as well if required.

[nighthawk2174]

28 minutes ago, Dudikoff said:

The R-27R missile was required to outrange the AIM-7F so the MiG-29 could intercept an F-15 as well if required.

I believe though that the AIM-7F has somewhat superior range nothing major but enough to matter.  Especially with its APN guidance given it an edge over the R27 in energy drain.  Ignoring ECM and radar performance ofc.

Edited September 1, 2021 by nighthawk2174

[Dudikoff]

Could be, though the key word is "required". Like the MiG-29 was required to have a bigger combat radius than it ended up having.

[HWasp]

On 8/31/2021 at 11:44 AM, Dudikoff said:

 

I'm kind of dumbfounded by some contradictions between the plane and its intended role. For one, it was designed to be a cheaper counterpart to LFI (Su-27), but with twin engines, it didn't really end up that much cheaper (IIRC, around 75% of the Su-27 price). Two engines also took a toll on the range as it didn't have enough fuel for them (coupled with those auxiliary intakes to be able to operate from unprepared runways and non-composite riveted wings which limited the amount of fuel which could fit them).

 

Two, it was designed to be very maneuverable, but at the same time, it was intended to be a replacement for MiGs 21 and 23 and used in the same way - intercept a GCI assigned target and return home). Maneuverability and high off-boresight SRMs perhaps allowed it to gain a favorable position for a second attack in the merge, but I think an updated MiG-23MLD with same weapons wouldn't have fared that much worse for less money (e.g. modified canopy, automatic wing sweep control system, outer wing pylons made moveable and SRM capable, etc.). The 23 having a single engine, had a much longer combat radius and a smaller frontal RCS, not to mention a smaller silhouette in general. I would wager it was also cheaper to make and maintain.

 

MiG-29M (9.15) would have fixed a lot of the issues with the initial variant, but it would require a doctrinal change to make use of its potential.

 

 

I also think that the 29 is in a strange place regarding the high-low mix. One of the serious issues with the MiG-29 is, that the engines have low service lives and the time between overhauls is also quite low. That really makes the running costs high, having 2 engines.

 

The MiG-23 is also relatively problematic, and costly to run (MiG-21s outlived them in many ex-pact coutries), so while it is true, that more 23MLDs (if upgraded a bit) could take the early 29s role in many cases, that is still not really optimal.

 

My very subjective opinion is, that the soviets got carried away a bit after the MiG-21, and failed to develop a real successor to that fighter, a real simple, no-nonsense, single engine fighter, that is a good platform for future upgrades (has side intakes, so it can carry a proper radar, no swing wing or any other fancy stuff, small, but large enough to carry 2xR-23 sized weapons)

 

imo MiG-29M to 29A is like the F-16C to the 16A. The 29M would be THE MiG-29 if history went a different direction.

Edited September 1, 2021 by HWasp

[Max1mus]

No variant of the fulcrum is particularly more capable than an equivalent variant of a flanker. There is a reason the chinese never bought or copied it, and why it did not make it into the "top 5" of the best fighters ever on a top gun instructors list, while the flanker did. Granted, neither did the F-16, and for multirole and carrier-based operations, i could think of some reasons to pick a modernized MiG-29 instead.

[Dudikoff]

2 hours ago, HWasp said:

The MiG-23 is also relatively problematic, and costly to run (MiG-21s outlived them in many ex-pact coutries), so while it is true, that more 23MLDs (if upgraded a bit) could take the early 29s role in many cases, that is still not really optimal.

 

I agree with the other points and, yeah, the MiG-23 has a bad rep in general, but I'm wondering how justified that really is. I'm sure the earliest variants were a nightmare, but once those kinks were ironed out (from M and beyond), I would wager it was a very good interceptor, with a combination of a decent radar, weapons, speed and a very good range for its size. A lot of the bad rep seems to be coming from the Constant Peg analysis flying the initial export MS variant provided by Egypt (and UB perhaps?).

 

Regarding the ex-pact countries, most decided to keep MiG-21s temporarily as they were cheaper to overhaul, I presume, and the only mission they required was controlling the airspace, like intercepting and identifying some civilian airplanes. Also, I also kind of remember the type had a relatively short service life (in hours and years) so when that ran out, they were just withdrawn from service (e.g. Bulgaria kept theirs till 2004. apparently). For example, the service life of the MiG-23UB is supposedly only 1500 hours or 17 years.

 

Also, reading about some offers to the Indian Air Force (which operated both the fighter MiG-23s and attack MiG-27s), one limiting factor was the engines as they were not manufactured anymore, being turbojets. If India went ahead with the overhaul, they would have to have been reengined with another type.

 

I can't find any hard data on its operational and maintenance cost and stuff, but I saw on YouTube that a few are still flying in the states and their owners seem to find them reliable and relatively easy to maintain.

Edited September 1, 2021 by Dudikoff

[HWasp]

42 minutes ago, Dudikoff said:

 

I agree with the other points and, yeah, the MiG-23 has a bad rep in general, but I'm wondering how justified that really is. I'm sure the earliest variants were a nightmare, but once those kinks were ironed out (from M and beyond), I would wager it was a very good interceptor, with a combination of a decent radar, weapons, speed and a very good range for its size. A lot of the bad rep seems to be coming from the Constant Peg analysis flying the initial export MS variant provided by Egypt (and UB perhaps?).

 

Regarding the ex-pact countries, most decided to keep MiG-21s temporarily as they were cheaper to overhaul, I presume, and the only mission they required was controlling the airspace, like intercepting and identifying some civilian airplanes. Also, I also kind of remember the type had a relatively short service life (in hours and years) so when that ran out, they were just withdrawn from service (e.g. Bulgaria kept theirs till 2004. apparently). For example, the service life of the MiG-23UB is supposedly only 1500 hours or 17 years.

 

Also, reading about some offers to the Indian Air Force (which operated both the fighter MiG-23s and attack MiG-27s), one limiting factor was the engines as they were not manufactured anymore, being turbojets. If India went ahead with the overhaul, they would have to have been reengined with another type.

 

I can't find any hard data on its operational and maintenance cost and stuff, but I saw on YouTube that a few are still flying in the states and their owners seem to find them reliable and relatively easy to maintain.

 

 

I meant that about the MiG-23 regarding maintenance, running costs, low service life (as you said). I think later 23 models, ML and after are quite capable, they don't deserve the bad reputation due to the crappy MS version.

 

That being said, I think that the variable geometry design really did not help, as it has become very heavy due to it. If you've ever seen a MiG-23 standing next to a 29, the MiG-23 looks small in comparison, yet their weights are very close. I mean, I know, why they thought it was important, but still, such a complex design for something meant to be mass produced in such scales, as a main workhorse after the MiG-21... Less is sometimes better.

[Dudikoff]

1 hour ago, HWasp said:

That being said, I think that the variable geometry design really did not help, as it has become very heavy due to it. If you've ever seen a MiG-23 standing next to a 29, the MiG-23 looks small in comparison, yet their weights are very close. I mean, I know, why they thought it was important, but still, such a complex design for something meant to be mass produced in such scales, as a main workhorse after the MiG-21... Less is sometimes better.

 

I don't know, I think the variable geometry is what makes it an efficient and compact design; for example, it helps it to both land more comfortably than the MiG-21 and also to have less drag at high speeds which allows it to outperform and outrange the MiG-21 by a large margin. And I'm not sure the system increased its weight by THAT much. Keep in mind you're comparing its weight with a MiG-29 which was designed more than a decade later and thus used more advanced materials like e.g. composites.

 

Though, I do think they should have made the wing angle primarily controlled by a computer like on e.g. the F-14, at least on the later variants when electronics were more advanced.

 

Plus, I wouldn't be surprised if variable wing sweep mechanism was one of the major contributing factors to the types somewhat short service life, but that's not really an argument against the concept itself IMHO - they could have made it sturdier and longer lasting if that was more important to them than keeping its price relatively reasonable.

Edited September 1, 2021 by Dudikoff

[Wizard_03]

2 hours ago, Max1mus said:

No variant of the fulcrum is particularly more capable than an equivalent variant of a flanker. There is a reason the chinese never bought or copied it, and why it did not make it into the "top 5" of the best fighters ever on a top gun instructors list, while the flanker did. Granted, neither did the F-16, and for multirole and carrier-based operations, i could think of some reasons to pick a modernized MiG-29 instead.

Yes, and A big part of the reason its not really around much and never had the success the Su-27 family had is cost, The F-16A was in fact significantly cheaper then F-15 and could reasonably be bought in great numbers and fill the role it was intended for at least out of the box in the cold war. The MiG-29 is not cheap enough in comparison to the Su-27 which begs the question, "why would you buy a MiG-29 when you can get a lot more capability from the Su-27 for only about 25% more money?" 

 

So while it is a better jet compared to the F-16 its concept wasn't really reasonable because the Su-27 was very cost effective, and or the MiG-29 was overpriced, overkill, one or both, and IMO twin engines is the number one factor of that, F/A-18 compared to the tomcat has a similar problem. JF-17 gives us an Idea of what a single engine, modern MiG-like lightweight fighter Might look like and its quite cost effective with good enough performance.

Edited September 1, 2021 by Wizard_03

[Harlikwin]

4 hours ago, Dudikoff said:

 

I don't know, I think the variable geometry is what makes it an efficient and compact design; for example, it helps it to both land more comfortably than the MiG-21 and also to have less drag at high speeds which allows it to outperform and outrange the MiG-21 by a large margin. And I'm not sure the system increased its weight by THAT much. Keep in mind you're comparing its weight with a MiG-29 which was designed more than a decade later and thus used more advanced materials like e.g. composites.

 

Though, I do think they should have made the wing angle primarily controlled by a computer like on e.g. the F-14, at least on the later variants when electronics were more advanced.

 

Plus, I wouldn't be surprised if variable wing sweep mechanism was one of the major contributing factors to the types somewhat short service life, but that's not really an argument against the concept itself IMHO - they could have made it sturdier and longer lasting if that was more important to them than keeping its price relatively reasonable.

 

 

Well... The 23 had a pretty interesting history and development issues of its own. And even later on I think something like the CADC/wing-sweep on the F14 would have been fairly difficult for soviet engineers to retrofit to the 23 and its debatable how useful it would be in most flight regimes versus the original manual control. As for the 23 and "in-service" life it was long enough. The design philosphy of the day more or less considered that in wartime the "life" of a fighter wouldn't be all that long, and then overall service life has to be looked at in the sense that it would be replaced in service rapidly if you look at the "lifetimes" of the previous generations of migs. In retrospect maybe it wasn't the right decision, but service lives of jets from the 50's through the late 60's were relatively short before they were "outdated". But really, the main thing that killed the 23 was the collapse of the SU, they simply couldn't afford a huge airforce, so keeping up slightly outdated single engine planes like the 23 when you had more than enough modern 29's and Su-27 doomed it to an early death.

 

That being said, the mig29 as you and others have pointed out wasn't really a winner in terms of cost/performance of the SU-27 either and the small airframe didn't really lend itself to upgrades/updates as well as the 27 and you can see that being played out in both the SU, and China.. 

 

 

Edited September 1, 2021 by Harlikwin

[Hodo]

On 8/31/2021 at 7:26 AM, nighthawk2174 said:

3.5deg per bar I think i'd need to check.

Yes but this is true for all mech scans ESA's are a new game and not really pertinent to this discussion.

If you have an idea where the targets are its not an issue, plus you can always slew that volume left and right to check those areas every once and a while as well.

its not as extreme though so it does make a difference.

Still less though as many of the aircraft on the plot are in lookdown, the F15's radar also has a bunch of other usefull modes that the su27 does not have.  RAID being an example.

Rog something I've noticed is that sometimes Russian documents also make reference to the mig-21 when referencing the 3m2 value.  which its average frontal RCS over a 40deg arch is ~3m^2 but head-on its 7.4m^2.  Something to consider.

Well its the best we got considering the topic matter.

The ability to carry them means nothing if there's like 3 sets for an entire squadron.

Yeah and if the "internal fuel tank" isn't being used it carries less internal fuel.

Even with two tanks, a common loadout, the F15 is still fully capable of reaching M1.5 at high altitude.

With the AMRAAM up to 8 active missiles, and with Sparrow 4 radar and 4 heaters.  Same as the F4.

Maybe for Russian doctrine but that doesn't negate its advantages.  Having the ability to AAR allows you to stay on station for longer and to have your bases further back keeping them safer.

Except the F15 is far more capable of handling that situation than the su27.  

Still though one cloud in the way or on a poor visibility day such as a lot of smoke or humidity in the air would negate this system altogether.

Why are you comparing the F-15 to a MiG-29?  That is like comparing the F-16 to the Su-27.  One is a long range air superiority fighter.  The other is a short range light fighter.

[Hodo]

On 9/1/2021 at 11:14 AM, Wizard_03 said:

Yes, and A big part of the reason its not really around much and never had the success the Su-27 family had is cost, The F-16A was in fact significantly cheaper then F-15 and could reasonably be bought in great numbers and fill the role it was intended for at least out of the box in the cold war. The MiG-29 is not cheap enough in comparison to the Su-27 which begs the question, "why would you buy a MiG-29 when you can get a lot more capability from the Su-27 for only about 25% more money?" 

 

So while it is a better jet compared to the F-16 its concept wasn't really reasonable because the Su-27 was very cost effective, and or the MiG-29 was overpriced, overkill, one or both, and IMO twin engines is the number one factor of that, F/A-18 compared to the tomcat has a similar problem. JF-17 gives us an Idea of what a single engine, modern MiG-like lightweight fighter Might look like and its quite cost effective with good enough performance.

 

Different doctrines.

 

US doctrine was one was air superiority fighter designed to be able to kill at least four Aircraft for everyone lost.  The other was designed to provide close air support with an immediate CAP.  The F-15 was the high cover, kept safe away from the front lines.  The F-16 is the front line air cover fighter.  This is why it initially didn't have BVR missiles.  

 

The MiG-29 is designed to be used as an anti strike fighter, kill any low fast strike aircraft like the F/B-111 or B-1 or counter the F-16 dominance over the front line to allow the Su-25s to work.  

 

The Su-27 is or was Russia's answer to the F-15. 

[nighthawk2174]

53 minutes ago, Hodo said:

Why are you comparing the F-15 to a MiG-29?  That is like comparing the F-16 to the Su-27.  One is a long range air superiority fighter.  The other is a short range light fighter.

TBF it would have been the most common high tech threat to the F15 until the SU27 showed up in usable numbers in 89-91 due to production delays.  Plus this thread is about the MIG-29 and how it'd fair, and facing off against the F15 is part of that.

[Harlikwin]

35 minutes ago, nighthawk2174 said:

TBF it would have been the most common high tech threat to the F15 until the SU27 showed up in usable numbers in 89-91 due to production delays.  Plus this thread is about the MIG-29 and how it'd fair, and facing off against the F15 is part of that.

 

I mean its fair to theorize since it would have been a top tier threat to the F15 prior to the introduction of the SU-27. Still, it wasn't ever really designed to go after F15's specifically so that makes most arguments go like, well the F15 is better, well yes it is cuz the 29 wasn't really built with the purpose of engaging them with parity since that was the 27's job. Could a 29 do ok vs an F15, the answer it depends on alot of thigs. If it managed to get within WVR I think it would be fine as the superiority of HMS equipped 29s vs F16s was demonstrated post cold war. BVR, well, thats where it sorta falls apart for the 29 since its got worse radar, ECM, and missiles, but frankly if the F15's are outnumbered, which was likely, then some fighters are gonna make it to the merge and then its game over for the 15. This was why the AAMRAM and launch and leave capabilities were developed. 

 

[Wizard_03]

TBH I think the possibility of encountering F-15s in a hypothetical war was much much higher then F-16s for the MiG-29 both fulcrum and viper have short range and a defensive mindset so unless both sides air bases are extremely close to each other I don't see it happening as much as dealing with F-15s who like Su-27s are much more suited to OCA and are going to be trying to take control of airspace.

 

Similar situation in Vietnam with F-4s and MiG-21s the real comparison against the MiG-21 should be the F-8/F-100 but because both of those aircraft are basically short range day fighters and have very much the same missions in mind, you really don't see them going up against 21s too much, whereas the F-4 has the range and sensor package to take the fight into the enemies airspace. Which is exactly what happened. 

 

Apples and oranges but The comparison is very relevant, in my mind.

Edited September 7, 2021 by Wizard_03

[Harlikwin]

Just now, Wizard_03 said:

TBH I think the possibility of encountering F-15s in a hypothetical war was much much higher then F-16s for the MiG-29 both fulcrum and viper have short range and a defensive mindset so unless both sides air bases are extremely close to each other I don't see it happening as much as dealing with F-15s who like Su-27s are much more suited to OCA and are going to be trying to take control of airspace.

 

Similar situation in Vietnam with F-4s and MiG-21s the real comparison against the MiG-21 should be the F-8/F-100 but because both of those aircraft are basically short range day fighters and have very much the same missions in mind but you don't see them going up against 21s too much, whereas the F-4 has the range and sensor package to take the fight into the enemies airspace. Which is exactly what happened. 

 

Apples and oranges but The comparison is very relevant, in my mind.

 

Yeah and in that case the F15's would be pushing into IADS defended airspace, so 29's or even 23's would be used to ambush them alot like VN. True the F15 would have far better SA on its own cuz that was one lesson that came out of it. So likely they would have faced coordinated waves of attacks usually with radars off till the last second. At least thats what I recall reading out of the mi23 manuals. 

[GGTharos]

38 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

but frankly if the F15's are outnumbered, which was likely,

 

Why?  There were plenty of F-16s and F-4s present.

 

38 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

then some fighters are gonna make it to the merge and then its game over for the 15. This was why the AAMRAM and launch and leave capabilities were developed. 

 

Not at all.  'Some fighters' may well be inside the AMR and the sight isn't everything.  It's an advantage, but not once you're outnumbered. 

[Harlikwin]

1 hour ago, GGTharos said:

 

Why?  There were plenty of F-16s and F-4s present.

 

I mean, the Mig29 was superior to those two platforms at that time. Plus Warpac airforces outnumbered nato by a good margin, PLUS doctrinally they planned to use that numbers advantage to outnumber NATO in engagements. I mean one can never say who would have been right, but in every actual conflict thats been fought the western forces quantitatively and qualitatively outnumbered russian sponsored ones, so its pretty meaningless to draw too many conclusions from it. 

 

1 hour ago, GGTharos said:

 

 

Not at all.  'Some fighters' may well be inside the AMR and the sight isn't everything.  It's an advantage, but not once you're outnumbered. 

 

[TLTeo]

14 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

Plus Warpac airforces outnumbered nato by a good margin

Out of curiosity, how many of those aircraft were actually Mig-29s in the late 80s? I would expect that the Fulcrums on their own likely did not outnumber whatever NATO had, but the Fulcrums plus Fishbeds, Floggers, Foxbats and Fitters definitely would. Those two are very very different scenarios (and the latter is far more complex), and equating them is highly misleading.

[Harlikwin]

15 minutes ago, TLTeo said:

Out of curiosity, how many of those aircraft were actually Mig-29s in the late 80s? I would expect that the Fulcrums on their own likely did not outnumber whatever NATO had, but the Fulcrums plus Fishbeds, Floggers, Foxbats and Fitters definitely would. Those two are very very different scenarios (and the latter is far more complex), and equating them is highly misleading.

 

Of course they weren't all 29's. And it depends highly on the year. Wiki gives a 1600+ produced number, and given the subsequent collapse of the Russian economy, I'd guess most of those were built in the 80's so thats a fair number of mig29's which given the Soviets penchant for mass-production of airframes makes sense. I don't think any Soviet frontline fighter forces were using the 21 in the 80's or at least not in an air to air role they were mostly 23/29/25/31 and SU-27 etc. Looking at the ORBAT's for them the soviets were at least 50/50 in terms of their mig29/23 balance in the mid/late 80s with a fair number of 27's as well. But warprac airforces still were a mix of 21,23,29 at the time. Then again, NATO was a mix of F4's, F104's, F16's, tornados etc and the USAF F15's.   

Edited September 7, 2021 by Harlikwin

[GGTharos]

26 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

I mean, the Mig29 was superior to those two platforms at that time.

 

That it was in certain ways.   Fighters like the F-15 back then were the force multipliers.

 

26 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

Plus Warpac airforces outnumbered nato by a good margin,

 

Yes, but I have doubts wrt their sortie generation.

 

26 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

PLUS doctrinally they planned to use that numbers advantage to outnumber NATO in engagements. I mean one can never say who would have been right, but in every actual conflict thats been fought the western forces quantitatively and qualitatively outnumbered russian sponsored ones, so its pretty meaningless to draw too many conclusions from it. 

 

As far as history goes, I think this is a great resource for a start:  https://www.nato.int/cps/fr/natohq/declassified_138256.htm