Exsqueeze me? The same role as the Su-27 and MiG-25?
The Su-27 had its first flight May of 1977. The MiG-29 had its first flight October of 1977. The MiG-29 was most definately not designed with the Su-27 in mind at all. The Su-27 is considerably larger than the MiG-29.

And the MiG-25, I have no idea where you even got that from. The MiG-25 is an interceptor that was, as a matter of fact, designed to shoot down the XB-70 and XF-108. It is not a dogfighter at all. It was used to shoot down bombers and the MiG-25U was adapted for reconnaissance.'

And lastly, althought the MiG-29 may now have an in-flight refueling system, Russia has an unbelievably small number of tanker aircraft.

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
I am not out to defend Russia or America, I am out for the Truth, what this site is all about...I find it hard to believe that the Russians, the ones who make the best missile systems in the world, the same systems that shot down the U-2 spy plane could be so inferior just a few decades later...

Only a few decades earlier? Its been almost 43 years since a U-2 was shot down. The USSR always had very good SAM and air-air missiles - but given that their economy and goverment collapsed 15 years ago I don't see how it is so hard believe that they no longer have the best equipment. Especially when the one success in combat you have to point to was over 40 years ago....

The Patriot is the best SAM in the world, no question about it. The Russians may still have some very competitive air-air missiles, but any superiority is debateable.

Yes, but the Patriot is only meant for missiles, is it not? I had thought that we just kind of relied on having air superiority.

Originally posted by XB70
Yes, but the Patriot is only meant for missiles, is it not? I had thought that we just kind of relied on having air superiority.

It's designed to be capable of shooting down missiles, but is perfectly capable of defending against any air threat...

My statement was accurate since 40 years is 4 decades, hence a few decades, not a couple of decades...

The AA-11 (Archer) and AA-12 (Adder) were designed in the 1980's when the cold war was still going on, they still had adequat funding...

I'm going on what little information I could find on the conflict. By all indications, the Mig-29 armed with Archers and Adders did not perform well.

Now, I'm not saying its definite. I couldn't find much on any of this. If you can find something to the contrary, I'd love to see it.

I personally don't put much real confidence in Russian equipment. The electronics have never been on par with the West's. It's that way with all avionics, so why would missiles be some exception?

I suppose you are right, after ProteinX' post I am sadly convinced Russia isn't that great anymore...

This is a first, i'm resting my defense for Russia...

I'll always love their cool looking stuff...will always be the best option for poorer countries...

-sighs-

^^Which Proteinx' post??!!
Don't let hime get t oya man!! you got to fight the good fight!!

Other forum, he admitted that the Ruski's are still (Far) behind Western technology...I take a Russian's word for it since they live there...

Thats no reason to change your views mate. I know Brits who say the Typhoon is Garbage and Americans who say the Raptor is a waste of money, living there doesn't give you 100% accuracy any more than the rest of us

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
Other forum, he admitted that the Ruski's are still (Far) behind Western technology...I take a Russian's word for it since they live there...

Proteinx is not Russian..
Who ever told you that!!
He's a Chicom!! And a aowdy one at that!!

I just started seeing loads of articles that russian missle tech is 10+ years more advanced then western then this come up.

I'am very bed english i make translat.
More stuff then this i don't see any where, At you a bird in a head from monitors? Our pilots were only in Korea.Data not demanding checks - " any plane mig 15 has not received damages ".
Yours fantoms and all fighters aircraft was cleaned out there at once as soon as her have, most all crushed. Only do not cry. Tthere was no even an idea about that to lose there though the unique fighter (From USSR guaverm.). On mine you Fantoms have stopped to fly in Korea in some weeks when already it has been brought down more half. Never more Soviet the pilot took part in what or other conflicts, Such bosh I still never heard. And the best system air defense - C 400, that it.

You and will invest your system of air defence Patriot but so never and do not receive working system the machine. I congratulate you, this nonsense 90 years proceed still with '. And plane MIG MFI the best the, invisible being than Raptor if to trust the main designer of this technics. And i am realy belive me so. And still that Mig 29 finds out B 2 equally on a background of the ground and in air.
Also believe me Mig 29 old radar, and here new - on modernized versions mig-29 " and su 27sm and later versions, much more luchshchie. Mig mfi even more luchshchie, and maybe ther is real best r.. Quiet dream.
And, we get good rocets. and i am realy get took about it , but i 'm realy thired so . .... God bye
i am sorry,
that I, realy bed write on english looser's

^^^
Somebody helpme out with that..!!

stupids arguments.....again



Kyle

And besides...which is rarely, if ever, acknowledged on this forum, the F-15C has been, and still is the unmatched air superiority fighter in numbers, range

BVR vs short range missiles, sparrows keept at save distance the exported mig21 and mig23 without BVR

Hockeyguy

While the F-16 was not designed for high-end BVR engagements, it outclasses the MiG-29 anyday of the week. The MiG-29 has bad radar, terrible human interface, and it lacks more advanced BVR missiles. The Fulcrum is absolutley worthless in BVR combat.

the f16 radar is not comparable with the mig29-Mirage 2000-f18 , the fulcrum problems of the search angle is solved with mechanical sistems, saying that the f16 have BVR only by Amraams and that very,very overrated radar is like to say that mig21bison have BVR with AA10, who told you that the f16 have better wing load??

AA10 and Amraam are equivalent, btw aa10 have modular heads(IR-pasive-active radar)

AESA is a good tech but again (like those "miracle" techs) is overrated

Archer, the first missile with TVC.......overrated???...thats stupid, the etiopia problems was mainly the use of su27 ,an completely better fighter in doghfight than the mig29, with better range radar(tactics)

XB-70

And the MiG-25, I have no idea where you even got that from. The MiG-25 is an interceptor that was, as a matter of fact, designed to shoot down the XB-70 and XF-108. It is not a dogfighter at all

again with that, the foxbat g limit is 5gs at +M2, the problem is that always that plane had been compared with the sr71, so the discussion was always about high supersonic performance, but the plane have a good dogfighter capacity (as the gulf war showed), but no so good as f16-mig29, also it have problems off energy lose at sea level due the sharped leading edge


the mig29 have a better performance at instant-sustained medium-low subsonic speeds ,i remember an comparation graph in wich showed the f16 as the winner in sustained turn, but the analysis was done without drag coheficient for the f16 calcule, nice...not??

in vertical turn (instant-sustained), roll the f16 is the best

in horizontal turn (instant-sustained),climb,AoA,true power output (r33-0.4-0.5 bypass vs f100-110 0.8-0.95 bypass) not theoric T/W, heigh performance(medium-high) ,enery lose save, the mig29 is better

[edit on 21-1-2005 by grunt2]

You can keep doubting American equipment all you want. It has beaten Russian equipment every time in real combat, and in plenty of exercises. F-18/F-16's have beaten the Mig-29 in exercises with good pilots. What kind of track record does Russia's equipment have in real combat besides getting destroyed by Western technology?

You can keep doubting American equipment all you want. .......... What kind of track record does Russia's equipment have in real combat besides getting destroyed by Western technology?

BEST ACES AMOUNT IN THE KOREAN WAR, about the exersices, well the mig29 have done a good work, thats public

[edit on 21-1-2005 by grunt2]

Originally posted by grunt2

You can keep doubting American equipment all you want. .......... What kind of track record does Russia's equipment have in real combat besides getting destroyed by Western technology?

BEST ACES AMOUNT IN THE KOREAN WAR

The Americans also had a 10-1 kill ratio in the Korean War. Not exactly something to brag about if you were on the other side.

the true kill ratio (objetive analisis without propaganda) was 3-5 to 1,america wining, thats because you count korean pilots, but the honchos performance was the best in the war, even more if you consider the little cuantify of russians pilots asignated to the war

[edit on 21-1-2005 by grunt2]

the true kill ratio (objetive analisis without propaganda) was 3-5 to 1,america wining, thats because you count korean pilots, but the honchos performance was the best in the war, even more if you consider the little cuantify of russians pilots asignated to the war

You only have to look at who had air superiority. The numbers went to Russia's side. They had the technology advantage. The only reason their were so many Russian aces is because they were able to come into the war with vastly superior technology and shoot down P-51's.

The F-86 Sabre is claimed to have had a 14:1 kill ratio against Russian Mig-15's.

So, if we compare what happened when the technology was even, the Americans by far outperformed the Russians.