My dad was a naval aviator. After seeing harriers for ages we got Russian jets for the first time, no one was happier than the fighter Bois. Some Indian pilots have more hours on the mig than Russian ones.
С появлением гиперзвуковых ракет , в случае военного конфликта, весь авианосный флот превращается в огромные железные гробы в считанные минуты. Касаемо "Адмирала Кузнецова", то не надо путать его с авианосцем. Это авианесущий КРЕЙСЕР, то есть в отличие от плавучих аэродромов США, которые не способны себя самостоятельно защищать, "Адмирал Кузнецов" - это самостоятельная боевая единица. Прежде чем пытаться шутить над Россией, я рекомендую изучить историю России. Планета уже разговаривала на французском языке, потом на немецком. Сегодня самый популярный язык - английский.
It's a little bit funny, since the footage they show concurrently is an accurate depiction. As far as I recall, the US is the only country that uses catapults for launch. Catapults are considered to tempermental, expensive, etc.
@@rsmac11when ussr developed their aircraft they tried to develop steam catapult but problem is that vessel should have operated in up to -40 c. Hot water instantly freezes in such temperatures. That's why Soviet carriers don't have them
Yes it had to have tugs Because of brake downs. Also you never see a fully armed carrier aircraft tack off no wing tanks poor range, No cat ether or aerial refueling.
@@DB.scale.models The lack of a catapult by a nation that can't field the F-35B nor manufacture its own S/TOVL is an issue, but not a fatal one, however Russia would lack any semblance of fifth-gen capability in its fleet, relegating them to point defense from the air rather than strike or interdiction, which the U.S., U.K. and France can carry out with relative ease. The carrier itself essentially burning down twice is a much bigger issue, lol.
@@VisibilityFoggy Do u automatically think that anyone who possesses an aircraft carrier and a few 5th gen jets on its deck(or below) is a God almighty and can win any conflict or war?! God give me strength!! That's why all you yanks are so bloody naive!!! It's a crazy amount of money that Russia couldn't fork out for it's navy alone, but even if they did, they never would have!!! It's only yanks that pour in those gazillions of dollars into their forces and then start wars to repay all that debt hole somehow!! Meanwhile, Russia was making alternative to the carrier weapons, or shall I say, weapons to annihilate your carrier groups!! Bloody yanks, you never learn!! Always want to shout at the top of the world: look at us, we are the best(they think), the best weapons, the best this and the best that!! You know what?! You have forgotten how to be decent people and look at other nations with respect! But all that is going to bite you in the ass one day, and very soon I think! Carrier groups... don't make me laugh m8!
The Indian Ministry of defence isn't "Atmanirbhar Bharat". Thats a motto used by the current government, meaning "self-sufficient India". The Indian MoD is just "The Ministry of Defence".
U cant just build everything within 10 years in india. UNITED STATES , UK , France and Germany has been building tanks and planes from world war 1 . How developed their industries are as of now.
@@pratiknath1712is true but these are like first steps towards developing an independent defence industry, giving a lot of people employment in factories, and at the same time developing custom solutions to our custom problems.
The Mig29 was designed to take on the F-16 not the F-18. They are both land based fighter designs. The 29 was adapted for carrier use. The F-18 was designed from the start to be a carrier aircraft
@@ZombiedustXXX Murder hornet. And yes the fact that the 29 and 33 cannot launch with full fuel and weapons limits them severely. Where the hornet can be loaded down and chucked off the carrier.
The MiG-29 was one of those planes that could have been a great fighter had it gotten actual decent avionics and a proper armament fit. At least the Su-27 got multiple upgrades to its design and the latest derivatives are actually quite potent fighters.
The F-16 is exemplary of the "too rich" American attitude. It is a "do-it-all" plane. But what happens when you have to fix it all? It requires specialized maintenance and lots if it to keep doing it all. The maintenance crews need to bge highly trained. The MiG and Saabs were designed for easy, quick and barnyard maintenance. To keep them flying would require NATO personnel in Ukraine with all that implies. Any idea of how that will go over? LIke a roast beef dinner at a Vegan convention.And the US record of victory in serious conflicts: Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, is not enviable. We've stuck our neck out good and proper in Ukraine. If this goes south, how do we remove the "loser" label and how will the Russians respond? Winners write history, losers write melancholy poetry in a lonely room
The SU-27 was designed for that, the Mig-29 was always intended as a cheap radar-guided interceptor, much like the Mig-21 The Mig-35 has changed all that, but its unclear why anyone would chose it over better Su-35s which arent much more expensive
@@KekusMagnus Many believe the MiG-29 was designed specifically to counter the F-16A, with (by the standards of the day) much improved performance and better radar than the MiG-21 or even MiG-23. it was when the F-16C with its sophisticated radar system arrived that the MiG-35 was developed much later with its improved radar.
@@SpacePatrollerLaser Interesting misreading. Are you sure you are part of "we"? Because only Russians pretend the US is really doing much for Ukraine. The US won the Korean War - the Chinese trained and Soviet equipped North had invaded. Notice the border is now in the same place it started. In Vietnam there were about 58K US deaths to 1M North Vietnamese and Vietcong deaths. That was a lack of political will. Militarily the US could have stayed there forever. Iraq never won that war, the US lost the occupation. Also not a military loss. Afghanistan - in 20 years the US lost about 1.4K. In contrast in 10 years the Soviets admitted to 15K lost, but the real numbers might be 30k+. The thing about insurgency is that if won't do ethnic cleaning, you can be outlasted though not outfought. In Ukraine the US didn't stick it's neck out. The US supplied weapons. And Russians are dying. It's hard to see how they generate any large amount of offensive power after this. They aren't really replacing lost equipment. I wonder, if the US supplies Ukraine for another 2 years if Russians can stand it.
@@SpacePatrollerLaser militarily speaking, in terms of losses, casualties, effectiveness and tactics, the undeniable fact is that the US armed forces utterly decimates their opposition in first contact BUT, after a while the effective commanders get replaced and policy regarding occupation/invasion/retaliation changes because of political and economical interests and then like "magic" the effectiveness on the ground plummets overnight, compare the first gulf war with the invasion of iraq in 2003, same shit happened in afghanistan, in only took 6 months to practically get rid of taliban presence in afghanistan, but when the policy changed at the mark of iirc 8 months, taliban forces "suddenly" started retaliating and i dont even have to explain how terrible was vietnam politically for the armed forces and the US govt of course, the US is not an invincible force that doesnt make mistakes, but the military strenght perse is near undefeatable in real life, but just like everything, politicians hold the chain and steer it to the ground because of ignorance and corruption tl.dr the US armed forces rarely actually lose in combat but the politicians fuck everything up
It's a very good plane that was never meant to be launched from a carrier, nor operated by complete idiots, as it historically has been. In the hands of a skilled pilot with equivalent training hours to NATO pilots, the Fulcrum is an excellent plane for what it was designed to do. Unfortunately, many were sold to poor countries or pariah dictatorships whose pilots did not know how to actually use them, making their air-to-air records poor. Had the East Germans or Poles used them in combat, they would have likely been very effective when combined with proper AEW and support. The USAF was fairly impressed when they acquired a fleet of them from Moldova after the Cold War ended. Interestingly, the USAF donated that fleet to Ukraine to be used for parts in the current conflict.
@@newdefsysProbably true. On the other hand, if it's an ally then the rule "if you aren't willing to call an air strike on your own position then you're not willing to win" applies. Friendly fire is the friendliest of all of the fires. /j
The video was spot-on here, but the information was not. The Indians are absolutely fed up with their MiG-29Ks and decided to replace them. The competition was between the Super Hornet, Rafale-M and a theoretical variant of the Gripen known as the Gripen-M. Eventually, it came down to the Super Hornet and Rafale-M, and the Rafale-M won the competition, which made sense since the IAF had previously ordered land-based Rafales. Both the Super Hornet and Rafale-M were designed for catapult launch, however both were tested successfully in ski-jump configuration. Also, the Su-33 is largely a disaster. It is a heavy fighter that can barely make it off the jump unless its loadout is significantly reduced. That is not to take anything away from the Flanker - it is a spectacular airframe and great platform - but it had no business being navalized. The weight of the airframe is at least partially why the USN's F-14 was replaced by the lighter Super Hornet, and why the F-15 was never selected to be navalized. In reality, NEITHER the Su-33 nor MiG-29K were ideal for Russia. They had hoped the Yak-41 project would materialize to compete with the Harrier, however the funds were never there, even after some partnerships with American defense contractors after the Cold War helped the project along.
Actually, there was once proposal (two authors doing numbers, nothing official) to licence build Flankers for US Navy - basically license airframe and stuff with US engines and avionics :D Problem is, that Kuznetsov has never been full CATOBAR carrier.
@@TheDrummingWarriorThere is a in flight refueling option for the MiG 29 (PAZ-MK Refuelling Pod I think) originally intended for the 29K in question here. The base models don’t have one though, it’s an add-on.
Over the last few years the Indian navy has said their 29's have under performed do to engine reliability issues. This is why the MiG 35 nor any Sukhoi were considered during the last round of foreign aircraft purchases by India.
Those are not purchased from Russia since they gave HAL (Hindustan Aeronautics Limited) full technology transfer so they are purchased from HAL and manufactured in India, im fairly sure they have upgraded engines.
@@amritbhatiani8100 They buy kits in Russia and build planes from those. Upgraded engines? Compared to what? They have what Su-30MKI have had for a decade or something
@@ГеоргийМурзич not exactly... chasis is made in nashik india, engine is made by HAL, custom radars are delivered by israeli firm elbit joint venture in india, missiles are delivered by french... custom MBDA and israeli rafael group which are made in india ofcourse by joint venture... cocpits and electrical systems are handeled by BDL... and fly by wire with mission control is also handled by BDL....😂 so i don't think we need kits or something... we even make the wings for the f16s and body panels, we don't even use f16s... unlike US and russia everything we use is custom made and tailored by our own engineers using them as base and sometimes they also effect the original product of the country of origin... like su30mki was designated to india only but russia inducted them later after india since our custom made plane was better.... similarly the f16s used by US are actually fitted by isarel IAI and customised making them more advanced than US original works... russia uses the same approach with india like US uses with israel... they make it and we provide support in better engineering... russia can't ask to china since they lack the engineering in foundation level.... hope it answered the questions...
@@ГеоргийМурзич Russia forced India to buy the Mig-29K as part of the package for the aircraft carrier Gorshkov purchase. Russia needed to keep Mig afloat somehow as it was not getting orders. India desperately needed a carrier to replace it's aging one. Gorshkov was a heavy Soviet helicopter cruiser converted into a carrier with all the Sandbox cruise missiles removed and a ski jump runway paved over it. India did not want the Mig-29K as it was experimental. Even Russia did not want the Mig-29K for its carrier operations. What IN should have done is decline the Mig-29K but purchase an equivalent amount of other weapons to make up for it. In any case, what is done is now done. Hopefully IN won't have to rely on foreign plane purchases once the indigenously developed TEDBF aircraft comes into service.
What's funny and sad, is that the Indians actually have aircraft carriers that this jet can operate from, while the Russian Navy is its one embarrassing, eternally broke down, joke of a carrier that is never out of dry dock.
Honestly, in terms of the ultimate role for the plane, the MiG-29 is the Russian F/A-18. The F-16 is a match for air-to-air roles, but really, the Fulcrum is much more like the Hornet.
The F-15 and F -14 will forever be my Golden age aircraft and the two most influential aircraft’s EVER. those two aircraft have made more people fans of aviation, and probably any two other aircraft ever.
The mig 29 was designed to counter the original F-16. The original F-16 was designed as a rather low tec companion of the F-15 and the design philosophy was heavily influenced by lightweight soviet fighters like the mig-21. You have to remember that the F-16A had basically no BVR capabilities and a very limited load out. It was designed as a shortrange dogfighter with very limited ground attack capabilities. Only the later blocks became this multirolle monster that we are familiar today. The mig-29 was designed to counter the early F-16 and had quite a few advantages over it..... like better BVR capabilities and being multirolle from the ground up. The avionics of the mig-29 and the EARLY F-16 where actualy quite comparable. Also maneuverability whise the two where quite compatible. So what is the diverence? The F-16 was upgraded throughout the whole of its operational live while the development of the MiG-29 basically froze in the early 90's. A modern fully upgraded F-16 would eat any 1980s F-16 alive....
Not true, if that were correct, the F-16A would not have been given the Pulse doppler radar, or the Aim-7 upgraded to the Aim 120 as soon as was possible. It was designed from the outset as a lightweight fighter, but not without the same capabilities of the F-14 and F-15....due to the Capabilities of the F-16, when the F-17 lost the light weight fighter contract, Nortrop incooperated all the design upgrades from the F-16 into the new F/A-18...like totally ntergrated HOTAS/HUD, fly-by-wire and many other capabilities. Semper Fi
@randymarine im sorry, but you seem to be misinformed.... the F-16 was not planned with the same capability as the F-15 or F-14..... the whole point of its development being the creation of something much simpler and cheaper. Also, the F-16 was a pure day and fair weather fighter in the beginning, getting its all-weather capability later. The F-16 was not chosen over its competitors for its better electronics, but for having better range and the fact that it used the same engine as the F-15, making it cheaper and easier to maintain in the long run. The upgrades you mentioned were exactly that, upgrades with capabilities it did not initially possess. Did these upgrades come quite quickly? For sure But the came not because the plane was designed that way from the outset but because the airforce couldn't help adding whatever money can buy whenever there is a chance. For sure, that approach turned out to be correct, and resulted in one of the most successful all-weather multirolle fighters ever but that was not what the plane was designed to be in the beginning and not what it was originally chosen for. The F-16 was designed as a pure dogfighter, based on the energy retention theory, for day and fair weather use only. That was what the MiG-29 was designed to counter. My sources? Tons of aviation literature from the 1980s up to today and interviews with those involved in the design process.
yes ... but the current generation upgraded mig 29 K made specifically for India and came into this world only due to the indian investment is class apart and surpasses f 16 f 15 n F 19 hornet as naval carrier based fighter ...
@same-fm1qu while I really like the MiG-29 and think it is highly underrated, I have my doubts that the MiG-29K is able to actually compete with the planes you mentioned on equal terms..... If it really was that good, there would be little reason to phase it out in favor of the Rafale. I guess the MiG-35 could potentially compete, but I'm afraid that was too little too late
@@same-fm1quWell the F15 can't be used for carrier operations because the proposed naval variant would have been heavier than an F14. The F16 was never considered for carrier operation because it was a single engine fighter (F35 was accepted only because the engine reliability was promised to be much higher than it is). Could a MiG-29K outperform an F18A/C? Depending on radar and armament, I think the MiG-29K would beat it in many categories, they're very comparable aircraft. But could a MiG-29K outperform a more relevant F18E? Not a chance. In a straight up dogfight, I believe the MiG-29K would win. But the MiG-29K would never get anywhere near close enough that the manuverability would matter. The F18E boasts superior radar and missiles, a smaller RCS, and most importantly; an EW support aircraft of the same type. If you consider what russia has focused on in fighter development, the answer becomes very clear. In all air superiority fighters, they prioritize manuverability, notably the Su-27/35 and MiG-29 series. Now you can make an argument that because these are fighters that were developed in the 70s, they were designed to dogfight, and so any further upgrades would just inherently retain that ability. However, the Su-35 is actually MORE manuverable than the Su-27, which means they're continuing to focus on that trait. Furthermore, the Su-57, their latest fighter, has ALSO focused heavily on manuverability. Meanwhile, their advances in stealth coatings, stealth form factor, engine reliability, range, electronics (radar particularly), have all progressed so slowly that they're clearly secondary priorities. Whereas with western fighters, manuverability is a secondary priority, while radar technology, stealth coatings, and electronic warfare are prioritized. Russia envisions a future where air victories happen in dogfights. The west has created a future in which dogfights are obsolete. Russia's airforce is designed to engage older RUSSIAN and Soviet fighters (thus the increased manuverability and lower priority on radar and stealth) The west's airforce is designed to engage modern russian fighters (thus the focus on being able to shoot down a fighter before it even knows you are there)
The F-16 has a 92:13 kill/loss ratio, with MiG 29 having a 16:28 kill/loss ratio. F-16's have shot down MiG 29' but not the reverse. The 29 is mediocre aircraft.
That many weapon stations, but how many can be loaded and still take off from the carrier? Does it also take off with a full fuel load or a partial fuel load? My guess would be a partial fuel load with the ski jump.
A family friend bought one and got it in flying shape, and immediately sold it to Paul Allen, I never understood why he tried to get it here in Washington after Chinese customs held everything for over a year, he worked so hard to get it here and get it flying to instantly sell it. He is a notorious world War 2 radial engine enthusiast, so perhaps the jets were too out of his wheel house
I always had a dream of becoming a fighter pilot, it saddens me I was in arms reach of possibly being able to go up in an actual fighter that is basically russias f-15
Would a more appropriate comparison not be the F/A-18 with the Mig-29K?After all, the F/A-18 evolved from he original YF-17 design from the lightweight fighter competition.
Russia makes some beautiful birds! The F-14 Tomcat is one of my favorite U.S. fighters/Interceptors but the Russians have some real beauty’s as well!! Their SU-35 is absolutely gorgeous! I love heavy fighters!!💥💥💥
Birdstrike. The suicidal and vicious nature of groups of marine chickens must not be underestimated. More seriously, though, I can imagine objects being left on deck of a carrier by accident. Still hard time picturing how that would help.
I'll give the Russians this. After the M29 they sure started making some pretty airplanes. I know they're not as good as the USA's are but they are prettier lol. Like the SU57 they might have only made less than 20 of them and their engines never worked so they placed engines from other fighters in them that did NOT achieve what that aircraft was supposed to do the plane is quite a beautiful aircraft!! That being said I'm glad it doesn't work!!
It is still more aerodynamically efficient airframe than Su-35, with identical thrust/weight ratio. New engines are not necessary, we can treat it like Su-35 with stealth.
@@peceed I recently read an article in the National Interest / The Buzz that quoted the SU 57 was LESS maneuverable than the F22 and and the radar cross section of the 57 was low but the heat signicture was very high for a 5th Gen fighter and it would be easy for the Raptor to track and shoot down and not so easy the other way around. This is one article so who knows. We go to church with a guy who flew the F14s for the Navy and my 13yr old son works in his wife's stables on weekends and summers. Talking with him about the F22 he said the world would be SHOCKED if they knew everything that plane could do aerobaticly and which is crazy because it can shoot everything down 100-150 miles away. Who knows!? Best Regards
@@Ricksjustice A lot of maneuverability comes from stronger engines, so it has to be true. But aerodynamic part is better in Su-57. Stealth is not finished project, they are developing better coatings, so I do not expect big differences that comes from design. The problems can can come from manufacturing and technology. I suspect that F-22 has excelent aerodynamics - it is double cranked delta like J-35 Draken had, just part of it is "constituted by fuselage". F-35 is winning dogfights against F-16.
@Ricksjustice, the RCS OF SU57 is 0.01m2 to 0.006m2. See on quora named Jack what is the RCS of SU57. Also, when it comes BVR (beyond visual range). F22 Raptor radar can detect the SU57 at the range of 40 nm (50 miles) in 0.01m2 on radar and whereas in full stealth configuration on F22 radar can be detected of 25 nm (35 miles) in 0.006m2 on radar. Whereas SU57 radar can detect the F22 raptor at the range of 20 nm (30 miles), only 20~5 miles difference. But there are some advantages that are there on SU57, that F22 raptors don't have it, such as modern sensor suites and superior electronic warfare. That makes the SU57 a better advantage to counter strike and can even challenge the F22 raptor in BVR match, too. So SU57 is not a joke.
@@heatblast876 I was quoting the magazine article I gave you. I am not the Authority on either aircraft. Saying that one nation has almost 200 F22s and Russia has only constructed less than 20 57s and all that you told me really means nothing if one plane can target the others heat signicture much easier then the other can when neither can track that well with radar or sensors!! I am not here to argue all these aircraft are amazing machines with the exception of anything the Chinese make. Thieves with no honor have never gotten it right yet!! Best Regards
@@Andy-P Not the carrier. I believe it will never be rebuilt. At least not by Russia. Not to say they won't build one, but the wreck they have is nigh unworkable.
A couple of questions I have comes from some other video I watched a while ago regarding the engines of Russian military aircraft. Do the engines have a very short service life as opposed to American ones? Also, do those engines have to be sent back to Russia for their servicing and refurbing? I believe that the US manufactured engines are sent back to them for servicing, but they often place a facility near the client to do this, resulting in much shorter turnaround cycles. Have also heard it is much more difficult and time consuming to remove the engines from some Russian fighters with the F22s it can be done in around half an hour. Not sure of the truths here, just things I have read around the place.
"Have also heard it is much more difficult and time consuming to remove the engines from some Russian fighters with the F22s it can be done in around half an hour." *If* that is true about the F-22, that is a single aircraft, and not representative of US aircraft as a whole. American aircraft tend to require highly-skilled mechanics, and require more work than Soviet / Russian aircraft, as a general rule. Read about Operation Paperclip, which details the excellent readiness rate of the tested MiG-21 (F-13 model, I think), compared to contemporary US fighters. Mostly it just needed very basic maintenance, such as changing the oil, etc. The best modern example of ease of maintenance is probably the JAS 39 Gripen, which can be serviced by a few people in 30 min by a small and relatively unskilled ground crew. The single engine is super-easy to remove and replace (engine rebuilding to be done elsewhere, afaik). This is a necessity, because in a war, Gripens would be dispersed around the country (hidden in forests, etc.) with minimal crew, using roads for airstrips, preventing a single big loss from enemy attacks. Afaik, Soviet/Russian aircraft were generally designed to be easy to work on by relatively unskilled ground crew. There were a few exceptions, notably the MiG-19 (which ground crew hated), and possibly the MiG-23 / MiG-27 family. IIRC, you are correct that Soviet / Russian fighter engines (at least modern ones) do not tend to have as long of a total life with overhauls, etc., compared to western engines.
@@burnttoast111 Operation Paperclip was the American program to capture and recruit the German intellectuals, scientist, engineers, etc. (some of whom had members of the nazi-party) at the end of WW2. Right?
I think you meant the title to read 'Not Going Away Soon', rather than 'Not Going Anywhere Soon'. Still, 'Not Going Anywhere Soon' is probably more apt consider the 29's actual combat record.
Why compare a land based F-16 to a navy based Mig 29? Should have compared it to the F-18. You would have a lot less "howevers" in your comparison video.
4:08 the standard Mig-29 also has a multifunction radar (depends on your definition of multifunction), color HUD, HOTAS controls, AA missiles, the ship missiles were indeed new and the standard mig 29 also has the retractable inlets. I like your content but in this video you sound like you didn't bother to learn anything about the aircraft and just copy pasted the development section of the wikipedia page.
The Super Hornet is kind of a different beast, it’s more like a legacy hornet but with more updated electronics, so a Finnish or Australian hornet maybe.
The Last sentence is not correct. Slovakian and Polish Migs are already in Ukraine. Only Hungary is keeping their non-airworthy retired Mig-29s for sentimental purposes :c) Mig 29 is a great aircraft but without a future.
no, that's a tejas from the indian navy. go to the wiki page for indian naval air arm and look under future aircraft. that's where that clip was pulled from
The MiG-29k does seem, by all accounts, to be a pretty decent aircraft. But redundant from Russia's perspective, as they don't posess an aircraft carrier to take off from.
MiG-29 is really a bargain basement fighter developed in the Soviet era as an answer to the F-16, first flying in 1977. The project was not a success, many customers stayed with the cheaper MiG-21. It was found to have issues and many have crashed. The truth is India chose the navalised MiG-29 as it was the aitcraft originally flown from the Kuznetsov Class Carriers India cloned. There are few Western aircraft built for such a small Carrier and these are much more expensive.
The Indians could probably have convinced the British to sell them Harriers, however the only game in town in 2023 is the F-35B, which is never going to be sold to a military that has Russian kit as its backbone. Even NATO member Turkey was denied F-35s after they acquired the S-400 (which I'm sure they regret).
@@VisibilityFoggy India actually bought 30 Sea Harriers from 1983, which were retired in 2016. I agree, America will never sell high tech to India, too close to Russia. I guess the naval Rafale was too expensive.
The Aircraft Carrier India has is based on the Kiev Class and not the Kuznetsov Class. They are in the process of replacing the MIG-29’s with Rafale-M which had won a competition against the F/A 18 Super Hornet. In the long term they are trying to develop a Carrier based fighter called TEDBF, which interestingly uses the same engines as the Super Hornet, yet the design is akin to the Rafale.
@@8000jk I don't think there was much of a competition with the F/A18 as the US keep some parts of the aircraft sealed to prevent cloning. The French are not so particular with Rafale as its parts are relatively low tech anyway. I read India may produce a naval version of the Tejas Mk2. but it is a fairly basic aircraft, nobody will sell top grade tech to India. Since the 1950s India has strived to build its own jet engines and failed,
utter nonsense .... mig 29 was supposed to replace Su 33 .. but russia went bankrupt ... the kuznetsov class was never meant to be a carrrier by russia navy .. it was hybrid helicopter ship n NOT fighter carrier ...INDIA revamped it and despite tis sie made the most of it to modern carrier.. ...mig 29 was never meant to be naval fighter ...it was only INDIA which invested the capital to give life life to MIG as russia went bankrupt n has NO need for mig 29 as it has Su 33 ...
When the subject of shipping MiG-29's to Ukraine vs F-16's, I did a bit of research because people treat the 29's as inferior. What I found was that the 29 was initiated to deal with the 16 and is a "4th-1/2" gne plane, and is easier to care for with the 16's requiring special parts and maintenance crews. I ultimately said that the 29's, due to the above and the fact that Ukrainina pilots were already trained on them, was a better choice. Could you do a smackdown between the Eastern European 29's and the F-16?. Also, for the last decade of the Cold War, the US was making spare parts for Soviet equipment in the "Bear's Spares" program as an incentive for Soviet clients to "come in out of the cold" As a battlefield nation, I don't know if Ukraine could house the support structure for the F-16
@@HarryF-tz5fo absolutely. It's not just the air frame and pilots. It's the ground crew , access to spare parts and stores . Even more so in a real fight. They'd have been much better buying up or making all the parts for a aircraft they've already trained on and knew how to fly in the language they think in?
@@HarryF-tz5foSAM intallations have been a defeasible target for over 40 years with the existence of various Anti Radioation Missiles of which ER (extended range) versions have existed since the mid '70's. Also low-altitude attacks can frustrate RADAR Not being "modern" can be a detriment with respect to the availability of replacement parts and personnel familiar with legacy technology as well as modern parts and systems may just be plain better
Interesting as this short is, the point of comparing Mig-29 to F-16 eluded me. One feels the F-18 Hornet would have been more apposite example in a discussion based on maritime operations. Also at 13m 30s the author states the 'Fulcrum' as the latest successor in the Mig-29 program. Fulcrum was a simple NATO designation for Mig-29s and has been established for decades. Characterising 'Fulcrum' in this way is somewhat spurious. While again mentioning it eludes the viewer. Also the Fulcrum is 'Multirole fighter' and not an 'Air Superiority' Fighter. One might reference the relationship of GT to F1 cars as a crude method to establishing a strict difference to classes and their forms. One feels this article needs more work.
There was nothing "unprecedented" in the MiG-29K, features other naval aircraft had for years. And why compare it against the F-16, when it should really be sized up against the F-18 ...
No, it's firstly with the way the jets horizontal position while flying in the air, and second, it helps a little with pilots frontal and downward(past the nose cone) visibility! If you look at the mig29 in motion in the sky, you will see how the back end sits lower than the nose of the jet, thus making "bent" nose straight in flight! Downward when on the ground but straight and level when in flight! 😜👍🇷🇺👌
people have to relize that the mig 29 pleases the indian navy because thats the best they can do. Su 27 and 33s im sure are way more $. thats why russia chose to use the 29 to replace the aging su 33s they are using cause the mig 29 is cheaper.
Não amigo, atenção, é inferior sim, mas, é um obra prima, o Mig 29 é o mais revolucionario produto desde o Mig 17, e, digo agora hoje, ainda bem, não apostaram, e não tinham como, nem interesse, ou talvez visão, no seu desenvolvimento, agora, quem percebe, um pouquinho da materia, sabe que é,de raiz um aparelho bastante capaz, ainda no século 21
The MiG-29 was developed to meet the demands of Russian Aviation. As a primarily defensive platform it wasn't designed with long range as a priority. Engine power and low cost was prioritized over longevity, (why have an engine that runs 2000 hours when you only expect the jet to survive 50 in combat). I'm relatively sure they could build a jet comparable to the best western fighters, if Russian leadership had made that a priority and was willing to pay for it. But that would also require a complete rewrite of Russian Aviation combat doctrine and I doubt today they have the time or money to pull it off.
Because it is pronounced that way...this is what happens when civilians get into things they know nothing about...Just like it's not A-T A-T...it's AT-AT Walker...it's MiG.. Mikoyan Gorovich the cobination of 2 names...while SU is Sukoi...One name. Just like it isn't the Ka (sounded out)it's the K-A-52...When I hear people say Too-95 instead of T-U-95, I want to slap them...Might as well call my weapons magazine a f*cking Clip Semper Fi
@@randymarine Russian is written in an entirely different Cyrillic and that's where the confusion comes from. “Tu” is an Anglicized shortened form of “Tupolev”, a single Russian word. “Su” is an Anglicized shortened form of “Sukhoi”, a single Russian word. In Russian writing, Su-27 is "Cy-27", and "Cy" is pronounced "Soo". In official NATO designation, they're written as TU & SU which is already wrong; they’re not initialisms. Just because English speaking countries and especially NATO designated these Russian names the way it is, doesn't mean it is correct. You want to slap Slavic people when these names were pronounced correctly? Sounds like you have anger management issues.
@@randymarine Why do you have an issue calling your mags, "clips"? Pretty sure everyone who knows about guns will know what you mean by saying clips, just like saying gun instead of weapon. Not everyone is a Marine. And what if you are firing an M-1? Clips, right?
My dad was a naval aviator. After seeing harriers for ages we got Russian jets for the first time, no one was happier than the fighter Bois. Some Indian pilots have more hours on the mig than Russian ones.
Never thought I'd hear "Combat readiness" and "Admiral Kusnetsov" in the same sentence.
С появлением гиперзвуковых ракет , в случае военного конфликта, весь авианосный флот превращается в огромные железные гробы в считанные минуты. Касаемо "Адмирала Кузнецова", то не надо путать его с авианосцем. Это авианесущий КРЕЙСЕР, то есть в отличие от плавучих аэродромов США, которые не способны себя самостоятельно защищать, "Адмирал Кузнецов" - это самостоятельная боевая единица. Прежде чем пытаться шутить над Россией, я рекомендую изучить историю России. Планета уже разговаривала на французском языке, потом на немецком. Сегодня самый популярный язык - английский.
Yeah like F35 😂
0:18 "catapult launches". That's one thing the Russian aircraft carrier does not have. It uses the ski jump instead of a catapult.
It's a little bit funny, since the footage they show concurrently is an accurate depiction. As far as I recall, the US is the only country that uses catapults for launch. Catapults are considered to tempermental, expensive, etc.
@@rsmac11 France's Charles de Gaulle does I think.
It's a cope slope.
@@rsmac11 French also use catapult launches, but slightly different from the US ones.
@@rsmac11when ussr developed their aircraft they tried to develop steam catapult but problem is that vessel should have operated in up to -40 c. Hot water instantly freezes in such temperatures. That's why Soviet carriers don't have them
Possibly the coolest thumbnail of a Fulcrum I’ve ever seen
I agree.
The blaring issue is the kutznetzov will never go on deployment again unless a miracle happens, that ship is cursed
Yes it had to have tugs
Because of brake downs.
Also you never see a fully armed carrier aircraft tack off no wing tanks poor range,
No cat ether or aerial refueling.
@@DB.scale.models The lack of a catapult by a nation that can't field the F-35B nor manufacture its own S/TOVL is an issue, but not a fatal one, however Russia would lack any semblance of fifth-gen capability in its fleet, relegating them to point defense from the air rather than strike or interdiction, which the U.S., U.K. and France can carry out with relative ease. The carrier itself essentially burning down twice is a much bigger issue, lol.
@@VisibilityFoggy Do u automatically think that anyone who possesses an aircraft carrier and a few 5th gen jets on its deck(or below) is a God almighty and can win any conflict or war?! God give me strength!! That's why all you yanks are so bloody naive!!! It's a crazy amount of money that Russia couldn't fork out for it's navy alone, but even if they did, they never would have!!! It's only yanks that pour in those gazillions of dollars into their forces and then start wars to repay all that debt hole somehow!! Meanwhile, Russia was making alternative to the carrier weapons, or shall I say, weapons to annihilate your carrier groups!! Bloody yanks, you never learn!! Always want to shout at the top of the world: look at us, we are the best(they think), the best weapons, the best this and the best that!! You know what?! You have forgotten how to be decent people and look at other nations with respect! But all that is going to bite you in the ass one day, and very soon I think! Carrier groups... don't make me laugh m8!
@@DB.scale.models Why would ship need an aerial refueling? 🤔
@@budmaister1799good question
The Indian Ministry of defence isn't "Atmanirbhar Bharat". Thats a motto used by the current government, meaning "self-sufficient India". The Indian MoD is just "The Ministry of Defence".
U cant just build everything within 10 years in india. UNITED STATES , UK , France and Germany has been building tanks and planes from world war 1 . How developed their industries are as of now.
@@pratiknath1712 you missed the point - he called the MoD "Atmanirbhar Bharat" thinking that was the Hindi name of the MoD.
@@pratiknath1712is true but these are like first steps towards developing an independent defence industry, giving a lot of people employment in factories, and at the same time developing custom solutions to our custom problems.
...."ensuring the continuing combat capabilities of the Admiral Kusnetsov."
So much shade thrown in that single phrase.
Notice how they edited out all of the black smoke?
As a carrier plane, should the Mig 29 K not be compared to the USN F-18 instead of the USAF F-16?
I was just about to write the same thing!
Your funny putler troll.
The Mig29 was designed to take on the F-16 not the F-18. They are both land based fighter designs. The 29 was adapted for carrier use. The F-18 was designed from the start to be a carrier aircraft
@@ZombiedustXXX Murder hornet. And yes the fact that the 29 and 33 cannot launch with full fuel and weapons limits them severely. Where the hornet can be loaded down and chucked off the carrier.
@raynetorrin Yet by design they would naturally meet on the battlefield.
Apartment buildings shudder at the thought.
🤣🤣🤣
That was a Sukhoi, not a MiG
Buddy didn't do his research
Shit its was probably behind maintenance, honestly, so it dont matter in the end. @AmirShafeek
Ни кто не скажет, что Миг 29и Су 27взлетают с палубы без катапульты, за счёт мощности своих двигателей.
The MiG-29 was one of those planes that could have been a great fighter had it gotten actual decent avionics and a proper armament fit. At least the Su-27 got multiple upgrades to its design and the latest derivatives are actually quite potent fighters.
The F-16 is exemplary of the "too rich" American attitude. It is a "do-it-all" plane. But what happens when you have to fix it all? It requires specialized maintenance and lots if it to keep doing it all. The maintenance crews need to bge highly trained. The MiG and Saabs were designed for easy, quick and barnyard maintenance. To keep them flying would require NATO personnel in Ukraine with all that implies. Any idea of how that will go over? LIke a roast beef dinner at a Vegan convention.And the US record of victory in serious conflicts: Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, is not enviable. We've stuck our neck out good and proper in Ukraine. If this goes south, how do we remove the "loser" label and how will the Russians respond? Winners write history, losers write melancholy poetry in a lonely room
The SU-27 was designed for that, the Mig-29 was always intended as a cheap radar-guided interceptor, much like the Mig-21
The Mig-35 has changed all that, but its unclear why anyone would chose it over better Su-35s which arent much more expensive
@@KekusMagnus Many believe the MiG-29 was designed specifically to counter the F-16A, with (by the standards of the day) much improved performance and better radar than the MiG-21 or even MiG-23. it was when the F-16C with its sophisticated radar system arrived that the MiG-35 was developed much later with its improved radar.
@@SpacePatrollerLaser Interesting misreading. Are you sure you are part of "we"? Because only Russians pretend the US is really doing much for Ukraine.
The US won the Korean War - the Chinese trained and Soviet equipped North had invaded. Notice the border is now in the same place it started.
In Vietnam there were about 58K US deaths to 1M North Vietnamese and Vietcong deaths. That was a lack of political will. Militarily the US could have stayed there forever.
Iraq never won that war, the US lost the occupation. Also not a military loss.
Afghanistan - in 20 years the US lost about 1.4K. In contrast in 10 years the Soviets admitted to 15K lost, but the real numbers might be 30k+.
The thing about insurgency is that if won't do ethnic cleaning, you can be outlasted though not outfought.
In Ukraine the US didn't stick it's neck out. The US supplied weapons. And Russians are dying. It's hard to see how they generate any large amount of offensive power after this. They aren't really replacing lost equipment. I wonder, if the US supplies Ukraine for another 2 years if Russians can stand it.
@@SpacePatrollerLaser militarily speaking, in terms of losses, casualties, effectiveness and tactics, the undeniable fact is that the US armed forces utterly decimates their opposition in first contact BUT, after a while the effective commanders get replaced and policy regarding occupation/invasion/retaliation changes because of political and economical interests and then like "magic" the effectiveness on the ground plummets overnight, compare the first gulf war with the invasion of iraq in 2003, same shit happened in afghanistan, in only took 6 months to practically get rid of taliban presence in afghanistan, but when the policy changed at the mark of iirc 8 months, taliban forces "suddenly" started retaliating and i dont even have to explain how terrible was vietnam politically for the armed forces and the US govt
of course, the US is not an invincible force that doesnt make mistakes, but the military strenght perse is near undefeatable in real life, but just like everything, politicians hold the chain and steer it to the ground because of ignorance and corruption
tl.dr the US armed forces rarely actually lose in combat but the politicians fuck everything up
The Mig 29 really is a beautiful aircraft. (I make no judgement of whether it's a /good/ one or not)
It's a very good plane that was never meant to be launched from a carrier, nor operated by complete idiots, as it historically has been. In the hands of a skilled pilot with equivalent training hours to NATO pilots, the Fulcrum is an excellent plane for what it was designed to do. Unfortunately, many were sold to poor countries or pariah dictatorships whose pilots did not know how to actually use them, making their air-to-air records poor. Had the East Germans or Poles used them in combat, they would have likely been very effective when combined with proper AEW and support. The USAF was fairly impressed when they acquired a fleet of them from Moldova after the Cold War ended. Interestingly, the USAF donated that fleet to Ukraine to be used for parts in the current conflict.
I dont think you'd want it doing an ordnance package delivery on you
@@newdefsysProbably true. On the other hand, if it's an ally then the rule "if you aren't willing to call an air strike on your own position then you're not willing to win" applies. Friendly fire is the friendliest of all of the fires. /j
They finally started building beautiful jets at a time when the US builds ugly jets that are invisible. Still 20 years behind.
@@larky368stealthy fat35.
The video was spot-on here, but the information was not. The Indians are absolutely fed up with their MiG-29Ks and decided to replace them. The competition was between the Super Hornet, Rafale-M and a theoretical variant of the Gripen known as the Gripen-M. Eventually, it came down to the Super Hornet and Rafale-M, and the Rafale-M won the competition, which made sense since the IAF had previously ordered land-based Rafales. Both the Super Hornet and Rafale-M were designed for catapult launch, however both were tested successfully in ski-jump configuration.
Also, the Su-33 is largely a disaster. It is a heavy fighter that can barely make it off the jump unless its loadout is significantly reduced. That is not to take anything away from the Flanker - it is a spectacular airframe and great platform - but it had no business being navalized. The weight of the airframe is at least partially why the USN's F-14 was replaced by the lighter Super Hornet, and why the F-15 was never selected to be navalized. In reality, NEITHER the Su-33 nor MiG-29K were ideal for Russia. They had hoped the Yak-41 project would materialize to compete with the Harrier, however the funds were never there, even after some partnerships with American defense contractors after the Cold War helped the project along.
Actually, there was once proposal (two authors doing numbers, nothing official) to licence build Flankers for US Navy - basically license airframe and stuff with US engines and avionics :D Problem is, that Kuznetsov has never been full CATOBAR carrier.
As usual what was the Super problem as mentioned in the video's name
Yeah, I didn't hear anything about it. No thumb up when the title is so misleading.
😂
Click bait is a super problem 😂
So, without midair refueling, it can operate for about an hour, max.
Russia has refulers
@@stingingmetal9648oh well that’s good. How are the mig 29s going to take that fuel without refuelling probes?
Yeah i think that was one of the most glaring issues along with the fact that their only carrier is non functional.
@@TheDrummingWarriorThere is a in flight refueling option for the MiG 29 (PAZ-MK Refuelling Pod I think) originally intended for the 29K in question here. The base models don’t have one though, it’s an add-on.
Over the last few years the Indian navy has said their 29's have under performed do to engine reliability issues. This is why the MiG 35 nor any Sukhoi were considered during the last round of foreign aircraft purchases by India.
Why was it purchased then? It was evaluated by indians
What's more, 12 Su-30MKI were ordered this september, lol
Those are not purchased from Russia since they gave HAL (Hindustan Aeronautics Limited) full technology transfer so they are purchased from HAL and manufactured in India, im fairly sure they have upgraded engines.
@@amritbhatiani8100 They buy kits in Russia and build planes from those.
Upgraded engines? Compared to what? They have what Su-30MKI have had for a decade or something
@@ГеоргийМурзич not exactly... chasis is made in nashik india, engine is made by HAL, custom radars are delivered by israeli firm elbit joint venture in india, missiles are delivered by french... custom MBDA and israeli rafael group which are made in india ofcourse by joint venture... cocpits and electrical systems are handeled by BDL... and fly by wire with mission control is also handled by BDL....😂 so i don't think we need kits or something... we even make the wings for the f16s and body panels, we don't even use f16s... unlike US and russia everything we use is custom made and tailored by our own engineers using them as base and sometimes they also effect the original product of the country of origin... like su30mki was designated to india only but russia inducted them later after india since our custom made plane was better....
similarly the f16s used by US are actually fitted by isarel IAI and customised making them more advanced than US original works...
russia uses the same approach with india like US uses with israel... they make it and we provide support in better engineering... russia can't ask to china since they lack the engineering in foundation level....
hope it answered the questions...
@@ГеоргийМурзич
Russia forced India to buy the Mig-29K as part of the package for the aircraft carrier Gorshkov purchase.
Russia needed to keep Mig afloat somehow as it was not getting orders. India desperately needed a carrier to replace it's aging one. Gorshkov was a heavy Soviet helicopter cruiser converted into a carrier with all the Sandbox cruise missiles removed and a ski jump runway paved over it.
India did not want the Mig-29K as it was experimental. Even Russia did not want the Mig-29K for its carrier operations.
What IN should have done is decline the Mig-29K but purchase an equivalent amount of other weapons to make up for it.
In any case, what is done is now done. Hopefully IN won't have to rely on foreign plane purchases once the indigenously developed TEDBF aircraft comes into service.
What's funny and sad, is that the Indians actually have aircraft carriers that this jet can operate from, while the Russian Navy is its one embarrassing, eternally broke down, joke of a carrier that is never out of dry dock.
Dry dock that's on *fire*
It has a sticker on the back. "My other ship is a tug"
What's really sad is that a nation of 1.4 billion people can't manufacture their own weapons, and instead relies on buying outdated Soviet junk.
hahahha@@Andy-P
I think a better comparison could have been picked. Maybe an FA-18?
I agree
Or a Swordfish.... at least it will beat that. Swordfish has a better combat record.
Honestly, in terms of the ultimate role for the plane, the MiG-29 is the Russian F/A-18. The F-16 is a match for air-to-air roles, but really, the Fulcrum is much more like the Hornet.
Always really liked the MiG29. Neat plane.
The F-15 and F -14 will forever be my Golden age aircraft and the two most influential aircraft’s EVER. those two aircraft have made more people fans of aviation, and probably any two other aircraft ever.
Idk... i feel like the p51 mustang has a lot more influence.....
General Dynamics F-16 , THE, Fly by wire fighter can't get some love too ?
The mig 29 was designed to counter the original F-16.
The original F-16 was designed as a rather low tec companion of the F-15 and the design philosophy was heavily influenced by lightweight soviet fighters like the mig-21.
You have to remember that the F-16A had basically no BVR capabilities and a very limited load out. It was designed as a shortrange dogfighter with very limited ground attack capabilities.
Only the later blocks became this multirolle monster that we are familiar today.
The mig-29 was designed to counter the early F-16 and had quite a few advantages over it..... like better BVR capabilities and being multirolle from the ground up. The avionics of the mig-29 and the EARLY F-16 where actualy quite comparable.
Also maneuverability whise the two where quite compatible.
So what is the diverence?
The F-16 was upgraded throughout the whole of its operational live while the development of the MiG-29 basically froze in the early 90's.
A modern fully upgraded F-16 would eat any 1980s F-16 alive....
Not true, if that were correct, the F-16A would not have been given the Pulse doppler radar, or the Aim-7 upgraded to the Aim 120 as soon as was possible. It was designed from the outset as a lightweight fighter, but not without the same capabilities of the F-14 and F-15....due to the Capabilities of the F-16, when the F-17 lost the light weight fighter contract, Nortrop incooperated all the design upgrades from the F-16 into the new F/A-18...like totally ntergrated HOTAS/HUD, fly-by-wire and many other capabilities.
Semper Fi
@randymarine im sorry, but you seem to be misinformed.... the F-16 was not planned with the same capability as the F-15 or F-14..... the whole point of its development being the creation of something much simpler and cheaper.
Also, the F-16 was a pure day and fair weather fighter in the beginning, getting its all-weather capability later.
The F-16 was not chosen over its competitors for its better electronics, but for having better range and the fact that it used the same engine as the F-15, making it cheaper and easier to maintain in the long run.
The upgrades you mentioned were exactly that, upgrades with capabilities it did not initially possess.
Did these upgrades come quite quickly? For sure
But the came not because the plane was designed that way from the outset but because the airforce couldn't help adding whatever money can buy whenever there is a chance.
For sure, that approach turned out to be correct, and resulted in one of the most successful all-weather multirolle fighters ever but that was not what the plane was designed to be in the beginning and not what it was originally chosen for.
The F-16 was designed as a pure dogfighter, based on the energy retention theory, for day and fair weather use only.
That was what the MiG-29 was designed to counter.
My sources? Tons of aviation literature from the 1980s up to today and interviews with those involved in the design process.
yes ... but the current generation upgraded mig 29 K made specifically for India and came into this world only due to the indian investment is class apart and surpasses f 16 f 15 n F 19 hornet as naval carrier based fighter ...
@same-fm1qu while I really like the MiG-29 and think it is highly underrated, I have my doubts that the MiG-29K is able to actually compete with the planes you mentioned on equal terms.....
If it really was that good, there would be little reason to phase it out in favor of the Rafale.
I guess the MiG-35 could potentially compete, but I'm afraid that was too little too late
@@same-fm1quWell the F15 can't be used for carrier operations because the proposed naval variant would have been heavier than an F14. The F16 was never considered for carrier operation because it was a single engine fighter (F35 was accepted only because the engine reliability was promised to be much higher than it is). Could a MiG-29K outperform an F18A/C? Depending on radar and armament, I think the MiG-29K would beat it in many categories, they're very comparable aircraft.
But could a MiG-29K outperform a more relevant F18E? Not a chance. In a straight up dogfight, I believe the MiG-29K would win. But the MiG-29K would never get anywhere near close enough that the manuverability would matter. The F18E boasts superior radar and missiles, a smaller RCS, and most importantly; an EW support aircraft of the same type.
If you consider what russia has focused on in fighter development, the answer becomes very clear. In all air superiority fighters, they prioritize manuverability, notably the Su-27/35 and MiG-29 series. Now you can make an argument that because these are fighters that were developed in the 70s, they were designed to dogfight, and so any further upgrades would just inherently retain that ability. However, the Su-35 is actually MORE manuverable than the Su-27, which means they're continuing to focus on that trait.
Furthermore, the Su-57, their latest fighter, has ALSO focused heavily on manuverability.
Meanwhile, their advances in stealth coatings, stealth form factor, engine reliability, range, electronics (radar particularly), have all progressed so slowly that they're clearly secondary priorities.
Whereas with western fighters, manuverability is a secondary priority, while radar technology, stealth coatings, and electronic warfare are prioritized.
Russia envisions a future where air victories happen in dogfights.
The west has created a future in which dogfights are obsolete.
Russia's airforce is designed to engage older RUSSIAN and Soviet fighters (thus the increased manuverability and lower priority on radar and stealth)
The west's airforce is designed to engage modern russian fighters (thus the focus on being able to shoot down a fighter before it even knows you are there)
F-15 to Mig-29 is like lamborghini to Humvee, just another concept and philosophy, many different country owners prove this
The F-16 has a 92:13 kill/loss ratio, with MiG 29 having a 16:28 kill/loss ratio. F-16's have shot down MiG 29' but not the reverse. The 29 is mediocre aircraft.
You have to look at the bigger picture
A lot of context is missing here.
Like who shot who and how and what advantages they had at that time.
It's not never a fair and square 1v1 fight
Found the Commies!
Lmao it is NOT this simple.
Mediocre at best
Beautiful plane.
As a Cold War carrier fighter it would have been decimated by the F-14 Tomcat in a naval encounter.
Unfortunately for the Russians the Admiral Kuznetsov is a floating junkyard. It's a tub.
must have been filmed after the carrier barbecued itself @ 6:50
Love that thumbnail
That many weapon stations, but how many can be loaded and still take off from the carrier? Does it also take off with a full fuel load or a partial fuel load? My guess would be a partial fuel load with the ski jump.
Mig 29 is such a beautiful aircraft. ❤
it doesn't matter how good the carrier based planes are if you ain't got a carrier to carry them
Editing is really good again
"With a Super Problems" - The Super YT Channel With a Super Grammar
What a fantastic channel, free from politics and just facts !
". . . With *a* Super Problems"? Are you going to force me to "dislike" the video even before watching it? You're slipping.
A family friend bought one and got it in flying shape, and immediately sold it to Paul Allen, I never understood why he tried to get it here in Washington after Chinese customs held everything for over a year, he worked so hard to get it here and get it flying to instantly sell it. He is a notorious world War 2 radial engine enthusiast, so perhaps the jets were too out of his wheel house
I always had a dream of becoming a fighter pilot, it saddens me I was in arms reach of possibly being able to go up in an actual fighter that is basically russias f-15
So what’s that super problem according to the title? Did I miss it or was it never mentioned and I just got fooled by clickbait title?
Would a more appropriate comparison not be the F/A-18 with the Mig-29K?After all, the F/A-18 evolved from he original YF-17 design from the lightweight fighter competition.
Russia makes some beautiful birds! The F-14 Tomcat is one of my favorite U.S. fighters/Interceptors but the Russians have some real beauty’s as well!! Their SU-35 is absolutely gorgeous! I love heavy fighters!!💥💥💥
Can they build a capable jet? I guess.
Can they build subs? Yes
How about aircraft carrier? Not so much.
4:30 how do retractable intake grills “safeguard against collisions”??
Birdstrike. The suicidal and vicious nature of groups of marine chickens must not be underestimated. More seriously, though, I can imagine objects being left on deck of a carrier by accident. Still hard time picturing how that would help.
I'll give the Russians this. After the M29 they sure started making some pretty airplanes. I know they're not as good as the USA's are but they are prettier lol. Like the SU57 they might have only made less than 20 of them and their engines never worked so they placed engines from other fighters in them that did NOT achieve what that aircraft was supposed to do the plane is quite a beautiful aircraft!! That being said I'm glad it doesn't work!!
It is still more aerodynamically efficient airframe than Su-35, with identical thrust/weight ratio. New engines are not necessary, we can treat it like Su-35 with stealth.
@@peceed I recently read an article in the National Interest / The Buzz that quoted the SU 57 was LESS maneuverable than the F22 and and the radar cross section of the 57 was low but the heat signicture was very high for a 5th Gen fighter and it would be easy for the Raptor to track and shoot down and not so easy the other way around. This is one article so who knows. We go to church with a guy who flew the F14s for the Navy and my 13yr old son works in his wife's stables on weekends and summers. Talking with him about the F22 he said the world would be SHOCKED if they knew everything that plane could do aerobaticly and which is crazy because it can shoot everything down 100-150 miles away. Who knows!? Best Regards
@@Ricksjustice A lot of maneuverability comes from stronger engines, so it has to be true. But aerodynamic part is better in Su-57. Stealth is not finished project, they are developing better coatings, so I do not expect big differences that comes from design. The problems can can come from manufacturing and technology.
I suspect that F-22 has excelent aerodynamics - it is double cranked delta like J-35 Draken had, just part of it is "constituted by fuselage".
F-35 is winning dogfights against F-16.
@Ricksjustice, the RCS OF SU57 is 0.01m2 to 0.006m2. See on quora named Jack what is the RCS of SU57. Also, when it comes BVR (beyond visual range). F22 Raptor radar can detect the SU57 at the range of 40 nm (50 miles) in 0.01m2 on radar and whereas in full stealth configuration on F22 radar can be detected of 25 nm (35 miles) in 0.006m2 on radar. Whereas SU57 radar can detect the F22 raptor at the range of 20 nm (30 miles), only 20~5 miles difference. But there are some advantages that are there on SU57, that F22 raptors don't have it, such as modern sensor suites and superior electronic warfare. That makes the SU57 a better advantage to counter strike and can even challenge the F22 raptor in BVR match, too. So SU57 is not a joke.
@@heatblast876 I was quoting the magazine article I gave you. I am not the Authority on either aircraft. Saying that one nation has almost 200 F22s and Russia has only constructed less than 20 57s and all that you told me really means nothing if one plane can target the others heat signicture much easier then the other can when neither can track that well with radar or sensors!! I am not here to argue all these aircraft are amazing machines with the exception of anything the Chinese make. Thieves with no honor have never gotten it right yet!! Best Regards
How is the Admiral Kuznetsova loading out? Lol
Oh ya, the dry dock burned down, and a crain fell on it. Bahahahaha
I think they repaired the crane.
@@Andy-P Not the carrier. I believe it will never be rebuilt. At least not by Russia. Not to say they won't build one, but the wreck they have is nigh unworkable.
There are very few navies that have catapults on their aircraft carriers, and the Russians, Chinese, and Indians don't have them.
Very interesting information. Thank you. 👌🏾
Was that thumbnail taken from ace combat 7?
Yep
A couple of questions I have comes from some other video I watched a while ago regarding the engines of Russian military aircraft.
Do the engines have a very short service life as opposed to American ones?
Also, do those engines have to be sent back to Russia for their servicing and refurbing? I believe that the US manufactured engines are sent back to them for servicing, but they often place a facility near the client to do this, resulting in much shorter turnaround cycles.
Have also heard it is much more difficult and time consuming to remove the engines from some Russian fighters with the F22s it can be done in around half an hour.
Not sure of the truths here, just things I have read around the place.
"Have also heard it is much more difficult and time consuming to remove the engines from some Russian fighters with the F22s it can be done in around half an hour."
*If* that is true about the F-22, that is a single aircraft, and not representative of US aircraft as a whole. American aircraft tend to require highly-skilled mechanics, and require more work than Soviet / Russian aircraft, as a general rule. Read about Operation Paperclip, which details the excellent readiness rate of the tested MiG-21 (F-13 model, I think), compared to contemporary US fighters. Mostly it just needed very basic maintenance, such as changing the oil, etc.
The best modern example of ease of maintenance is probably the JAS 39 Gripen, which can be serviced by a few people in 30 min by a small and relatively unskilled ground crew. The single engine is super-easy to remove and replace (engine rebuilding to be done elsewhere, afaik). This is a necessity, because in a war, Gripens would be dispersed around the country (hidden in forests, etc.) with minimal crew, using roads for airstrips, preventing a single big loss from enemy attacks.
Afaik, Soviet/Russian aircraft were generally designed to be easy to work on by relatively unskilled ground crew. There were a few exceptions, notably the MiG-19 (which ground crew hated), and possibly the MiG-23 / MiG-27 family.
IIRC, you are correct that Soviet / Russian fighter engines (at least modern ones) do not tend to have as long of a total life with overhauls, etc., compared to western engines.
on a mig29, it takes about 20 minutes to replace the engine.
@@burnttoast111 Operation Paperclip was the American program to capture and recruit the German intellectuals, scientist, engineers, etc. (some of whom had members of the nazi-party) at the end of WW2. Right?
I think you meant the title to read 'Not Going Away Soon', rather than 'Not Going Anywhere Soon'. Still, 'Not Going Anywhere Soon' is probably more apt consider the 29's actual combat record.
Why compare a land based F-16 to a navy based Mig 29? Should have compared it to the F-18. You would have a lot less "howevers" in your comparison video.
yhea, that F15 (intro) was a foxbat wasn't it? Also Love you Dark!
4:08 the standard Mig-29 also has a multifunction radar (depends on your definition of multifunction), color HUD, HOTAS controls, AA missiles, the ship missiles were indeed new and the standard mig 29 also has the retractable inlets. I like your content but in this video you sound like you didn't bother to learn anything about the aircraft and just copy pasted the development section of the wikipedia page.
Mr. Dark, your Russian is really not bad ;)
He's a sympathizer.
Catapult launches?
To make an 'apples to apples' comparison, you should be comparing the Mig29K series with the F-18E/F..NOT the F-16...
Not that there's any real comparison.
The Super Hornet is kind of a different beast, it’s more like a legacy hornet but with more updated electronics, so a Finnish or Australian hornet maybe.
The Last sentence is not correct. Slovakian and Polish Migs are already in Ukraine. Only Hungary is keeping their non-airworthy retired Mig-29s for sentimental purposes :c) Mig 29 is a great aircraft but without a future.
12:09 is that a Rafaele?
no, that's a tejas from the indian navy. go to the wiki page for indian naval air arm and look under future aircraft. that's where that clip was pulled from
@@lordraydens ok, yeah looks like a Tejas...actually didn't know there was a naval version
I’m kinda feeling the Indian Navy Carrier MiG-29
You should see the newer one
The MiG-29k does seem, by all accounts, to be a pretty decent aircraft. But redundant from Russia's perspective, as they don't posess an aircraft carrier to take off from.
As expected, some of Dark Seas' narrative on this subject is misleading. Most Dark series has errors. Oh well.
I feel like the Mig 29 could have been a better fighter if the ussr didnt collapse.
Poland does not have any Fulcrums anymore. All of them were donated to Ukraine.
? so? this present was done because the money Usa are giving to Poland and not for other
MiG-29 is really a bargain basement fighter developed in the Soviet era as an answer to the F-16, first flying in 1977. The project was not a success, many customers stayed with the cheaper MiG-21. It was found to have issues and many have crashed. The truth is India chose the navalised MiG-29 as it was the aitcraft originally flown from the Kuznetsov Class Carriers India cloned. There are few Western aircraft built for such a small Carrier and these are much more expensive.
The Indians could probably have convinced the British to sell them Harriers, however the only game in town in 2023 is the F-35B, which is never going to be sold to a military that has Russian kit as its backbone. Even NATO member Turkey was denied F-35s after they acquired the S-400 (which I'm sure they regret).
@@VisibilityFoggy India actually bought 30 Sea Harriers from 1983, which were retired in 2016. I agree, America will never sell high tech to India, too close to Russia. I guess the naval Rafale was too expensive.
The Aircraft Carrier India has is based on the Kiev Class and not the Kuznetsov Class. They are in the process of replacing the MIG-29’s with Rafale-M which had won a competition against the F/A 18 Super Hornet. In the long term they are trying to develop a Carrier based fighter called TEDBF, which interestingly uses the same engines as the Super Hornet, yet the design is akin to the Rafale.
@@8000jk I don't think there was much of a competition with the F/A18 as the US keep some parts of the aircraft sealed to prevent cloning. The French are not so particular with Rafale as its parts are relatively low tech anyway. I read India may produce a naval version of the Tejas Mk2. but it is a fairly basic aircraft, nobody will sell top grade tech to India. Since the 1950s India has strived to build its own jet engines and failed,
utter nonsense .... mig 29 was supposed to replace Su 33 .. but russia went bankrupt ... the kuznetsov class was never meant to be a carrrier by russia navy .. it was hybrid helicopter ship n NOT fighter carrier ...INDIA revamped it and despite tis sie made the most of it to modern carrier.. ...mig 29 was never meant to be naval fighter ...it was only INDIA which invested the capital to give life life to MIG as russia went bankrupt n has NO need for mig 29 as it has Su 33 ...
GOSH DARN FOREIGN SUPER JET WITH A SUPER PROBLEMS
When the subject of shipping MiG-29's to Ukraine vs F-16's, I did a bit of research because people treat the 29's as inferior. What I found was that the 29 was initiated to deal with the 16 and is a "4th-1/2" gne plane, and is easier to care for with the 16's requiring special parts and maintenance crews. I ultimately said that the 29's, due to the above and the fact that Ukrainina pilots were already trained on them, was a better choice. Could you do a smackdown between the Eastern European 29's and the F-16?. Also, for the last decade of the Cold War, the US was making spare parts for Soviet equipment in the "Bear's Spares" program as an incentive for Soviet clients to "come in out of the cold"
As a battlefield nation, I don't know if Ukraine could house the support structure for the F-16
None of that makes the MiG a better plane.
F-16 > MiG-29
They're struggling to train them on the 16's. Some have died trying. The 29 would have been a better choice.
gripen would've been better@@Free-Bodge79
@@HarryF-tz5fo absolutely. It's not just the air frame and pilots. It's the ground crew , access to spare parts and stores . Even more so in a real fight. They'd have been much better buying up or making all the parts for a aircraft they've already trained on and knew how to fly in the language they think in?
@@HarryF-tz5foSAM intallations have been a defeasible target for over 40 years with the existence of various Anti Radioation Missiles of which ER (extended range) versions have existed since the mid '70's. Also low-altitude attacks can frustrate RADAR
Not being "modern" can be a detriment with respect to the availability of replacement parts and personnel familiar with legacy technology as well as modern parts and systems may just be plain better
Interesting as this short is, the point of comparing Mig-29 to F-16 eluded me.
One feels the F-18 Hornet would have been more apposite example in a discussion based on maritime operations.
Also at 13m 30s the author states the 'Fulcrum' as the latest successor in the Mig-29 program. Fulcrum was a simple NATO designation for Mig-29s and has been established for decades. Characterising 'Fulcrum' in this way is somewhat spurious.
While again mentioning it eludes the viewer.
Also the Fulcrum is 'Multirole fighter' and not an 'Air Superiority' Fighter. One might reference the relationship of GT to F1 cars as a crude method to establishing a strict difference to classes and their forms.
One feels this article needs more work.
Wait… what exactly were the massive problems?
Poland still flying Migs ?
I like how you put "the democratic west" while keeping a straight face.
Uhh... The MiG-29k Fulcrum doesn't do catapult launches.
There was nothing "unprecedented" in the MiG-29K, features other naval aircraft had for years. And why compare it against the F-16, when it should really be sized up against the F-18 ...
Nice.
I was inverted.
But did it have an arrestor hook?
What I've never understood was the downward angle of the nose... Was that for maneuverability or slow, almost stall speeds?
No, it's firstly with the way the jets horizontal position while flying in the air, and second, it helps a little with pilots frontal and downward(past the nose cone) visibility! If you look at the mig29 in motion in the sky, you will see how the back end sits lower than the nose of the jet, thus making "bent" nose straight in flight! Downward when on the ground but straight and level when in flight! 😜👍🇷🇺👌
Isn't it the same with other later Migs and SU fighters?
@@ntabile it is the same there, yeah! 😉👍
Without the downward facing nose, the pilot can't see the runway when landing.
Many ccountries used this aircraft... Including mine... No crashes
What was the point of the F16 (Squirrel) ?
Comparing the MiG-29 to the F-16 is kind of an apple to oranges comparison. A better comparison would be MiG-29 to F-18 or Super Hornet.
people have to relize that the mig 29 pleases the indian navy because thats the best they can do. Su 27 and 33s im sure are way more $. thats why russia chose to use the 29 to replace the aging su 33s they are using cause the mig 29 is cheaper.
Best they can do? Dude they're buying Rafales for their second carrier.
@@Kevn37 was that an option is 2004 ?
I usually enjoy your content but this is straight up hyperbole from a Mikoyan brochure. ‘Advanced monochrome displays’ is that a thing?
Why....the MiG 29 was designed to counter the F-16. The F-18 outclasses it in every respect especially the naval variant.
One problem that you can see in the thumbnail. That plane has the frontal RCS of a barn roof.
Não amigo, atenção, é inferior sim, mas, é um obra prima, o Mig 29 é o mais revolucionario produto desde o Mig 17, e, digo agora hoje, ainda bem, não apostaram, e não tinham como, nem interesse, ou talvez visão, no seu desenvolvimento, agora, quem percebe, um pouquinho da materia, sabe que é,de raiz um aparelho bastante capaz, ainda no século 21
So what are the "super problems" or was it a mis spelling and you meant supper problems for the pilots?
Great video, but Slovakia does not use Mig-29s anymore
The MiG-29 was developed to meet the demands of Russian Aviation. As a primarily defensive platform it wasn't designed with long range as a priority. Engine power and low cost was prioritized over longevity, (why have an engine that runs 2000 hours when you only expect the jet to survive 50 in combat). I'm relatively sure they could build a jet comparable to the best western fighters, if Russian leadership had made that a priority and was willing to pay for it. But that would also require a complete rewrite of Russian Aviation combat doctrine and I doubt today they have the time or money to pull it off.
this super problem jets still deadly jet on the right pilots and its will makes US PILOT CRYING
Can you fix the title (remove the 'a' or make 'Problems' singular)?
What? It got a new Garmin 696?
Awesome….
When pronouncing "MIG", we don't say "M-I-G". So why do people pronounce Sukhoi "Sue-33" as "S-U-33"?
We don't, We call then "airshow planes"
Because it is pronounced that way...this is what happens when civilians get into things they know nothing about...Just like it's not A-T A-T...it's AT-AT Walker...it's MiG.. Mikoyan Gorovich the cobination of 2 names...while SU is Sukoi...One name. Just like it isn't the Ka (sounded out)it's the K-A-52...When I hear people say Too-95 instead of T-U-95, I want to slap them...Might as well call my weapons magazine a f*cking Clip
Semper Fi
@@randymarine Russian is written in an entirely different Cyrillic and that's where the confusion comes from.
“Tu” is an Anglicized shortened form of “Tupolev”, a single Russian word. “Su” is an Anglicized shortened form of “Sukhoi”, a single Russian word. In Russian writing, Su-27 is "Cy-27", and "Cy" is pronounced "Soo". In official NATO designation, they're written as TU & SU which is already wrong; they’re not initialisms.
Just because English speaking countries and especially NATO designated these Russian names the way it is, doesn't mean it is correct. You want to slap Slavic people when these names were pronounced correctly? Sounds like you have anger management issues.
@@randymarine Why do you have an issue calling your mags, "clips"? Pretty sure everyone who knows about guns will know what you mean by saying clips, just like saying gun instead of weapon. Not everyone is a Marine. And what if you are firing an M-1? Clips, right?
The MIG-29K should be compared to the F/A-18C/D instead of the F-16. Both are Naval Fighter/Attack aircraft with a Dual-Seat configutation available.
The title is not english. it is either "super problems" or "a super problem" not "a super problems".
The dual seat MiG-29 KUB ( _Kuy_ _up_ _back_ )
Mig 29 k are pain in ass for Indian navy
Looks like the FI5
What are the super problems the title alluded to?
Comparing a Mig 29 to an F16 is incorrect. You should have gone with the carrier based F18 Hornet as a comparison.
Mig-29 is a great fighter and still have future with Mig-35 upgrade
how about "Soviet/Russian fighter aircraft frame upgraded with US/NATO avionics and weapons system...."
yes but... about to be phased out in a near future by a batch of Rafale M.
The air craft carrier they made has never worked - sooo you got a load of planes that - ?
Wouldn't the legacy Hornets be a more realistic comp to this fighter?