Please click the link to watch our other Weapon Detective videos ua-cam.com/play/PLEMWqyRZP_LrdqB-XbqY2LocUVEaG_w7D.html Please click the link to watch our other Russian-Soviet Systems videos ua-cam.com/play/PLEMWqyRZP_LoX-Waa3Xb-clnCzQXpmcZ6.html Please click the link to watch our other Weapon Detective-Air videos ua-cam.com/play/PLEMWqyRZP_LrGyENf3nqsYKC9ZkWH414k.html
I disagree. The plane was in use in over 30 countries and produced over 1,500 aircrafts of all variants. I voted this video down and unsubscribed. Thank you for your effort.
Why did it fail in export sales? The Flanker series: Similar design. Similar agility. Much larger payload capability. Designed as a multi-role fighter from the start. Somewhat higher price, but much bigger bang for the buck.
The F-16: NATO-standard interfaces means you're not locked into US weapons. If you want to load it with ASRAAMs or IRIS-T, you're free to do so. Better avionics by a country mile.
@@katherineberger6329 ...and it's operational preparedness record is far better. If you have 100 F-16s, 85-90 will be ready for combat. With 100 Flankers, you would have 25 in overhaul, at any given time.
@@katherineberger6329 "or if you are into Israeli stuff, the Python and Derby, like what (for example) Singaporeans did, and obviously the origin country"
@@habahan4257 the China were busy copying the mig-21 which was severely delayed in the end they opted for copying the su-27 since its better than the mig-29 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu_J-7 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenyang_J-15
Who said that?? When US don't had IFF systems on fighter aircraft, they had to get close to identify the aircraft, m talking about 1991-1995. Many close engagement took place between MiG-29 & F-15/F-16 till now.
Tbh, the way described the plane it sounds more like a thing many Soviet vehicles have. The Soviet Union is now just a part of history, while the western counterparts and companies that develop and produce them are still existent and also a still producing new vehicles. Overall the MiG 29 seems to be up to the task when it was first used, but since nobody provided any upgrades to it it simply now is dated up to obsolete.
Yeah I am on the same page as you. It felt more like there wasn't any substantial upgrade for the fulcrum since the Soviet collapse. Compare to f16, 18, and 15 which keep getting updated. I mean imagine having f16A competing with su35 and j16 is kinda difficult.
@@innocentpasserby9632 There were upgrades to the 29. The Israelis had an upgrade program for any customer. The Germans also upgraded theirs until they became redundant.
@@bobo-_- I know, but the Programms that really put them on par with western counterparts where mostly considered too expensive by their respective countries and since no really rich nation uses them you can very well claim that overall the SU-29 was just left in a ditch.
I have read that the Soviets really wanted something multirole like the F-16 from the start but were stuck with the air-to-air oriented MiG-29 until it became more multirole later in its own career.
f-16 was PRIMARALY designed as a close range fighter with ONLY CLOSE range missiles available. It didn't have even mid-range capabilities to begin with. What toilet paper are you reading? ps I'm not even mentioning that MiG-29A has won its program in 1972 (the order to start production was issued in 72 means that tha plane has already been desighned) while Light Weight Fighter (F-16) program started in 1972. That means LATER. In other words AFTER the MiG-29 and Su-27 program (Future Frontline Fighter). And once again: short-range dogfighter (F-16) in the 70's is an epic fail of strategic thinking. Yeh, it was an answer to MiG-21 success in Vietman, but it was too late. The Russians themselves were not playing that game any more plus they demanded that it should be STRICTLY a twin engine design. That means they were done playing sigle engine crap game. No wonder that a single engine short range dog fighner ended up being overweighted sub-bomder for the majority of its service life.
@@dannywaller7679teenager, ask ur parents to read u about the years when they were adopted. Each and every yt aviation video is packed with idiotsof all sorts
I disagree about the potential of the plane. What doomed it in Syria, Iraq, Ex Yugoslavia and Ukraine was poor logistics and lack of AWACS systems, where the opponents had plenty: modern fighters rarely intercept their targets on their own means, because the radar signature gives them away, cancelling the surprise factor. If your opponent can see you coming, an active missile just needs a quick lock to go its way, but if you are actively searching, working on a radar which is not great, they would see you coming before you do. The R73 is an outstanding missile: in 1990, acquiring samples for the Luftwaffe sent shiver to the western world, to the point that Luftwaffe, Italy and Spain dropped out of the ASRAM program deeming it 'inadequate' bringing to the Iris-T. The Mig 29 could exploit the R73 very well thanks to the IR sensor ahead of the windscreen, which the F16 never had. The R73 is also a superior weapon to the Aim9L that the F16 adopted as main weapon for most of its life. The F16 radar was crap for years and the plane was never able to replace air superiority fighters until the late nineties because it could not guide the AIM 7 sparrow. Even with the AIM 120 things would not be great, but the Airborne radar systems available to NATO, which would guide the planes in the area to the target was able to mitigate these shortcomings. This is why modern radar put much more emphasis on stealthyness then they do on range and raw power. What really killed the Mig 29 was maintenance: the turbofan produced in Russia are generally not as reliable as the western ones, produce less thrust to weight ratio, burn a lot of fuel and have drastically shortened lifespan. You buy a plane for cheap, but when you ask for engine spares, or worse, you need to completely replace them after a few hundreds flight hours, it become expensive. The lesson was learned by costumers on the Mig 21 and very few bought the Mig 23/27. The Mig 29 was a better plane, but customers burned by previous experiences only went to Russia if they couldn't get western jets, available in number on the used market after the end of the cold war. This reduced the incomes for Mikoyan that couldn't dedicate enough resources to keep iup to date the Mig 29, and develop new systems for it. Russia's preference for the Su27 only made thing worse for Mikoyan which, currently is barely surviving as an aerospace company.
Well, once can read Yugo description of their MiG-29 use - planes had little maintenance & did not have even remotely modern missiles. their only chance was attack from the rear when they could get close - which was not possible with overpowering AWACS help NATO forces got.
@@tomk3732 Yugoslavian Mig 29 escadrille was scheduled for service in Russia in 1996. Never happen because of sanctions. One of those Migs had non working radar, in another one (one downed buy Dutch f 16) pilot died because warning for incoming missile didn't work.
@@DjordjeDjurkovic Yeah they were in poor shape - they also did not have R-77 missiles. If I remember correctly all were downed BVR. Not even one of them got to fight & I also believe not even one had a chance to fire its own missiles. I think Serbs had only R-27 semi active missiles. And infrared stuff. Even if they got close enough and got a lock they could not fire and crank hard.
@@tomk3732 I'm not even sure that "new" Serbian Migs, that was donated by Russia few years ago, use R 77. Allegedly they should start using R 77 last year. Anyway, they are late 23 years...There was 14 Mig's 29 in 1999, 5 or 6 was destroyed in the air, one by friendly fire, 4 or 5 on the ground (one crash lended). 4 survived.
Excellent video. I think the greatest weakness the MiG-29 had was it’s inadequately trained pilots and not necessarily the plane itself. That’s not to say they lacked skill. On the contrary, the MiG-29 pilots had to be some of the most competent in the world. However, compared to the US and it’s NATO allies, the pilots of the countries that flew the MiG-29 had far fewer flight ours and combat training. Modernized versions such as those flown by Poland and India are still formidable aircraft. For within visual range engagements, the MiG-29 has excellent angle of attack characteristics and nose authority comparable to the F-18 Hornet (legacy) and exceptional power to weight. Couple this with the HMD high off-boresight capabilities and the MIG-29 is deadly. If you added a modern AESA radar and the BVR R-77 missile, it would be deadly in BVR engagements as well.
To point out the MiG pilot's lack of air hours is to point out their lack of competence. You really can't have it both ways. The most optimistic guess of their flight hours per year compared to an American pilot's worst possible flight hours still doesn't get them close. This is backed up by the lack of good maintenance crews for MiGs - if they were flying, the mechanics would be more experienced and better. Plus I doubt the Russians have many simulators, I doubt their quality and if they even run.
@@recoil53 that’s a fair point. I suppose I should have rephrased it to suggest that the pilots are no doubt skilled at their craft, but lack the comparable competence to their American counterparts. It makes you wonder how a modernized MiG-29 would perform had it received the type of successive upgrades western Gen 4 planes received over the decades and in the hands of a highly trained and skilled pilot.
Also, from what I understand, the pilots are (were?) told strictly what to do at all times from the ground. They're not trained or encouraged to take own initiatives, which of course hamper their abilities in real life dogfighting.
Mig - 29.. don't think it was a failure.. just look at the number of countries it was exported to and Helmet mounted display with its air to air missile was game changer and much ahead of its time... It's the Mig 35 which I would call the biggest failure
In radar-avionik-electronic-jamming-engine Mig-29 its failure,. Mig-29 its have better manuver, and can go to bad airfield, just that point who better in Mig-29,. But i real Mig-29 its lose in BVR, and Jamming,. You know in air conflict you must have all better, not just manuver,.
@@aniruddhamulay2932 nah, Mig-29 all series (not Mig-35) have few problem,. Mig-29 have a performance and manuver in short dogfight, but all Mig-29 dont have good radar for BVR, dont have good jammer or electronic, engine still RD-33 is lack of lifetime engine and have a smoke because not a good engine, and cannot fly long time,. Mig-29 its like Ak-47 in air, for modern war Ak-47 its not enough,.
Mig 35 isn't a failure the only reason why it's not selling is because of sanctions otherwise they would have sold a good number of them by now it's sad because they make 35 was barely going off the ground but the timing was really working against it
Export versions were used by others the 9.13 was for the USSR and slightly downgraded 9.12A for allies and more downgraded 9.12B for others . The radar was not good enough until the Mig 29SMT/M . The engines also because the philosophy was that it woundent survive so long in a war with NATO so it had too be overhauled after 2000h in the West 5000h also the smoke coming out from the engines was not good.
My 2 cents Mig-29 is an excellent fighter jet aerodynamically, but the electronic systems was not using modular designs, which make upgrade the plane a pain in the ass, and requires a huge amount of effort compare to those using modular designs. The result of this is with time passing on, the mig-29 was always behind in tech vs its opponent. The early version is su27 was facing the same issue(until su35), that's why PLA had too taken everything out and re-design all the electronic systems. Especially with the collapse of soviet union, mig29 stopped receiving upgrades. Saying the soviet engineers incapable of innovate is not fair. They are genius in a lot of fields, it is the lack capital driven market economy causing them moving slower in electronics.
Good points. People tend to forget the fact that the US has poured MASSIVE amounts of dollars into their defense industry. Their technological advantage (in certain fields at least) didn't just happen by chance. If you want to increase your scientific capabilities, you have to spend money on it, money that most nations on this planet don't have. For example, only 3 nations have put human beings in space (Russia/Soviet Union, USA & now China), and only one managed to put humans on another celestial body (USA). If you don't have a large economy, you won't be able to compete, so in that regard, the Russians have done very well for themselves, considering the fact that their economy isn't anywhere near USA's economy.
my country used MiG29N version. it has air to air refueling probe. I saw it in LIMA airshow, it turns very quickly and able to do that cobra, shooting up like a rocket. Now retired after we got SU30MKM.
I love these “why the xxx sucks” videos. The radar and short range was and probably still is it’s biggest problem but if the pilot can survive till the merge than it is a deadly weapon. As far as the airframe is concerned it is a work of art.
I always liked the mig-29 more than the f-16, although I always recognized the problems that the mig 29 had, anyway it's still an airplane that seems pretty nice for me, I'd like to see a video about the Su-27 at some point, Anyway, thanks for the video, I really liked it, it's been a while since I've seen a video that talks about the plane from this perspective :P
It didn't fail, it just that whenever it came to combat, it had Arab pilots. Ukraine if anything has shown what the MiG-29 can do. and no, I'm not talking about the Ghost of Kyiv myth.
Nah in real Mig-29 is lose if vs J-10C,. You know USA have few Mig-29 and test that Mig-29?, in Test all pilot its inpresif because good manuver and better handling, but in BVR and jamming Mig-29 its very bad, they dont have better radar and better jamming system,. So in few case if F-15/16/18 want to shoot down Mig-29 use AIM-120 in BVR and Jamming Mig-29 so they will blind,.
Multiple Ukrainian MiG 29 was shot down by literally any variants of Flanker in Russian service. Ukrainian pilot are dumbass compared to North Vietnamese pilot. They have been completely failed in causing damage to Russian Air Force. Ukrainian SAM claimed all the Russian losses on the sky.
Mig 29s may have not kept up with the evolving electronic battlefields , but I am not sure if they can be considered a failure. They were quite relevant in the late 80s to 90s and even early 2000s. Many countries still use heavily upgraded versions of it.
It must have felt really strange as a 1969 American to life in that era and have stuff like the F-14 and F-15 presented to you. They were so futuristic. It must have looked like science fiction to you.
No kidding. It's crazy how fast technology leaped. Put it like this. In the 50s-60s, with jet technology so new, planes only lasted a few years before they were replaced. Now they last decades.
@@nizloc4118 they don't last decades because they are capable, they last decades because there is no opposition to them, just look at the disparity between the f-15 and f-22, one f-22 could single handledly take out multiple f-15 with ease, even if they were crewed by very experienced pilots. Had the cold war continued and a soviet threat was still around, the F-15 would have also been fully replaced by the F-22 in no more than a decade.
@sovieticodiabetico6874 that's a good point. But then again, the Phantom for example flew for 30 years during the Cold War. The F-15 replaced it and would have more or less flown the same timespan, before it was fully replaced. You're right in that the need would have pushed innovation, and new designs would have been born. But whereas the early generations of fighters, they were designed and built in maybe 2-3 years. Today designing them alone takes a decade, because the technology has been pushed to such further limits, at least what we know of today
recommend a video on the MIG-35B multi role interdictor strike fighter . . . it'll help understand the depth of two different variants based on the same airframe from two different generations . . .
So basically the mig-29 is a great air frame let down by outdated electronics and ergonomic controls, plus no major power to constantly update it like the F-16
I wouldn't exactly call it a failure. I think it came at the wrong time. After fall of the Soviet Union it's development was slowed to a trickle. Things like aerial refuling and attack/strike ability were not available initially. The most advanced Mig-21 was more capable at attacking ground targets than the Mig-29A. When paired with Western Avionics and weapons, it's quite formidable. The only part it failed at for sure from what I've read is maintenance cost. It costs as much to operate as a Flanker but, with a smaller radar and shorter range. Not to mention the Flanker seems to be the more versatile multurole platform.
Seems a lot like the MiG-29 air-frame could have benefited from a total overhaul with western technology. But then again why would any nation that has access to modern western tech go through such a deep and costly partnerships to upgrade one of their aging air-frames if they can just buy a new western air-frame with the already integrated western avionics, without the need for costly and redundant R&D that such a MiG-29 redesign would bring.
The problem with the MiG-29 is the air forces which use them. In the hands of the few countries that have them that can operate them properly it’s as good as anything else.
I think part of the problem with the MiG-29 compared to Western fighters is not so much the aircraft itself but, rather, the pilots who fly it and the environment it would fly in. In your video you refer to a Centralised Totalitarian political system as in part an explanation of why the designers had not to been able to come up with the type of innovative systems Western designers had. The same can be said for the Russian air units; (and those of any countries that have adopted the Russian- formerly Soviet- system). The Russians used a highly centralized Top Down Command structure with the pilots heavily reliant on orders from Ground Controllers. Initiative was not encouraged and, typically, a Russian pilot would fly only half the numbers of hours their Western counterpart would. Another point would be all the additional Support a Western pilot would enjoy with large scale use of Airborne Early Warning, Electronic Warfare and other Support aircraft. These are all intended to degrade the networks any enemy would rely on so the Western counterparts would be operating in a permissive environment whilst their opponents wouldn't be. Added to the fact that any of the air forces operating the MiG-29 you mentioned would tend to be outnumbered anyway and it becomes a perfect storm. A well maintained, upgraded MiG-29 flown by a competent, experienced pilot would have a reasonable chance against an F16 One on One. Unfortunately Western Doctrine is to NOT fight One on One. So you would more likely have a less experienced pilot, flying an older MiG-29 which has not been as well maintained or upgraded facing off against a numerically superior force of Western aircraft. Western Doctrine is to NOT fight fair but to load the dice in their favour to achieve dominance. No wonder the MiG-29 has not performed as well as might be expected. It's going against a Loaded Deck.
What the fuck? Russian Air Force completely REJECTED GCI command ultra order in air to air combat since 70s after their avionic radar had been improved. Watch the Soviet Top Gun video and educate yourself.
It’s not necessarily a failture, it’s just not the best. The remaining active Mig-29s left outside of Russia/India it has been mostly modified by Elbit Systems. Yes, it’s not as great a Su-27 in air to air, but if you look at the current War, it still works.
I am totally on the Western side of the equation but cannot fail to appreciate the Soviet era aircraft designs. Both MIG and Surkoi designed aircrafts were absolutely beautiful in design and simplicity. Sometimes bigger and complicated is not better.
Didnt failed in my Heart. I know why the bad rep tho, basically made in a way that was cheap, and growing, but mist that got destroyed were older, kinda like T72 but imagine if they were throwing missiles with radar at each other but you have bad radar in early versions
BS. It wasn't a failure. Its performance in the Indian Air Force for example is a great demonstration that its still a potent weapon under a competent user's hands.
It's not the problem with the aircraft itself but tactics of using them in warfare. Sukhois planes were supposed to be heavy and expensive fighters (and it's what they're) and MIGs were supposed to be cheap light fighters - and they failed here as MIGs became middle fighters - heavier and more expensive than they're supposed to be.
There is a modernized version called MiG 29M which was released in late 80s with many LCDs screen, strong radar and extended fuel storage. So sad when USSR fell and that amazing variant was abandoned.
Hey MiG 21 is still used by the Indian AF with great skills. So a platform is as good as the pilot that handles it A plane by itself is only a vehicle what gets added to it gives that formidable punch. Then the person behind who knows how to punch of course! Indians bought MiG 29 to counter F-16 which the US administration gave Pakistan knowing fully they were intending to use that plane against their ideological obsession India. Today the West is trying to woo India back to counter Russia and China offering the same F16 in a modern format! With cutting edge avionics and engine with more thrust, MiG 29 is still a weapon to reckon with.
A lot of talk about everything except the subject in hand... That was barely mentioned... MiG-29 was designed as a short-range light fighter to work with Su-27 heavy fighter. That means - shorter range, less BVR capability (only Fox-1 and 2 missiles) and overall lackluster medium to long range capability. It was great at close range fights, but had problems reaching it... Once the Soviet Union fell apart, Russia had no more need for them, They needed smth with long range and large weapons capability, able to upgrade to higher level and more easily. That was Su-27, so today we have Su-30/33/34/35... Short legged MiG had no place there...But nations with smaller airspace did... However, most of them decided to join NATO and were required to switch to western aircrafts. But buying planes is not something done over the night... Takes a lot of time and money. So, they decided to keep 29s as long as possible but with the least investments since they will be replaced anyway. That is why they mostly weren't modernized. They kept them in more or less identical state as when they left the factory; old radar and avionics and only old Fox-1 and 2 missiles with air-to-ground capability being barely existing. Then "Oh, let's give them to Ukraine"... Fine, they can use them, but how many of those are flight worthy? What can they do with old weapons and avionics? For example, Serbia recently modernized 29s. They got new RWR, improved radar and fire control systems and - weapons. We received R-74 (new version of R-73, high off-bore missile, Fox-2), new R-27 (Fox-1 with increased range of more than 100km) and - R-77, a Fox-3 which other versions can't use and don't have. Also, now it can use guided air-to-ground bombs and missiles (also purchased) and even Kh-31P anti-radiation missile. Also other versions can't use it... It can be turned into useful aircraft today, but - due to western and mainly US pressure on nations owning it, it has no more market... So, the Fulcrum is left with no market for it... As for bad combat record: it always fought most up to date western aircrafts with Fox-3 missiles, numerical advantage of at least 30:1 in favour of the opponent and with poorly trained crews... But it did give him a bad rap.
From a design perspective, the Auxiliary air intake on the leading edge root extension has hampered the Mig29 more than it helped. The additional ducts of Auxiliary air intake significantly reduced the internal fuel carrying capacity. Add to this the 2 fuel guzzling engines and you have an aircraft with short legs. Although they corrected this in the second generation with optimised air frame, no auxiliary air intake and better engines, it was a bit late then. Also the inferior soviet avionics and missiles limited the Mig29's capability. If the second generation Mig29m is combined with western avionics and missiles you basically get a mini f15.
It's legs were longer than MiG-23's, MiG-21's, MiG-19's, MiG-17"s and MiG-15's that it replaced. Those "fuel guzzling engines" (c) RD-33 have certain characteristics. They are almost the same as those of Rafale and Typhoon that came decades after. From the top of the head: 0.77 - 0.78 littres per hour on nominal.
Yes in recent upgrades indian Mig 29 UPg has been equipped with Israeli HMD, Indian D29 integrared EW suite developed with the help of Israeli company Elisra, Self protection jammers with the help of Italian company electronica, Indian mission computer, conformal fuel tank increased its combat range upto 1400 to 1600 kms, Indian company samtel developed Glass cockpit and HOTAS, India Astra BVR missile, Indian Rudram anti radiation missiles and Israeli Rampage supersonic air to surface missile. And u would be amazed to know these upgradation costs only 10 million per jet excluding weapons. Now it is deployed on Chinese border with latest Rafale and upgraded Mirage 2000 mk2.
@@surajbiradar9827 so why not just abandon them and replace with more succesful fighters if as told in this video Indians not so happy with engines and airframe?
The Mig29 has short legs because it's a small aircraft, just like the F-16. The smaller the airframe, the smaller the combat radius, it's really that simple (which is why The F-14, F-15 & Su-27 are all air superiority fighters). Same thing happened in WW2, the Hurricane/Spitfire were small and didn't carry a lot of internal fuel, same with the 190 & 109. The Mustang was bigger than all of those, and carried more internal fuel than the 109 with full internal fuel and a droptank. The P-47 also had long range, and when they got pressurized drop tanks, for which it had designed to carry from the start (but for various reasons, hadn't been produced up until 1944), they were capable of escorting bombers from England deep into Germany, just as the Mustangs did. So long story even longer: If you want to design a fighter with long legs, it's going to be a big aircraft. There's no way around that fact with our current technology.
The reason it hasn’t had a great record in combat is because of the countries using it. Fighter jets don’t function in a vacuum. They need well-trained pilots. They need ground and air support. They need competent military strategy guiding their use. The countries whose MiG-29’s have been shot down (by American aircraft) have not had the support apparatus necessary to allow it to compete with its US counterparts. I believe most if not all of them were shot down beyond visual range. That being said: has there ever been a MiG-29 shot down in an outright one-on-one dogfight? I don’t think so.
Avionics sensors and missiles seem more important in efficacy.soon UCAVS will surpass the needs in regards to lower costs with highend sensors and datalinks availabilities
sorry detective bs but it wasnt the era of avionics because usa failed with f4 in vietnam for this reason, they had to identify target before shooting BVR, so closed combat was a thing and mig-29 would have eat f-16 in this case. This was not a failure only your video is
The Russian government has been moderning the mig 29 during and after the cold War. Both in avionics, material, engines and weapons. The Russians have sidelined the mig 29 because they needed an aircraft that could fly from one end to the other of the country with minimum in flight refuelling, so they focused on the SU27.
The MIG 29 was a good basic design with some clever innovations but it suffered from unreliable engines and terrible build quality. It was exactly the opposite of earlier Soviet designs, like the MIG 15, 17, 19 and 21 which were rugged, reliable and easy to maintain, even in primitive conditions. 3rd World countries that were happy with the earlier designs found the Fulcrum to be a maintenance nightmare and some pilots have even refused to fly the type for fear that an engine or air frame failure might mean having to use the poorly designed ejection seat that was well known for causing career-ending spine injuries. If Mikoyan had concentrated more on making the type easier and cheaper to maintain, the MIG 29 might have been more successful.
From what I read the mig 29s ejection seats where regarded as the best in the world when the plane came out. It's capabilities where demonstrated quite well when at the Paris airshow an demonstration aircraft suffered a birdstrike at less then 100 ft of altitude and flipped on its back because of asymmetric trust before diving into the ground. Not only did the pilot survive, he was uninjured and flying again the same or the next day.
The airframe is not a failure but more of a failure to modernize. If you go with the fact that the West is still using airframes from the same time period but are better updated.
The thesis statement of this video is questionable at least. Another statement that bugs me is that the MiG29 was supposedly a direct reaction to the F16. To my knowledge, it wasn't as much as it was a cheaper and rugged complement to the Su-27. In that sense, it has a somewhat parallel role to the F16. But it wasn't specifically developed or built to compete with the Viper. Also; aircraft don't exist in a vacuum. The USA curb-stomps basically anyone in its way. And comparing a few outmoded MiGs to a fully integrated wing of F16s isn't really a fair comparison of the aircraft's themselves.
If there is a 50% chance of F16 winning in a dogfight, it's better for F16 to fight in BVR if the odds are more like 80% chance of success simple math 😎
@@HJJ135 mig 29 upg with Astra bvr missile F16 block f with aaram can be outperform too. It's completely depends upon pilot skills and experience. During kargil war mig 29 did the cap mission and keep the F16 and JF17 away 😝
Completely disagree that it failed. It has seen more contested combat that almost any aircraft of recent times and its pilots are not experienced enough. That’s why it has lost so many aircraft.
The Peruvian Air Force make the big mistake of buying 21 Mig29s instead of upgrading their Mirage 2000. Now, there is only a handful of Mig29s flying while all their Mirage 2000 are combat ready.
@@boejiden7093 like from 1985 to 2005 we dominated over Pakistan like This thing had Helmet mounted sights compared to regular Heads up Display. Pakistani F16 still don't use HMDs and F110 engines
@@ChandranPrema123 dominated? We got our asses kicked in 2019 after the balakot strike. Our missiles laughably outranged by older Pakistani AMRAAMS. Dogfights aren’t the primary method of air warfare anymore. It’s BVR today. Keep up with the times pal.
Please don't call the Mig 29 a failure. It has been the aircraft with the most potential far over the contemporary Sukhois and Hornets. It never received its due attention. Don't compare then to the F 16s. Compare the F 16s to the Mirages. Thoughtful operators like the IAF, should have invested in these phenomenal Mig 29 airframes and should have made the most effective 4th gen aircrafts and fielded them in huge numbers.
A very big mistake of the Soviet Union was that always the export variants of all of its aircrafts were downgraded. This resulted to many export soviet models to underperform and had many loses. The usa on the other hand sells nearly identical aircraft as their own. Planes that the us doesn't want to export simply aren't exported (f117, f22 etc).
Superior aerodynamics? F16 turns tighter, and is the fastest aircraft at sea level. Migs have super maneuverability, but that only helps in 1 v 1. Once you've dumped all your energy to get one kill your easy prey for his wingman.
The Mig 29 was actually better than the F16 at the beginning. Problem was, the 29 didn't receive enhancements and upgrades like the F16 has over the decades. Obviously, the tables have turned in the platform with the new Mig 35.
It's a light fighter, Jet is fast, just has a weaker radar, but is still capable and shouldn't be underestimated. I think Russia didn't invest in this jet because nato members obtained them after the fall of ussr.
Malaysia owned MiG-29N and F/A-18D and fought many simulated battles together. At the hands of the right pilots, MiG-29 is deadly. Unsub for being a propaganda channel
The Fulcrums were also technologically not upto the mark as 3 Indian Mig29ks crashed on takeoff or soon after from the Goa naval base..the exact cause has never been explained
Failed? It is the backbone of many country's military might, and it is incredibly effective. It is outdated, but to call it a failure is kinda disingenuous.
Yo, Weapons Detective, have you ever heard of the Mig-35? Well, that's okay; very few people outside of Russia have. But, according to open sources, this new variant of the Mig is a souped-up version of the carrier-based Mig-29k. And it has all sorts of bells and whistles you wouldn't believe, including AESA radar. Unfortunately, Rostec may have kneecapped themselves. Despite building a handful of airframes for the Russian military, the original plan was to export the Mig-35 to various countries with a history of operating Soviet/ Russian aircraft, such as Algeria, Vietnam, and India. However, when the United Aircraft Company debuted its Sukhoi 75, which is supposed to be a low-cost variant of the SU-57, the overseas interest in the Mig-35 dried up. Now all these potential overseas customers will have to wait and see if the Sukhoi-75 actually goes into serial production. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
It's not the aircraft fault 😢 the air frem & design is perfect but if only this bird has the western technology & better weapons system it's going to be deadly 😱
It seldom comes to dogfight. Ukrainian poilot, who downed numerous Russian attack Su-25 planes and bombers (must be mostly Su-24) in his Su-27 only once saw a silhouette of a Russian fighter, all other encounters were only in BVR on radar. In such situation MiG-29 would have no advantages and plane's excellent aerodynamics would be left as unused asset, at which point the need for more sophisticated radar and more computing power arises, which "Fulcrum" does not possess.
No, US misunderstood the concept of MiG-25 by looking at its photos. Thus they created an exellent F-15. That Foxbat in japan happened after all that. F-16, on the other hand, was an answer to Rus MiG-21 of the previous generation. MiG-29 and Su-27 were an answer to F-15. Nobody was even talking about F-16 since it was an aicraft with only short-range missile and one engine. That was not serious even in the early 70's. Originally the Russians wanted 1 fighter. And MiG-29 was it. But then the MiG Chief designer suggested that Sukhoi should continue with their work on future Su-27 since USA had 2 planes. So they ended up with MiG as a fronline fighter and Su as long-range interceptor. A MiG-31 force muliplier if you will.
Please click the link to watch our other Weapon Detective videos
ua-cam.com/play/PLEMWqyRZP_LrdqB-XbqY2LocUVEaG_w7D.html
Please click the link to watch our other Russian-Soviet Systems videos
ua-cam.com/play/PLEMWqyRZP_LoX-Waa3Xb-clnCzQXpmcZ6.html
Please click the link to watch our other Weapon Detective-Air videos
ua-cam.com/play/PLEMWqyRZP_LrGyENf3nqsYKC9ZkWH414k.html
In the future can we see a video on the K1 88-Tank
Unsub for being a propaganda channel
I disagree. The plane was in use in over 30 countries and produced over 1,500 aircrafts of all variants.
I voted this video down and unsubscribed. Thank you for your effort.
He's just sucking up to Americans, so everything non-pro-american is "failed" and he'll get an American views, likes and maybe sponsors.
mig-29 answer f-16 ❎
mig-33 answer f-16 ✅
Why did it fail in export sales?
The Flanker series:
Similar design.
Similar agility.
Much larger payload capability.
Designed as a multi-role fighter from the start.
Somewhat higher price, but much bigger bang for the buck.
The F-16:
NATO-standard interfaces means you're not locked into US weapons. If you want to load it with ASRAAMs or IRIS-T, you're free to do so.
Better avionics by a country mile.
@@katherineberger6329 ...and it's operational preparedness record is far better.
If you have 100 F-16s, 85-90 will be ready for combat.
With 100 Flankers, you would have 25 in overhaul, at any given time.
@@katherineberger6329 "or if you are into Israeli stuff, the Python and Derby, like what (for example) Singaporeans did, and obviously the origin country"
Failed? It's not the best but I definitely wouldn't call it a failure.
Same
Totally agree. The Mig 29 really shook up the west by its performance. It is still a good, reliable fighter (ask the Ukraine...)
I think If the MİG-29 had a good fighter, the Chinese would have already copied it.
In terms of adoption I think it did. Many nations opted for the SU-27 over the MiG-29
@@habahan4257 the China were busy copying the mig-21 which was severely delayed in the end they opted for copying the su-27 since its better than the mig-29
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu_J-7
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenyang_J-15
With its Helmet mounted cueing and R73 missile, West was instructing it's pilots to not engage Mig29 in close combat
I mean, that’s fine when most western aircraft are better suited at BVR
Who said that?? When US don't had IFF systems on fighter aircraft, they had to get close to identify the aircraft, m talking about 1991-1995. Many close engagement took place between MiG-29 & F-15/F-16 till now.
@@thetopsecretpentagonsclass6350 didn’t realize we’re still in the mid 90s
@@benjaminw6985 every fighter aircraft in US have IFF & advance RWR now, we don't even need AWACS in 100 miles radius.
@@thetopsecretpentagonsclass6350 IFF on all US fighters since around 1944.
Regardless of what it’s been said, the MIG 29 with a well trained pilot is still a serious threat in air to air combat.
Tbh, the way described the plane it sounds more like a thing many Soviet vehicles have.
The Soviet Union is now just a part of history, while the western counterparts and companies that develop and produce them are still existent and also a still producing new vehicles.
Overall the MiG 29 seems to be up to the task when it was first used, but since nobody provided any upgrades to it it simply now is dated up to obsolete.
Yeah I am on the same page as you. It felt more like there wasn't any substantial upgrade for the fulcrum since the Soviet collapse. Compare to f16, 18, and 15 which keep getting updated. I mean imagine having f16A competing with su35 and j16 is kinda difficult.
@@innocentpasserby9632 There were upgrades to the 29. The Israelis had an upgrade program for any customer. The Germans also upgraded theirs until they became redundant.
there are quite a few mig29 upgrades
@@bobo-_- I know, but the Programms that really put them on par with western counterparts where mostly considered too expensive by their respective countries and since no really rich nation uses them you can very well claim that overall the SU-29 was just left in a ditch.
I have read that the Soviets really wanted something multirole like the F-16 from the start but were stuck with the air-to-air oriented MiG-29 until it became more multirole later in its own career.
is called mig-33 : f-16 soviet but failed
f-16 was PRIMARALY designed as a close range fighter with ONLY CLOSE range missiles available.
It didn't have even mid-range capabilities to begin with.
What toilet paper are you reading?
ps I'm not even mentioning that MiG-29A has won its program in 1972 (the order to start production was issued in 72 means that tha plane has already been desighned) while Light Weight Fighter (F-16) program started in 1972.
That means LATER.
In other words AFTER the MiG-29 and Su-27 program (Future Frontline Fighter).
And once again: short-range dogfighter (F-16) in the 70's is an epic fail of strategic thinking. Yeh, it was an answer to MiG-21 success in Vietman, but it was too late. The Russians themselves were not playing that game any more plus they demanded that it should be STRICTLY a twin engine design. That means they were done playing sigle engine crap game.
No wonder that a single engine short range dog fighner ended up being overweighted sub-bomder for the majority of its service life.
@@aurora-cj6ui it carried aim120 and the side winder missiles what garbage are you reading
@@dannywaller7679teenager, ask ur parents to read u about the years when they were adopted.
Each and every yt aviation video is packed with idiotsof all sorts
@@dannywaller7679 F-16 did not have fox 1 or fox 3 capabilities until the mid 80s.
I disagree about the potential of the plane. What doomed it in Syria, Iraq, Ex Yugoslavia and Ukraine was poor logistics and lack of AWACS systems, where the opponents had plenty: modern fighters rarely intercept their targets on their own means, because the radar signature gives them away, cancelling the surprise factor. If your opponent can see you coming, an active missile just needs a quick lock to go its way, but if you are actively searching, working on a radar which is not great, they would see you coming before you do. The R73 is an outstanding missile: in 1990, acquiring samples for the Luftwaffe sent shiver to the western world, to the point that Luftwaffe, Italy and Spain dropped out of the ASRAM program deeming it 'inadequate' bringing to the Iris-T. The Mig 29 could exploit the R73 very well thanks to the IR sensor ahead of the windscreen, which the F16 never had. The R73 is also a superior weapon to the Aim9L that the F16 adopted as main weapon for most of its life.
The F16 radar was crap for years and the plane was never able to replace air superiority fighters until the late nineties because it could not guide the AIM 7 sparrow.
Even with the AIM 120 things would not be great, but the Airborne radar systems available to NATO, which would guide the planes in the area to the target was able to mitigate these shortcomings. This is why modern radar put much more emphasis on stealthyness then they do on range and raw power.
What really killed the Mig 29 was maintenance: the turbofan produced in Russia are generally not as reliable as the western ones, produce less thrust to weight ratio, burn a lot of fuel and have drastically shortened lifespan. You buy a plane for cheap, but when you ask for engine spares, or worse, you need to completely replace them after a few hundreds flight hours, it become expensive. The lesson was learned by costumers on the Mig 21 and very few bought the Mig 23/27. The Mig 29 was a better plane, but customers burned by previous experiences only went to Russia if they couldn't get western jets, available in number on the used market after the end of the cold war. This reduced the incomes for Mikoyan that couldn't dedicate enough resources to keep iup to date the Mig 29, and develop new systems for it.
Russia's preference for the Su27 only made thing worse for Mikoyan which, currently is barely surviving as an aerospace company.
Well, once can read Yugo description of their MiG-29 use - planes had little maintenance & did not have even remotely modern missiles. their only chance was attack from the rear when they could get close - which was not possible with overpowering AWACS help NATO forces got.
@@tomk3732 Yugoslavian Mig 29 escadrille was scheduled for service in Russia in 1996. Never happen because of sanctions. One of those Migs had non working radar, in another one (one downed buy Dutch f 16) pilot died because warning for incoming missile didn't work.
@@DjordjeDjurkovic Yeah they were in poor shape - they also did not have R-77 missiles. If I remember correctly all were downed BVR. Not even one of them got to fight & I also believe not even one had a chance to fire its own missiles. I think Serbs had only R-27 semi active missiles. And infrared stuff. Even if they got close enough and got a lock they could not fire and crank hard.
@@tomk3732 I'm not even sure that "new" Serbian Migs, that was donated by Russia few years ago, use R 77. Allegedly they should start using R 77 last year. Anyway, they are late 23 years...There was 14 Mig's 29 in 1999, 5 or 6 was destroyed in the air, one by friendly fire, 4 or 5 on the ground (one crash lended). 4 survived.
@@DjordjeDjurkovic In defense of the Serbs in 1999 the Aim-120 was a very new missile - it was by far the best and newest stuff NATO had.
I think the aircraft is a wonderful-looking piece of aviation art.
Excellent video. I think the greatest weakness the MiG-29 had was it’s inadequately trained pilots and not necessarily the plane itself. That’s not to say they lacked skill. On the contrary, the MiG-29 pilots had to be some of the most competent in the world. However, compared to the US and it’s NATO allies, the pilots of the countries that flew the MiG-29 had far fewer flight ours and combat training. Modernized versions such as those flown by Poland and India are still formidable aircraft. For within visual range engagements, the MiG-29 has excellent angle of attack characteristics and nose authority comparable to the F-18 Hornet (legacy) and exceptional power to weight. Couple this with the HMD high off-boresight capabilities and the MIG-29 is deadly. If you added a modern AESA radar and the BVR R-77 missile, it would be deadly in BVR engagements as well.
To point out the MiG pilot's lack of air hours is to point out their lack of competence. You really can't have it both ways.
The most optimistic guess of their flight hours per year compared to an American pilot's worst possible flight hours still doesn't get them close. This is backed up by the lack of good maintenance crews for MiGs - if they were flying, the mechanics would be more experienced and better.
Plus I doubt the Russians have many simulators, I doubt their quality and if they even run.
@@recoil53 that’s a fair point. I suppose I should have rephrased it to suggest that the pilots are no doubt skilled at their craft, but lack the comparable competence to their American counterparts. It makes you wonder how a modernized MiG-29 would perform had it received the type of successive upgrades western Gen 4 planes received over the decades and in the hands of a highly trained and skilled pilot.
Also, from what I understand, the pilots are (were?) told strictly what to do at all times from the ground. They're not trained or encouraged to take own initiatives, which of course hamper their abilities in real life dogfighting.
@@BustaHymen Russia is in all ways a centralized system, including their military.
Pilots are actively discouraged from taking initiative.
@@BustaHymen if I can recall correctly, it was the Soviet pilots. They would be zeroed in onto their target by ground radar.
Is this "it failed" bait?
Mig - 29.. don't think it was a failure.. just look at the number of countries it was exported to and Helmet mounted display with its air to air missile was game changer and much ahead of its time... It's the Mig 35 which I would call the biggest failure
In radar-avionik-electronic-jamming-engine Mig-29 its failure,. Mig-29 its have better manuver, and can go to bad airfield, just that point who better in Mig-29,.
But i real Mig-29 its lose in BVR, and Jamming,.
You know in air conflict you must have all better, not just manuver,.
@@firdausdwim9710 Mig-29 UPG fixes pretty much all the issues in earlier Mig-29 versions
@@aniruddhamulay2932 nah, Mig-29 all series (not Mig-35) have few problem,.
Mig-29 have a performance and manuver in short dogfight, but all Mig-29 dont have good radar for BVR, dont have good jammer or electronic, engine still RD-33 is lack of lifetime engine and have a smoke because not a good engine, and cannot fly long time,.
Mig-29 its like Ak-47 in air, for modern war Ak-47 its not enough,.
nope mig-33 is better design
Mig 35 isn't a failure the only reason why it's not selling is because of sanctions otherwise they would have sold a good number of them by now it's sad because they make 35 was barely going off the ground but the timing was really working against it
The Malaysian airforce bought a bunch of these and is currently keeping them in storage. Expensive to maintain and lack of spares.
just a poor country and cannot afford it
It's still less expensive than most modern aircraft maintenance you see?
Political decision! CAATSA law!
I think part of the failure of the Mig-29s to gain many victories has to do with training of the pilots also, not just the aircraft itself.
I wrote as much. DOGFIGHT close combat is vital. The REAL advantage the West has, not tech.
Export versions were used by others the 9.13 was for the USSR and slightly downgraded 9.12A for allies and more downgraded 9.12B for others .
The radar was not good enough until the Mig 29SMT/M .
The engines also because the philosophy was that it woundent survive so long in a war with NATO so it had too be overhauled after 2000h in the West 5000h also the smoke coming out from the engines was not good.
My 2 cents
Mig-29 is an excellent fighter jet aerodynamically, but the electronic systems was not using modular designs, which make upgrade the plane a pain in the ass, and requires a huge amount of effort compare to those using modular designs. The result of this is with time passing on, the mig-29 was always behind in tech vs its opponent. The early version is su27 was facing the same issue(until su35), that's why PLA had too taken everything out and re-design all the electronic systems. Especially with the collapse of soviet union, mig29 stopped receiving upgrades.
Saying the soviet engineers incapable of innovate is not fair. They are genius in a lot of fields, it is the lack capital driven market economy causing them moving slower in electronics.
mig-33 is better design
Good points. People tend to forget the fact that the US has poured MASSIVE amounts of dollars into their defense industry. Their technological advantage (in certain fields at least) didn't just happen by chance. If you want to increase your scientific capabilities, you have to spend money on it, money that most nations on this planet don't have. For example, only 3 nations have put human beings in space (Russia/Soviet Union, USA & now China), and only one managed to put humans on another celestial body (USA). If you don't have a large economy, you won't be able to compete, so in that regard, the Russians have done very well for themselves, considering the fact that their economy isn't anywhere near USA's economy.
my country used MiG29N version. it has air to air refueling probe. I saw it in LIMA airshow, it turns very quickly and able to do that cobra, shooting up like a rocket. Now retired after we got SU30MKM.
I love these “why the xxx sucks” videos. The radar and short range was and probably still is it’s biggest problem but if the pilot can survive till the merge than it is a deadly weapon. As far as the airframe is concerned it is a work of art.
I always liked the mig-29 more than the f-16, although I always recognized the problems that the mig 29 had, anyway it's still an airplane that seems pretty nice for me, I'd like to see a video about the Su-27 at some point, Anyway, thanks for the video, I really liked it, it's been a while since I've seen a video that talks about the plane from this perspective :P
It didn't fail, it just that whenever it came to combat, it had Arab pilots.
Ukraine if anything has shown what the MiG-29 can do. and no, I'm not talking about the Ghost of Kyiv myth.
Still ain’t much considering it’s lost most of them.
@@ghostfacegrillah7891 We won't know until official reports on the air theater are released.
What has Ukraine shown? I'm unaware of any air war victory
Nah in real Mig-29 is lose if vs J-10C,. You know USA have few Mig-29 and test that Mig-29?, in Test all pilot its inpresif because good manuver and better handling, but in BVR and jamming Mig-29 its very bad, they dont have better radar and better jamming system,.
So in few case if F-15/16/18 want to shoot down Mig-29 use AIM-120 in BVR and Jamming Mig-29 so they will blind,.
Multiple Ukrainian MiG 29 was shot down by literally any variants of Flanker in Russian service.
Ukrainian pilot are dumbass compared to North Vietnamese pilot. They have been completely failed in causing damage to Russian Air Force. Ukrainian SAM claimed all the Russian losses on the sky.
Mig 29s may have not kept up with the evolving electronic battlefields , but I am not sure if they can be considered a failure. They were quite relevant in the late 80s to 90s and even early 2000s. Many countries still use heavily upgraded versions of it.
It must have felt really strange as a 1969 American to life in that era and have stuff like the F-14 and F-15 presented to you. They were so futuristic. It must have looked like science fiction to you.
No kidding. It's crazy how fast technology leaped.
Put it like this. In the 50s-60s, with jet technology so new, planes only lasted a few years before they were replaced. Now they last decades.
@@nizloc4118 they don't last decades because they are capable, they last decades because there is no opposition to them, just look at the disparity between the f-15 and f-22, one f-22 could single handledly take out multiple f-15 with ease, even if they were crewed by very experienced pilots. Had the cold war continued and a soviet threat was still around, the F-15 would have also been fully replaced by the F-22 in no more than a decade.
@sovieticodiabetico6874 that's a good point.
But then again, the Phantom for example flew for 30 years during the Cold War. The F-15 replaced it and would have more or less flown the same timespan, before it was fully replaced.
You're right in that the need would have pushed innovation, and new designs would have been born. But whereas the early generations of fighters, they were designed and built in maybe 2-3 years. Today designing them alone takes a decade, because the technology has been pushed to such further limits, at least what we know of today
recommend a video on the MIG-35B multi role interdictor strike fighter . . . it'll help understand the depth of two different variants based on the same airframe from two different generations . . .
Well, he did say that would be for a separate video, so fingers crossed?
It was a great design than any American fighter but fitted with less capable Avionics. But its still a legendary Fighter jet ever made
ngl the mig-29M doesn´t seem bad, but i agree the older version truly suck. I was also surprised by the radar
So basically the mig-29 is a great air frame let down by outdated electronics and ergonomic controls, plus no major power to constantly update it like the F-16
Great video once again!! Thank you so much, this is a nice comparison of the two jets!
I wouldn't exactly call it a failure. I think it came at the wrong time. After fall of the Soviet Union it's development was slowed to a trickle. Things like aerial refuling and attack/strike ability were not available initially. The most advanced Mig-21 was more capable at attacking ground targets than the Mig-29A. When paired with Western Avionics and weapons, it's quite formidable. The only part it failed at for sure from what I've read is maintenance cost. It costs as much to operate as a Flanker but, with a smaller radar and shorter range. Not to mention the Flanker seems to be the more versatile multurole platform.
Seems a lot like the MiG-29 air-frame could have benefited from a total overhaul with western technology.
But then again why would any nation that has access to modern western tech go through such a deep and costly partnerships to upgrade one of their aging air-frames if they can just buy a new western air-frame with the already integrated western avionics, without the need for costly and redundant R&D that such a MiG-29 redesign would bring.
One of the best looking aircraft ever made
exactly 1 day after this video release, mig-29 has been used in the most recent important war, the Sudan civil war
The problem with the MiG-29 is the air forces which use them. In the hands of the few countries that have them that can operate them properly it’s as good as anything else.
you should have mentioned the mig 29 upg of yhe indian airforce
I think part of the problem with the MiG-29 compared to Western fighters is not so much the aircraft itself but, rather, the pilots who fly it and the environment it would fly in.
In your video you refer to a Centralised Totalitarian political system as in part an explanation of why the designers had not to been able to come up with the type of innovative systems Western designers had. The same can be said for the Russian air units; (and those of any countries that have adopted the Russian- formerly Soviet- system). The Russians used a highly centralized Top Down Command structure with the pilots heavily reliant on orders from Ground Controllers. Initiative was not encouraged and, typically, a Russian pilot would fly only half the numbers of hours their Western counterpart would.
Another point would be all the additional Support a Western pilot would enjoy with large scale use of Airborne Early Warning, Electronic Warfare and other Support aircraft. These are all intended to degrade the networks any enemy would rely on so the Western counterparts would be operating in a permissive environment whilst their opponents wouldn't be. Added to the fact that any of the air forces operating the MiG-29 you mentioned would tend to be outnumbered anyway and it becomes a perfect storm. A well maintained, upgraded MiG-29 flown by a competent, experienced pilot would have a reasonable chance against an F16 One on One. Unfortunately Western Doctrine is to NOT fight One on One. So you would more likely have a less experienced pilot, flying an older MiG-29 which has not been as well maintained or upgraded facing off against a numerically superior force of Western aircraft.
Western Doctrine is to NOT fight fair but to load the dice in their favour to achieve dominance. No wonder the MiG-29 has not performed as well as might be expected. It's going against a Loaded Deck.
What the fuck? Russian Air Force completely REJECTED GCI command ultra order in air to air combat since 70s after their avionic radar had been improved. Watch the Soviet Top Gun video and educate yourself.
Over Korea, Russians gave the west a workout in the mig 15. But like the usa neglected dogfighting.
It’s not necessarily a failture, it’s just not the best. The remaining active Mig-29s left outside of Russia/India it has been mostly modified by Elbit Systems. Yes, it’s not as great a Su-27 in air to air, but if you look at the current War, it still works.
I am totally on the Western side of the equation but cannot fail to appreciate the Soviet era aircraft designs. Both MIG and Surkoi designed aircrafts were absolutely beautiful in design and simplicity. Sometimes bigger and complicated is not better.
It’s better.
Any Aircraft used with good Air support like Awacs and Ecm and ofcourse with strategy can become a Deadly Weapon System
How many confirmed A/A kills, what's the kill vs loss ratio?
Nice video...
Didnt failed in my Heart.
I know why the bad rep tho, basically made in a way that was cheap, and growing, but mist that got destroyed were older, kinda like T72 but imagine if they were throwing missiles with radar at each other but you have bad radar in early versions
If the MiG 29 is the Soviet F-16, I'm still waiting for my Soviet F-16XL.
BS. It wasn't a failure. Its performance in the Indian Air Force for example is a great demonstration that its still a potent weapon under a competent user's hands.
It's not the problem with the aircraft itself but tactics of using them in warfare. Sukhois planes were supposed to be heavy and expensive fighters (and it's what they're) and MIGs were supposed to be cheap light fighters - and they failed here as MIGs became middle fighters - heavier and more expensive than they're supposed to be.
That’s a first someone ( even nonfans of the plane ) saying a MiG-29 was a failure.
I have heard it refered to a "fighter to defend its home airbase" because its fuel range is somewhat on the short side
There is a modernized version called MiG 29M which was released in late 80s with many LCDs screen, strong radar and extended fuel storage. So sad when USSR fell and that amazing variant was abandoned.
@@mrmakhno3030 now it is much better and is called MiG-35
The jet was never intended to project power but is more a frontline and point defense fighter
@@enhancedutility266 tell that to Russia
@@jaws666 that was Russia/Soviet Union strategy
Hey MiG 21 is still used by the Indian AF with great skills. So a platform is as good as the pilot that handles it A plane by itself is only a vehicle what gets added to it gives that formidable punch. Then the person behind who knows how to punch of course! Indians bought MiG 29 to counter F-16 which the US administration gave Pakistan knowing fully they were intending to use that plane against their ideological obsession India. Today the West is trying to woo India back to counter Russia and China offering the same F16 in a modern format! With cutting edge avionics and engine with more thrust, MiG 29 is still a weapon to reckon with.
Yes I agree with you one more important things our mig 21 shoot down F16 after successful air strike in Pakistan just think about it
A lot of talk about everything except the subject in hand... That was barely mentioned...
MiG-29 was designed as a short-range light fighter to work with Su-27 heavy fighter. That means - shorter range, less BVR capability (only Fox-1 and 2 missiles) and overall lackluster medium to long range capability. It was great at close range fights, but had problems reaching it...
Once the Soviet Union fell apart, Russia had no more need for them, They needed smth with long range and large weapons capability, able to upgrade to higher level and more easily. That was Su-27, so today we have Su-30/33/34/35... Short legged MiG had no place there...But nations with smaller airspace did... However, most of them decided to join NATO and were required to switch to western aircrafts. But buying planes is not something done over the night... Takes a lot of time and money. So, they decided to keep 29s as long as possible but with the least investments since they will be replaced anyway. That is why they mostly weren't modernized. They kept them in more or less identical state as when they left the factory; old radar and avionics and only old Fox-1 and 2 missiles with air-to-ground capability being barely existing.
Then "Oh, let's give them to Ukraine"... Fine, they can use them, but how many of those are flight worthy? What can they do with old weapons and avionics?
For example, Serbia recently modernized 29s. They got new RWR, improved radar and fire control systems and - weapons. We received R-74 (new version of R-73, high off-bore missile, Fox-2), new R-27 (Fox-1 with increased range of more than 100km) and - R-77, a Fox-3 which other versions can't use and don't have. Also, now it can use guided air-to-ground bombs and missiles (also purchased) and even Kh-31P anti-radiation missile. Also other versions can't use it... It can be turned into useful aircraft today, but - due to western and mainly US pressure on nations owning it, it has no more market...
So, the Fulcrum is left with no market for it...
As for bad combat record: it always fought most up to date western aircrafts with Fox-3 missiles, numerical advantage of at least 30:1 in favour of the opponent and with poorly trained crews... But it did give him a bad rap.
From a design perspective, the Auxiliary air intake on the leading edge root extension has hampered the Mig29 more than it helped.
The additional ducts of Auxiliary air intake significantly reduced the internal fuel carrying capacity. Add to this the 2 fuel guzzling engines and you have an aircraft with short legs. Although they corrected this in the second generation with optimised air frame, no auxiliary air intake and better engines, it was a bit late then.
Also the inferior soviet avionics and missiles limited the Mig29's capability.
If the second generation Mig29m is combined with western avionics and missiles you basically get a mini f15.
It's legs were longer than MiG-23's, MiG-21's, MiG-19's, MiG-17"s and MiG-15's that it replaced.
Those "fuel guzzling engines" (c) RD-33 have certain characteristics. They are almost the same as those of Rafale and Typhoon that came decades after. From the top of the head: 0.77 - 0.78 littres per hour on nominal.
Yes in recent upgrades indian Mig 29 UPg has been equipped with Israeli HMD, Indian D29 integrared EW suite developed with the help of Israeli company Elisra, Self protection jammers with the help of Italian company electronica, Indian mission computer, conformal fuel tank increased its combat range upto 1400 to 1600 kms, Indian company samtel developed Glass cockpit and HOTAS, India Astra BVR missile, Indian Rudram anti radiation missiles and Israeli Rampage supersonic air to surface missile.
And u would be amazed to know these upgradation costs only 10 million per jet excluding weapons.
Now it is deployed on Chinese border with latest Rafale and upgraded Mirage 2000 mk2.
@@nishantshrivastava9674 I know, I am indian
@@surajbiradar9827 so why not just abandon them and replace with more succesful fighters if as told in this video Indians not so happy with engines and airframe?
The Mig29 has short legs because it's a small aircraft, just like the F-16. The smaller the airframe, the smaller the combat radius, it's really that simple (which is why The F-14, F-15 & Su-27 are all air superiority fighters). Same thing happened in WW2, the Hurricane/Spitfire were small and didn't carry a lot of internal fuel, same with the 190 & 109. The Mustang was bigger than all of those, and carried more internal fuel than the 109 with full internal fuel and a droptank. The P-47 also had long range, and when they got pressurized drop tanks, for which it had designed to carry from the start (but for various reasons, hadn't been produced up until 1944), they were capable of escorting bombers from England deep into Germany, just as the Mustangs did.
So long story even longer: If you want to design a fighter with long legs, it's going to be a big aircraft. There's no way around that fact with our current technology.
The reason it hasn’t had a great record in combat is because of the countries using it.
Fighter jets don’t function in a vacuum. They need well-trained pilots. They need ground and air support. They need competent military strategy guiding their use.
The countries whose MiG-29’s have been shot down (by American aircraft) have not had the support apparatus necessary to allow it to compete with its US counterparts. I believe most if not all of them were shot down beyond visual range.
That being said: has there ever been a MiG-29 shot down in an outright one-on-one dogfight? I don’t think so.
Wait. So if the MiG-29A didn't carry the R-27, then what was its loadout? R-24?
Pilot skills make the difference.
To me, the interior of 29 looks old. Outside it's wow. I heard that Polish had improved it, but never seen how. Probably they have modernized varians.
Avionics sensors and missiles seem more important in efficacy.soon UCAVS will surpass the needs in regards to lower costs with highend sensors and datalinks availabilities
sorry detective bs but it wasnt the era of avionics because usa failed with f4 in vietnam for this reason, they had to identify target before shooting BVR, so closed combat was a thing and mig-29 would have eat f-16 in this case. This was not a failure only your video is
It is not the frailer of the Mig 29 but in Pilot training. I would that in the hands of a well train pilot, it would be a hard fight against it.
Mig-29 was too expensive compared to F-16, and had many design flaws, finally addressed in Mig-35.
Excellent
The Russian government has been moderning the mig 29 during and after the cold War. Both in avionics, material, engines and weapons.
The Russians have sidelined the mig 29 because they needed an aircraft that could fly from one end to the other of the country with minimum in flight refuelling, so they focused on the SU27.
The MIG 29 was a good basic design with some clever innovations but it suffered from unreliable engines and terrible build quality. It was exactly the opposite of earlier Soviet designs, like the MIG 15, 17, 19 and 21 which were rugged, reliable and easy to maintain, even in primitive conditions. 3rd World countries that were happy with the earlier designs found the Fulcrum to be a maintenance nightmare and some pilots have even refused to fly the type for fear that an engine or air frame failure might mean having to use the poorly designed ejection seat that was well known for causing career-ending spine injuries. If Mikoyan had concentrated more on making the type easier and cheaper to maintain, the MIG 29 might have been more successful.
no mig-33 is better design & mig-29 is ugly design
You are confusing the - 29 with the mig 23 and it's pos ejection seat.
From what I read the mig 29s ejection seats where regarded as the best in the world when the plane came out.
It's capabilities where demonstrated quite well when at the Paris airshow an demonstration aircraft suffered a birdstrike at less then 100 ft of altitude and flipped on its back because of asymmetric trust before diving into the ground.
Not only did the pilot survive, he was uninjured and flying again the same or the next day.
@@johnmilner5485 Yup, the K-36D ejection seat is one of the best ones out there.
The airframe is not a failure but more of a failure to modernize. If you go with the fact that the West is still using airframes from the same time period but are better updated.
I believe that the airframe as a 4th Gen fighter was superb but avionics and radar underwhelming.
The thesis statement of this video is questionable at least. Another statement that bugs me is that the MiG29 was supposedly a direct reaction to the F16. To my knowledge, it wasn't as much as it was a cheaper and rugged complement to the Su-27. In that sense, it has a somewhat parallel role to the F16. But it wasn't specifically developed or built to compete with the Viper.
Also; aircraft don't exist in a vacuum. The USA curb-stomps basically anyone in its way. And comparing a few outmoded MiGs to a fully integrated wing of F16s isn't really a fair comparison of the aircraft's themselves.
Malaysia is watching..✌️😊✌️🇲🇾
India has maintained these aircraft well. A MiG-29 with a decent BVRAAM like the Astra as an interceptor can cause a lot of damage
I wish this jet gets better radar for BVR fight. it already has the speed over the F16
*_Dislike. Who told you that MiG-29/Su-27 Failed? NATO equivalents (ex. SAAB Grippen) can only dream to have their Aerobatic Capabilities..._*
It's one of the best fighter for close combat dogfight. Even Its opponent F16 avoid dogfight
If there is a 50% chance of F16 winning in a dogfight, it's better for F16 to fight in BVR if the odds are more like 80% chance of success simple math 😎
@@HJJ135 mig 29 upg with Astra bvr missile F16 block f with aaram can be outperform too. It's completely depends upon pilot skills and experience. During kargil war mig 29 did the cap mission and keep the F16 and JF17 away 😝
In the hands of Indian pilot, the MiG29 is a bird of prey on top of the food chain. 😊
it's a beautiful bird
no mig-29 it's ugly bird & mig-33 is beautiful bird
Completely disagree that it failed. It has seen more contested combat that almost any aircraft of recent times and its pilots are not experienced enough. That’s why it has lost so many aircraft.
Ok.
The Peruvian Air Force make the big mistake of buying 21 Mig29s instead of upgrading their Mirage 2000. Now, there is only a handful of Mig29s flying while all their Mirage 2000 are combat ready.
Calling it a failure is a completely mistreatment to this beautiful jet.....
India is the first customer of MIG 29 way back in 1985 just 6months after the Soviets inducted MIG 29 in 1984.
And then we got stuck in an endless cycle of procuring russian junk
@@boejiden7093 like from 1985 to 2005 we dominated over Pakistan like This thing had Helmet mounted sights compared to regular Heads up Display.
Pakistani F16 still don't use HMDs and F110 engines
@@boejiden7093 so according to you what's the solution Indian would received that time???
@@ChandranPrema123 dominated? We got our asses kicked in 2019 after the balakot strike. Our missiles laughably outranged by older Pakistani AMRAAMS. Dogfights aren’t the primary method of air warfare anymore. It’s BVR today. Keep up with the times pal.
@@irshadhussain2856 go all in on indigenous development. Or purchase French fighters instead. Don’t pretend like we didn’t have options. We did.
Can you make a video about the Pandur II FSV?
Please don't call the Mig 29 a failure. It has been the aircraft with the most potential far over the contemporary Sukhois and Hornets. It never received its due attention. Don't compare then to the F 16s. Compare the F 16s to the Mirages. Thoughtful operators like the IAF, should have invested in these phenomenal Mig 29 airframes and should have made the most effective 4th gen aircrafts and fielded them in huge numbers.
A very big mistake of the Soviet Union was that always the export variants of all of its aircrafts were downgraded. This resulted to many export soviet models to underperform and had many loses. The usa on the other hand sells nearly identical aircraft as their own. Planes that the us doesn't want to export simply aren't exported (f117, f22 etc).
That’s not true US had a dubious reputation in India and Israel in the 1980s.
Its a beautiful aircraft. Ironically it looks like a cross between an F15 and F18
Who cares about the radar and the technology when it looks so cool 😎
Good Job !
Superior aerodynamics? F16 turns tighter, and is the fastest aircraft at sea level. Migs have super maneuverability, but that only helps in 1 v 1. Once you've dumped all your energy to get one kill your easy prey for his wingman.
There is something in the design that is very appealing.
The Mig 29 was actually better than the F16 at the beginning. Problem was, the 29 didn't receive enhancements and upgrades like the F16 has over the decades. Obviously, the tables have turned in the platform with the new Mig 35.
Maybe the failure in dogfights is actually due to first their nation fighting second or their nations
Saying the MiG29 failed is like saying the Mona Lisa failed.
A video about drones like the Kızılelma would be great.😊
like always... they will be crown as "world best fighters" when its made from Western. "Failed" if that things is come from russian..
It's a light fighter, Jet is fast, just has a weaker radar, but is still capable and shouldn't be underestimated. I think Russia didn't invest in this jet because nato members obtained them after the fall of ussr.
u could have mentioned upg upgrade of mig 29
MiG 35 is just another MiG, 29 variant like MiG 29 UPG. It shld have been included in the video
No it's not. The wingspan is bigger, the engine and avionics have been upgraded and is not interchangeable, similar to Legacy Hornet and Super Hornet.
Malaysia owned MiG-29N and F/A-18D and fought many simulated battles together. At the hands of the right pilots, MiG-29 is deadly. Unsub for being a propaganda channel
Me too unsubbed.
The Fulcrums were also technologically not upto the mark as 3 Indian Mig29ks crashed on takeoff or soon after from the Goa naval base..the exact cause has never been explained
Failed? It is the backbone of many country's military might, and it is incredibly effective. It is outdated, but to call it a failure is kinda disingenuous.
Yo, Weapons Detective, have you ever heard of the Mig-35? Well, that's okay; very few people outside of Russia have. But, according to open sources, this new variant of the Mig is a souped-up version of the carrier-based Mig-29k. And it has all sorts of bells and whistles you wouldn't believe, including AESA radar.
Unfortunately, Rostec may have kneecapped themselves. Despite building a handful of airframes for the Russian military, the original plan was to export the Mig-35 to various countries with a history of operating Soviet/ Russian aircraft, such as Algeria, Vietnam, and India. However, when the United Aircraft Company debuted its Sukhoi 75, which is supposed to be a low-cost variant of the SU-57, the overseas interest in the Mig-35 dried up.
Now all these potential overseas customers will have to wait and see if the Sukhoi-75 actually goes into serial production. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Replay 7:25. We’ve heard of it.
Too bad i cant see how many dislikes this got
I wasn't expecting clickbait from this channel
It's not the aircraft fault 😢 the air frem & design is perfect but if only this bird has the western technology & better weapons system it's going to be deadly 😱
It seldom comes to dogfight. Ukrainian poilot, who downed numerous Russian attack Su-25 planes and bombers (must be mostly Su-24) in his Su-27 only once saw a silhouette of a Russian fighter, all other encounters were only in BVR on radar. In such situation MiG-29 would have no advantages and plane's excellent aerodynamics would be left as unused asset, at which point the need for more sophisticated radar and more computing power arises, which "Fulcrum" does not possess.
Mig 29 is literally a small su 27. But still a capable lil fighter dated by now but with modern avionocs itd be great plane
And engines. And a longer lived airframe. And …
This is a biased video. We know how The US stole the Foxbat Mig 25 in Japan to develop its first prototypes of F 15 & F16s
No, US misunderstood the concept of MiG-25 by looking at its photos. Thus they created an exellent F-15.
That Foxbat in japan happened after all that.
F-16, on the other hand, was an answer to Rus MiG-21 of the previous generation.
MiG-29 and Su-27 were an answer to F-15. Nobody was even talking about F-16 since it was an aicraft with only short-range missile and one engine. That was not serious even in the early 70's.
Originally the Russians wanted 1 fighter. And MiG-29 was it. But then the MiG Chief designer suggested that Sukhoi should continue with their work on future Su-27 since USA had 2 planes.
So they ended up with MiG as a fronline fighter and Su as long-range interceptor. A MiG-31 force muliplier if you will.
Failed??? Idk seems to be pretty effective at point defense to me.
MIG-29 purpose is a close in dog fighter and point defense interceptor. The jet fighter is good stopping a huge enemy aerial bombing
Dog fighting in an age of Beyond Visual Range sensors and missile tracking is insanely archaic. So how would they stop bombers?