Why the Soviet answer to the F-16 failed - MiG 29 story
Вставка
- Опубліковано 21 чер 2023
- This video is brought to you by ME....
Support the channel at our little store :)
www.foundandexplained.shop
NEW CHANNEL:
• Launched from the bigg...
Discord: / discord
My News Channel: / @aviationstationyt
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @foundandexplained
Patreon:
/ foundandexplained
Thumbnail artwork by www.artstation.com/roen911
We have no sponsor for this video today, but I couldn't bare leaving you without a fun little video to make your weekend a little more interesting!
But as there's no sponsor, I thought i'd plug our little merch store made by me: www.foundandexplained.shop
This Is why your the best
Agreed
I luv your vids they are so good quality keep posting❤!
Hello Found and Explained could your next video please be about the Zhuchenko vertoplan?
You didint get the story right about yugoslav one it was less then 5 migs againts hundreds of f15s f16s 1 mig 29 took out 4 f16s
Not the most capable plane, but one of the most beautiful in my opinion.
agree, btw, imo this is the first Soviet design that is iconic in its appearance, two, it simply has a beautiful line. All of the earlier ones were either heavily inspired or simply ugly, such as the mig 21. It also seems that the Russians have taken a liking to this shape as well, as the su 27, su 33, su 35, su 37 are heavily inspired by this look.
Agreed.
There are some jets that just look perfect.
This one in my aesthetics books is S-tier.
I also like the lines of the MiG-23. I know that may be a polarising statement.
But sure, it’s aesthetics!
Aesthetically, Soviet aircraft can't be beat. Far as practicality it's a 50/50 split because both countries produce highly capable planes.
It’s pretty but it’s garbage capability wise
Agree, until i found out the legend Su 27 family 😁
I had no idea the Soviets had introduced off boresight missiles so early. Pretty interesting
they killed dogfights and then decided to focus on supermaneuverability
One thing the Soviets did well from the start was missile tech. A2A and SAMs were always very formidable. Once they were able to get their hands on some foreign designs, they were able to make some pretty impressive leaps. They were punching well above their weight for quite a while there.
@@FloridaManMatty? they didn't have a A2A IR missile until they were able to get their hands on an a stolen AIM sidewinder
@FloridaManMatty Yeah they were able to put up a fight AFTER copying American weapons. The Soviet engineers in a documentary were literally like "The radar-guided gunsight we took from an F-86 was amazing and we are very thankful to the US haha."
An AIM-9 sidewinder failed to detonate and got stuck in a North Korean fighter in the Vietnam War. It was promptly sent to Russia to reverse engineer and finally get a working IR missile...
The first Soviet nuclear bomb was a direct copy of the Fatman with technical documentation supplied by espionage scientists in the Manhatten project.
The TU-144 was heavily based on stolen technical documentation of the Concorde regarding the general airframe and aerodynamics.
Copying good enemy design is smart, so dont see the issue there. USA copied Germany's entire rocket program and used nazi scientists to reach the moon.
the airframe of the mig29 is excellent, this plane can climb extremely quickly and gain speed faster than most other fighters, its thrust to weight ratio is amazing and its maneuverability is extremely good, the only problem is that it's held back by its radar system and lack of guided weapons developed by the USSR/Russia
It was never modernized like the Nato planes
@@Kurio71 yea, the avionics are lacking quite a lot
Here is the story. Fighter evolution series.
ua-cam.com/video/Q_PmrvP6yRA/v-deo.html
Yeah it's a common theme with Russian aircraft, superior performance/manoeuvrability, but let down by avionics/weaponry. I love Russian planes, In my eyes they're the better fighters but the nature of air combat means they aren't.
Someone in the West said modern, more advanced engines could be installed as well as new avionics . Wow.
I think the issue is that unlike the Mig 29, the F 16 doesn't have its host nation completely dissolve and money has to be prioritized for its more capable cousin, the Su 27. So while the Su 27 has received a bunch of modern upgrades that rival its counterparts (Su 30, Su 35), the Mig is the overshadowed, semi-neglected child that got like some minor upgrades to avoid making it too obsolete. Most countries that wish to buy Russian hardware are more willing to fork out more for the Su since the Su is just more capable around; the only exception being the Naval version with the case of India since the Su family is way too unwieldy for aircraft operation (see the Su 33)
Sukhoi spent lots of their own money to keep the Su-27 program alive. Mostly through foreign sales and even production licenses to China (J-10).
Chinese isn't interested with MiG-29 had a bad taste from the failed MiG-21 production attempt ending up have to reverse engineering most of it (although it was actually the Soviet government's handiwork, especially when the Chinese started to open up to the west). Later they made their own single engine light fighters based on J-8, making them even less interested with MiG-29 variants and MiG-33
The Su-33 is too big to be carried in sufficient numbers on the carriers India operates. On larger carriers like what the Chinese are operating and building its fine.
@@christianvalentin5344As I recall the Su 33 had issues with taking off with a full load. Was that issue fixed with the j -15? More powerful engines?
No, it did not. The Chinese had a version of the SU-33 engine in one of their J-15s. Took off with a full load with ease. The Russians, pissed at China trying to steal their engines made them impossible to reverse-engineer. So, the Chinese built a home-grown version of the best they could reverse-engineer the SU-33 engine. THAT is the engine the Chinese cannot take off with a full load. Russian planes have NEVER had any such difficulties. Quit lying.
I'd say yes and no. The Su 27 got all those upgrades because it better fit the current landscape of air warfare. Longer range, better radar, etc. The Mig 29 is my favorite airplane of all time, but by the time it entered service, it's role as a short range, dogfighting ace was increasingly becoming obsolete.
I don't think it had much to do with the SU collapsing as the Mig 29 was excellent at what is was designed to do, and when not facing off against top tier western radars and missiles, it's a very capable aircraft.
We gotta agree the MiG-29 looks menacing, right?
He dont looks. He IS.
@user-wx4nq6ge7e You got a point there
Absolutely, gorgeous and aggressive plane, I love the mig29
Yes it looks good but a double seater su27 is unbeatable. That imo is the best looking Russian plane
@@TheFlyMan that’s fair, I think Russian military aircraft look amazing as it it
The Mig29 is an absolutely beautiful warbird and it's maneuvering capabilities are nothing short of amazing. I'll never forget the first time I saw 2 perform at and airshow. I stood there in complete awe thinking to myself "how the hell did that just do that without stalling and falling out of the sky?" I can still picture it like it was yesterday.
Its control surfaces are HUGE!
@@necsoiub Which has nothing to do its performance because the wings and the whole airframe generate the lift.
Fighter evolution series.
ua-cam.com/video/Q_PmrvP6yRA/v-deo.html
@@molnibalage83 you need elevators to pitch up tho???????????????????????????????
Here you can learn a lot more about this and more topic.
ua-cam.com/video/MHXqhi1awbg/v-deo.html
F-16 could turn tighter.
Mig-29, SU-27, F-14 tomcat will always be the three most beautiful airplanes ever
Id add the phantom and harrier aswell but i agree those late era soviet jets look beautiful
F-15 is pretty good looking, but I would say Gripen tops the lot.
F-5 for me.
F23.
SR-71
Calling the MiG-29 a failure is like calling water dry. Its objectively one of the most successful and widely-used aircraft of its generation.
6/18 k/d ratio isn’t very successful. They sold well, but got trounced by f16 and f15s every time they met.
@@Typexviiib The only MiG-29 loss to an F-16 was a Serbian one that was caught while taking off, Id hardly call that trounced. As for the F-15, yeah, Id expect so given the cost difference.
@@henryatkinson1479 it entered service 7 years after the f15, they shouldnot have had such lop sided losses to the f15.
Was there another engagement with a MiG 29 and f16 in combat? If not my point stands.
Your defense for the MiG 29 failing in real world fights is it’s a cheap piece of crap that can’t stand up to more sophisticated air planes designed nearly a decade earlier? Well I agree with you. But a “successful” fighter should be one that can hold its own against contemporary threats.
“Successful?”
Choose your enemy carefully to sustain that claim. This platform looks sharp but it was never a world-class fighter aircraft.
Junk compared to US
Don't think it failed and did exactly what it was supposed to do and remains formidable, imagine if it had been the subject of as much investment in development as the F-16 has.
Then this video wouldn't exist, hence, it's real.
@@Audfilenot true… the existence of this video doesn’t prove or disprove anything. Need a hug?
Exactly.. wasn’t a failure
@Audfile You know flat earth theory videos exist right?
@@guaporeturns9472 How many nations are still operating Mig29? When did the last foreign country buy a brand new Mig29 from russia?
How many F-16 are still being sold? How many nations are still operating the F-16?
If it was designed to counter the F-16, then it failed.
The reason why India is able to use the Mig 29 so well is because they are majorly used in mountain regions. Its high speed and maneuverability have played a key role in maintaining control of J&K, or what's left of it.
Indian flyers are better. At least better trained and motivated.
The bigger reason it probably employed there is that the Fulcrum was intended to be able to take off from shorter and less ideal runways, which is important in places like mountainous regions.
I should know much more about the Indian military overall. Empire operations as Cold war, Non aligned status as well. Their troops were underappreciad in Ww2.
@@JeffreyWilliams-dr7qe
LMFAO, IAF has the highest record of aircraft crashes.
@@fanaticcoder3320That's not because of the pilots, its due to not upgrading the jets and using old generation aircrafts, also Russian jets are not easy maintain
The MiG-29 (9.13) is not the same as the MiG-29S.
The MiG-29 (9.13) is from 1986, while the MiG-29S, a modernization of 9.12 and 9.13 airframes, is an early 1990s program to make the older Fulcrums able to carry the new R-77 longe range missiles, while factory-new aircraft of this new model were to be called MiG-29SM, but USSR collapsed in 1991 and all of the new projects ended up being canceled with only a handful of MiG-29 (9.13) being converted to the MiG-29S standard
R-77 are short range missiles, they got less range than soviet semi active R-27Rs, and much less than Aim-120s, let alone Aim-54s. How would you ever come to call those long range missiles?
The soviets never even adopted the R-77, likely because it was that bad. Only Russia did it later.
@@termitreter6545 the R-77 is a short range missile? 100km (claimed range) does not sound like short to me. It’s on par with the American AIM-120 of the same era and much more than a R-27R.
The Russians did not adopted the R-77 in the 90s because of the economic issues and due to them not having a proper plataform to launch them (as I said, most projects were canceled after the Soviet Union dissolution and only a handful MiG-29S were converted to carry them. With the Su-27M, Su-30, Su-35 and the Su-37 projects not receiving the necessary money to go further). The R-77 (aswell as some of these aircrafts, like the Su-30 and the MiG-29K) would be extensively exported to other countries (India and China for example).
In another words, Russia sold most of its good tech for export but did not adopt them for domestic use because of the lack of money. They only resumed many of these 1990’s projects for domestic use after 2006/2008, with the R-77-1, Su-30SM, Su-35S, Su-34, Ka-52, Mi-28N (all projects started back there in the 90s)
* although in the early 2000s Russia updated many of their 1980s Su-27S to the Su-27SM standard, capable of using the R-77 if needed
@@termitreter6545 Nope, the R-77 family never was short range.
Fighter evolution series.
ua-cam.com/video/Q_PmrvP6yRA/v-deo.html
Thank you, Captain Wikipedia
@@termitreter6545the R77 is a fox3 missile designed as a potential counter to the NATO AMRAAM. Current r77M has claims to have the capability the same as as a Aim-120C but the earlier variant of the 120C
To be clear the Mig 21 performed well in *early* Vietnam, later on the F-4 was the obviously superior fighter once sidewinder issues were ironed out, and most losses were to SAMs, while conversely most Mig 21 losses were to aircraft.
Nikolai Sutyagin - deal with it
Correction: there's only one MiG-29MU2 built so far, most Ukrainian MiG-29s are MiG-29MU1 or 9-13s, with the additions of planes donated by Poland and Slovakia.
The MiG 29 is still probably my favorite looking jet to this day
She’s a beauty.
F-22 for me
YF 23 is best looking
Eurofighter for me
MiG-23 for Me, They don't produce any single engined Jet after
The collapse of the Soviet Union meant this aircraft wasn't developed to its fullest potential. It was a true beast. During mock dog fights between the latest F16s, German Mig 29s wiped the floor against the F16s.
This is what the Luftwaffe pilot said in the debriefing:
"But when all that is said and done, the MiG-29 is a superb fighter for close-in combat, even compared with aircraft like the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18. This is due to the aircraft’s superb aerodynamics and helmet mounted sight. Inside ten nautical miles I’m hard to defeat, and with the IRST, helmet sight and ‘Archer’ I can’t be beaten. Period. Even against the latest Block 50 F-16s the MiG-29 is virtually invulnerable in the close-in scenario. On one occasion I remember the F-16s did score some kills eventually, but only after taking 18 ‘Archers’. We didn’t operate kill removal (forcing ‘killed’ aircraft to leave the fight) since they’d have got no training value, we killed them too quickly. (Just as we might seldom have got close-in if they used their AMRAAMs BVR!) They couldn’t believe it at the debrief, they got up and left the room!
Full article here:
www.16va.be/mig-29_experience.htm
Funny lol, f16 would actually just rape a mig29 if they tried, 90% of training exercises with the usa is set to lose. But its whatever, as soon as russia had the A, we had f15c's, f16c's and early hornets, which guess what, would wipe the floor in a real scenario.
@mr.abrams8112
Sorce
@@mr.abrams8112 Malaysia is a user of both MiG-29N and F/A-18D. While the MiG-29 has retired in the RMAF a few years back due to spare parts issue and the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act that was enforced in 2017, I can say for certain that the MiG-29 was a challenge to the American made F/A-18 fighter jet in terms of capabilities. The reason why Malaysia retire the MiG-29 is due to secondary sanctions and spare parts availability.
@@ottenstar4901 he made it up
@@mr.abrams8112 where source?
Indian Air Force was the fist customer of Mig-29 when they were exported. Currently the Mig 29's in service with the IAF are heavily upgraded and are performing extremly well against the PLA Airforce in the Himalayan region. The Naval version of the Mig 29 is not performing well as the spares supply got hindered. But still has been performing well in high seas.
Yall need to replace those you need better missiles and bvr capabilities
India wasn't the first customer. It was the first customer outside of Warsaw Pact. That's a big difference.
@@johnnyenglish583 Not quite sure here, which country got them before India?
@@marijandumancic4259 I'm pretty sure one of the Warsaw Pact countries got it first. I think it was East Germany. It would be logical: you share your latest technology with your allies first, before exporting it. That was normal policy in the USSR, and I don't think it's surprising.
@@johnnyenglish583 ok, so you don't KNOW, just guesstimating.
Attempt # 17
The Bugatti 100P ( it’s a plane)
I feel like it really deserves more love than it gets.
Hahaha you have asked so many times… I really should make it just for you. It’s so obscure
@@FoundAndExplained can you also make a video about the f20 tiger shark?
@@FoundAndExplainedon’t know if there is enough info but I just figured out there was a plan for a St-21 if h could make a video on it
@FoundAndExplained yeah it's definitely off the beaten path first time I saw a model I thought it was fake.
@@FoundAndExplainedI think what he really wants is just a hug.
It is definitely an iconic plane, whatever your feelings towards Russia or the planes technical capabilities.
lol main point here is in fact - feelings. West cope is the hardest cope
This is basically every story of a soviet/russian airplane:
-does it look cool?
-yep
-does it look menacing?
-yes it does
-is it actually menacing?
-not really
@@adam145 lol you're thinking of Hollywood pedos, not the people that killed 8 out 10 of ALL Axis solders in WWII.
This jet has proven effective when numerically outmatched and is designed to operate from bombed airstrips. None of that was ever done by F-16. When F-16s first arrived in Poland it turned out we couldn't use them because the landing gear would collapse when using airstrips normally used by MiG-29s, and engine would suffer damage from taking dirt from it. The idea that any frontline country that could have their airstrips literred and damaged by bombing, should use F-16 is absurd.
@@piotrmalewski8178Facts. F-16 is not a front line fighter, it was not designed to operate from forward air bases.
The US had the first IR search and track sensors.
The first use of an IRST system appears to be the F-101 Voodoo, F-102 Delta Dagger and F-106 Delta Dart interceptors. The F-106 had an early IRST mounting replaced in 1963 with a production retractable mount.[2] The IRST was also incorporated into the Vought F-8 Crusader (F-8E variant) which allowed passive tracking of heat emissions and was similar to the later Texas Instruments AAA-4 installed on early F-4 Phantoms.[3]
The F-14 had an IR search and track sensor under the nose before the Mig 29 was built.
And why did it disappear ?
@@bradleyanderson4315 It is on the F 35. It never disappeared. It’s still here.
As a self proclaimed ace myself I always knew people were wrong and I wasn’t coping. Thanks DCS for teaching me well.
The MiG-29 was ultimately developed to serve as a light fighter capable of competing with other contemporary light fighters such as the F-16.
One thing worth mentioning is that after the cold war the west wanted to settle the argument of which fighter is truly superior . During the 1990’s, multiple training exercises took place between American Vipers and German Fulcrums (9-13). After multiple mock dog fights they concluded that the MiG-29 would win most engagements due to the high angle of attack capability and especially the combination of hard pulling missiles such as the R-73 and the ingenious helmet mounted sight.
The MiG-29 has an excellent airframe and with proper modernisation it would definitely be a worthy adversary and a deadlier 4th generation fighter.
Problem is that it has always had inferior avionics to the F-16. It was a good performer, but never had the electronics required to capitalize on that.
@@SoloRenegade Yes, lacking a fly by wire system has its consequences. The modernised MiG-29 or rather the prototype “MiG-35” sought to change this.
@@discover3024 not just fly by wire, it's radar, targeting, weapon systems, etc. is worse too.
It’s kind of like the mig 21 in that it was a pretty major threat for a handful of years and then solidly outclassed. The ussr really lagged behind the us in microelectronics through the entire Cold War.
@@SoloRenegade not necessarily. I must agree in saying that the F-16C radar is superior to the MiG-29S’s NO19M considering specs like raw range. They are similar however in detection of fighter size objects (1-3 m^2). Secondly, the baseline targeting systems are actually more plentiful and better in the MiG. IRST as mentioned in the video, and of course, the helmet sight.
The engine layout was also intended to simplify airflow. It increases RCS a lot
One of my favorite channels on UA-cam right now. As an aviation fan and info/doc binger this is right up my alley.
Aircraft (civil or military) development is a game of chess (or chicken). You goad your opponent to "go first", letting you look over the specs and then develop a "better" version, giving you an edge for decades. The wildcard is how fast your opponent can then upgrade. With the F-16 and MiG-29 story the F-16 won based on constant upgrades of the engine, weapons, structure, avionics and even radar signature reduction. That's why the F-16 is still in production today to customers around the world.
YES! Do make a part 2 video to this, and call it "The last fulcrum" as you stated.
Thanks for the video! 👍 It is a very beautiful airplane and I like it a lot together with Su-27. You forgot to mentioned, that Mig-29 is able to land almost every where, including non-paved fields. For this reason, it has two intakes for each engine. One is in front of the engine gondola and the other is on the upper surface of the wing. The lower one is closed during takeoff or landing on a dirty field to keep the engines from sucking in debris, and the engines "breathe" through the upper one, which is open.
You're animations are getting better and better. Very well done.
I would like to suggest to you to make a video on the french rafale or indian tejas jet
This is a really good video, and yes, I'd love to see one on the MiG-35 as well!
The problem with MiG-29 is its an aircarft which is aerodynamically equal to western aircarft and dangerous within visual range fights but is avionically simple without much bvr capability, dependent much on ground control intercept and AWACS with short range in comparison to its size. Also its engines are easy to maintain but have a much shorter time interval between them (western aircraft need more maintenance when they go under it but the interval between them is much more and the service life of the airframe is much higher in comparison to Russian aircrafts). During USSR times it would have been impossible for MiG29 to achieve its full potential as its avionics lacked in comparison to western aircraft. Post dissolution MiG offered aircarft modernization with western avionics and increased fuel along with new builds with it. This resulted in, it achieving its full potential. To better sustain it the user of MiG29 should have license to build its engine. All the western avionics opens it to being able to fire western munitions which are more precise and carry more in comparison to Russian munitions which has more bang. But due to sanctions the build quality of recent MiG29 family has deteriorated, once again it not achieving its full potential even with post soviet modernization while being replaced by aircrafts like Dassault Rafale M or F/A18e/f replacing MiG29K and F16/Gripen/Rafale and indigenous fighters replacing or supplementing MiG29 and its upgrades. MiG35 the latest in the family, also suffers from all these problems.
well said. I agree with your assessment. It had potential, but Russia never had the ability to realize that potential.
Great post, and symptomatic of the ussr military complex in general
"We have build the ultimate visual-range dogfighter!"
USAF, having kicked the idiots who thought that BVR combat was just a fad out: "Okay here's a bunch of missiles and by the way by the time you get this message they'll have hit you goodbye"
Fighter aircraft made for USSR aircombat doctrine when employed with western doctrine and training i.e. more flying hours and pilot intiation, suffers from being under constant maintenance as the interval time between engine maintenance is shorter in comparison to western jet engines. This results in pressure on maintenance personnel as they have to do it on so many aircraft in a large airforce. So many times an aircraft may need maintenance but can't get due to maintenance being scheduled for other aircraft, units will continue to fly the aircraft while waiting for their number. This has resulted in numerous aircraft accidents. Not to mention the situation doesn't get better if there is also bureaucratic and political corruption involved regarding spare parts inventory and supply. Surprisingly Russian helicopters are just opposite to their fighter aircraft, requiring comparatively little and easy to do maintenance while having longer intervals between it in comparison to western helicopters.
@@TakNuke Well said again. And just think, Western training doctrine doesn't even come close to combat operation tempo either. Meaning Russian aircraft wear out still faster in combat, as we seem to be seeing in Ukraine.
The Mig 29 is such a beautiful aircraft.. the way it stands so tall in front and the lines swoop up and to the back. It’s like a steel ballerina. The F22 is a cool looking plane and may perform light years better, but the Mig29 may be the most beautiful fighter ever built.
I agree x10000
Yes please. I would definitely like to learn more about the latest/final variant of the MiG-29/MiG-35.
That was a good intro. It's a pleasant way of saying, "it's not that it sucked, it just sucked for the time." Still one of, if not the most beautiful fighter ever built.
Mig 29 is known as silent saviour in india,due to their BVR capability Pakistani Airforce F16s denied to fought against them in 1999 indo pak war.
The MiG-29 is one of the most beautiful looking aircraft to ever grace the sky and one of my favourite fighters. I'd love to see a video about the MiG-35.
People don't understand that these Soviet airplanes when they faced F16-15's in combat the pilots flying them were poorly equipped poorly trained with very low experience because they were bought by poorer country's who can barely afford the planes but then skimped on the training because the cost of flying them whereas the pilots flying F16s or F15s had 1000s of hours on airframes
Experience in the cockpit is more importatnt that The airframes capabilities as it makes pilots understand the capabilities and limitations and how to use them at the right time
The mig 29 is badass.... I'm a USA fan but I love some of the Soviet era aircraft
Feel that the Su-27 stepped up to answer the F-16 over the MiG-29.
Su-27 family is more comparable to the F-15 family with regards to being the heavy fighter (or the "high" in the high-low air superiority mix)
@@Re.Configured F15 still rekts su27
@@mr.abrams8112An answer to a question no one asked... We know.
@@woutergrob8587 look at the comments, "we" is not a lot of people.
@@mr.abrams8112 the number of likes says otherwise..
Boy howdy is that a lot of technical information about the MiG-29 that I had never encountered before now. Had no clue about all the technical problems that plagued the MiG-29 when it first entered service, let alone the air superiority fighter paradigm becoming obsolete after the end of the Cold War. That does however explain why the modern Russian and Chinese airforces both make MUCH more frequent use of the Sukhoi Flanker family...
There’s a UA-camr called Paper Skies who made a video on the Soviet Top Gun. His dad was even in it!
It should be a single engine design from the start. They had a brilliant Ye-8 design (MiG-21 derivative) back in the 1960s, but since MiG-23 they had really gone the wrong way.
Another great video. Comment about your Merch store: I think more items using some of the great 3d rendered images of aircraft you have made would likely sell more than just items with your logotype on them. I know I would be interested in items like that!
That's a great idea! I’ll start doing it next week after holiday
Yes, please go ahead and make a video about MiG-35 too. Your videos are always enlightening
Definitely keen to know more about India's MIG29 Fulcrum version!
2:29 I'm afraid this would be incorrect, Mikoyan had already passed away and Guverich retired a few years earlier (and passed on 1976).
The CG on this channel has gotten so good
Nice explanation. Would definitely like to see the second part of it.
ua-cam.com/video/Q_PmrvP6yRA/v-deo.html
4th Gen airframe, 3rd Gen avionics, engines that leave a trail of black smoke visible for miles.
I admit, the look and shoot helmet HUD display was innovative.
Mig-29 may lack modern radar avionics and electronic warfare suits but its not a failure at all. Beautifully designed fighter with unique capabilities of its own, may prove lethal to modern jets too if operated by skilled hands👍🏼
I see your “Ace Pilot” and raise you one AMRAAM.
No amount of Skill on the MiG’s end will save them if they have to use a completely obsolete airframe without many modern components.
The Adversary pilot would have to be 1945 Japan Naval Aviation level of untrained for the MiG to really stand much of a chance.
Modern dogfighting has nothing to do with manoeuvrability or speed where the Mig 29 does well, it's all about who can spot who first and that's where it fails badly. Put it up against an F35 or an F22 and the old Mig will be dumping flares and taking evasive action against incoming missiles from jets they didn't even realise they were sharing the skies with.
@@DjDolHaus86comparing the mig29 to a fucking f22 your smart aren't you
I'm not well informed to speak about Iraqi MiG-29s, but Yugoslav MiGs not only that they were in bad condition, due to years of sanctions, but airspace over Serbia and Montenegro was highly contested, that most of them couldn't even get into air, and were shot on ground. And yes, please make a video about MiG-35
The Mig-29s were introduced in 1985, Iraq got it close to 1990, so those thing were super new in Iran/Iraq war, Desert Storm, etc.
Thats just usualy excuses. Those Mig-29s are just low standard planes, built to be cheap and easy to build, even compared to normal soviet standards. Considering even Su-27s, the "best the soviets could build" ended up being like 20 years behind american planes in terms of avionics, of course theyre outdated and limited.
And each of those planes had less flight hour capable as than western planes, so they werent even "rugged".
@@termitreter6545 super new in Iraq Iran war, but that doesn't matter because none of them used it at the time. Yugoslavia could have F-14D or F-16s at the time, if they were not maintained for twelve years due to sanctions and embargoes, and then faced with enemy that had absurd superiority when it comes to numbers, plus better armament, jamming capabilities etc. Outcome would be the same.
Why would sanctions affect the Soviet Union? They were entirely self-sufficient.
Never heard of Soviet 'monkey-models' as in export variants? They are stripped-down versions meant to be sold abroad devoid of certain Soviet technogies for obvious reasons. I repeat, the West have NEVER faced Soviet equipment in battle. Ever.
@@yxmichaelxyyxmichaelxy3074 Yugoslavia was under sanctions
To start with, the MiG-29 was never meant to be an answer to the F-16. There was no high-low mix concept on the Soviet side at all. The Mig-29 was created as the part of a competive program that involved also the Sukhoi Su-27 'heavy' fighter. Sukhoi won the competition, yet the MiG has been procured, too, just to support the MiG company. That was a usual Soviet practice, and this is the true reason of the MiG-29's lackluster career -- it was born second-rate. Although not a bad fighter by itself, as a matter of fact.
Could you imagine going to off bore shots like training a pilot who has already been trained to fire within certain parameters and now telling them to let it go whenever 😂
I am not one to preach the capabilities of the Russian military, but the mig-29 is one of the coolest 4th gen fighters, looks awesome, is the most maneuverable fighter, and sticks to the energy maneuverability doctrine of dog fighting, it sucks it isn’t as useful as it should be, but it is easily the coolest fighter to see at an air show
That's funny to notice that Ukraine will probably use the MiG 29 AND the F-16 at the same time
Totally agree with you, a brilliant design that came at the wrong time and never got developed to its full potential
Great video and please do another one about the latest Migs
If the Mig 29A was fully modernized it would have been a very competitive jet. But they cut corners and had a LOT of old cockpit amenities. Once the west saw inside they weren't worried.
The MiG-29 is probably the sexiest plane ever built.
*Except possibly the F-4 Phantom... That thing is a hot rod.
@@ianmedford4855 Agreed, F4 looks really good to me despite its less impressive performance
Holy crap, the main gear flex on that carrier landing at the end was REAL! 😮😮😮😮
Did he just call Mikoyan Gurevich as “Mikoyan Gulevich”?
He did.
He is also trashing the Mig as if the F-16 is a perfect Plane with no faults.
Laughable.
To be fair;
the rest of the content is of better quality.
Incredible video. Very informative and entertaining.
The MiG 29 is one of if not the best looking plane built
Fate of plane can litteraly be described in one sentence:" at the wrong place in wrong time".
yup, just ask Lockheed about the L1011.
Short answer: it was buit by the soviets
nevermind the jet, PhazoTron has to be the coolest company name ever!
8:16 Off-topic, but props to that one guy pulling the protester out of harm's way.
Whether or not it met it's goals, there's something unmistakably proud about the upright and erect profile of the Mig29, as though it's holding it's head high.
And for that it's one of my favorite planes.
... met its* goals / its head (it's = it is)
8:58, very general statement. The MiG-29s of the Yugoslav air force were in a pitiful condition and the radars were barely working.
@mitchellcouchman6589 Yes, the aircraft were barely flying, the pilots were good. If you want a comparison, the aircraft has to at least fly sir, those were barely working. Read "Gallant Knights", it's an article in the airforces monthly magazine.
There's a good book out there called "Fulcrum", written by Alexander Zuyev, a MiG 29 pilot that defected to the U.S.
I found that video randomly nice job ,thanks for the credits !
The Fulcrum has always been one of my favorite planes... it just looks soo damn cool, regardless of any shortcomings!
EDIT okay yeah I'm about to boot up Ace Combat or DCS after finishing this video.
Fighter evolution series.
ua-cam.com/video/Q_PmrvP6yRA/v-deo.html
are we gonna talk about the "air to grounf" typo in the blueprint?
A little incorrect on the American pilot not having the ability to aim a missile by sight. We had it in the 70's
What's the music used at the begining? It absolutly slaps and really sets the tone for the Mig-29.
"Reality is often disappointing"
- mig 29
~Su-57 & MiG-23
It didn´t - its as simple as that. You just have to compare apples with apples and take into account different doctrines. And it was definitely NOT failure at the time of introduction 🤷♀
But alas it did. Ask any military historian, even USSR officials stated so during internal communications that were intercepted in March after it began production
If the doctrine was to have a 6/18 k/d ratio against planes from the same generation it was very successful.
@@Typexviiib"badly trained pilots from 3th world countries defenetly represent the capabilities of the soviet air force, trust me Bro, im so smart"
@@barbarapitenthusiast7103 It failed simply because it's a predominantly visual range fighter.Even if it had any reliable missles that weren't the R 60, it would still be bad in terms of radar capabilities .
@@oluwatosinopawoye5695 the MiG 29 radar was good enough against later f16 variants but was superior to early f16 variants, same goes for bvr. NATO themselfs tested MiG 29 amd found they were in fact equal to f16.
Great video, could you please do a video on the Flanker series?
I would very much enjoy a Mig-35 video. If you do a video on the Mig-35, could you touch a little bit on the Naval status of it?
Usually, when showing the MIG-29 at the airshow, didn't one of them crashed. The pilot did survive, which was a miracle because of the time he ejected. He was very low to the ground. I believe that this happened at the airshow that you mentioned in the first part of the video. It was a bit of egg on the face of the soviets. However, when they introduced the SU-27 that made up for their earlier embarrassment. For many years the SU-27 was a top of the line fighter.
If my memory serves me correctly that happened the following year at the Paris Air Show. The MiG29 suffered an engine stall during the high-alpha fly past (possibly as a result of a birdstrike). The ejection seats fitted to the later Soviet fighters are incredibly capable (if a lot heavier than Western models) and can launch the pilot safely skywards at almost any ejection angle.
At le Bourget Air Show, I think the Tu-144 "Concordski", the Mig29 and the Su27 crashed...
Great but dangerous Air Show!
@@renaudcharlet While all those crashes did happen at that very air show, they occurred at very different years. The very famous Tu-144 crash happened in 1973 (A result of the plane flying with its limiters turned off that would expose some very fatal flaws in the design causing it to stall in the air and come down, coming apart in the process) while the Mig 29 crash happened in 1989 due to an engine stall. The Su-27, Though technically it was the Su-30 variant by that time, had its crash happen a full 10 years later in 1999 after a tail strike the pilot couldn't climb and recover from following a botched maneuver.
Not miracle but by design. The ejection seat in those planes is set to operate in All of the flight range, this include catapulting from the ground.
Given Solviet Union is famous with not giving that much attention to the crew but that is actually the exact opposite
Certain snail game would make you believe the R27 is a weapon of god.
Great video. Definitely interested in a MiG-35/MiG-29K video! (Isn't the MiG-35 actually a larger airframe?)
Larger airframe
Awesome video, yet again. Wonderful graphics too.
I once heard the Mig-29 is a fighter designed to defend its own airbase and no more
It's a mid-range multirole fighter. You heard wrong.
its not 1930s anymore
soviets had the best AA systems
@@necsoiub wrong it's a short range oint defense fighter meant to defend it's local area. You are a 🤡🤡 newer versions are longer ranged now but it's still a short range combat aircraft...
Surprising that you have not mentioned Indian Air Force Mig 29s vs PAF. Or for that matter vs “Western air forces” in exercises. Mistake or deliberate?
Awesome work as always keep it up God bless you♥🙏
India uses Mig 29 UPG which is a upgraded version of Mig 29 and Indian Navy uses Mig 29 k in its carrier, it is amazing aircraft , you title is deceptive
A very handsome machine in spite of its shortcomings.
We had the AIM-95 Agile in the early 1970's and developed a few versions of VTAS which was the first helmet mounted cuing system. We foolishly canceled the agile but did end up fielding the VTAS system with several F-4S squadrons. But without the missile it was fairly neutered.
So once again we did it first and decades before.
Thanks for your Video! and yes please make the video of the newest / latest Fulcrum
Coming soon!
You should compare F-16 with a MiG-21, because a PAF F-16 was shot down by an IAF MiG-21 BISON, which in turn was shot down by SAM.
2 Mig-29s were shot down by 2 F-16s during the Kosovo war so its an ok comparison just means the Mig-21 is op.
@@thevoid8924, Fair enough.
When that Indian Mig - 21 was shot down... Why had it all its AAMs unfired on its, wreakage? And no proof off F-16 wreakage was never found, only faked pictures off a crashed Turk F-16.. Do believe the Paki F-16s shot down an Indian SU-30?? Is that story as false as the Mig-21 fairytale...
pakistani and their foolish simps can't understand the reality, even caught on US spy satellites
About the losses in Yugoslavia and Iraq, don't forget they were fighting 1 vs 20 or something like that. When a Mig-29 takes off, an AWACS will detect him and 10 F-15 or F-16 will come to shoot him.
Yugoslavia have obout 14 mig-29. They are from 1989. Problem was that soviets sold that airplanes with old radars and old rockets. They promise that they fixed it. But never did. Soviet Union collapsed and also Yugoslavia. Sanction from 1992-1995, economc crisis stop any investment in airforce. In 1999 when nato atack only 4-5 airplane could actually fly. With old and broke radars and crappy rockets they become easy target for US f-16. How strong was yugoslav airforce show information that backbone of aviation was mig-21 produced in 1960-70.
Most of them were destroyed on the ground. But yeah, malfunctioning radars, shitty missiles and next to no ground radar support, they were sitting ducks. They should've never even been ordered to take off honestly, just a potential waste of pilots' lives.
The MiG 28 was much better.
No one has seen those up close though.
It's important to note it's not what you fight it's who you fight, not a smart choice to fight Americans in the sky no matter what your flying
I would love to see every film this channel provide..
3 words: Form over Function
When you need a clickbait title
Its not clickbait if its the cold hard truth.
@@majorborngusfluunduch8694 it's definitely clickbait and obviously not legit. Or you are too stupid to know. 🤡
Pls do make a video on the last fulcrum and also for the Indian jets such as Tejas
The RD33 Romanovsky engine was too smoky , it was turbofan but it's emissions like a turbojet, very thick smoke like J79 jet engine. You won't need a radar and notified the incoming enemies in sky !
At 1:14 you mentioned the “great performance’ of the MIG21 v. the F4. I would assign most of this great performance to the poor use of the United States’ military assets. Its politicians tied the hands of the pilots and the planners to the point they were sitting ducks. The MIG21’s performance can be attributed to Johnson and McNamara.
Total BS. The MiGs gave the Phantoms a hard time , it’s that simple. The fragile American ego is a source for great entertainment for me and the rest of the world 😂😂 Cope bud
The Mig 21's performance in Vietnam wasn't "great" but "capable." The NV Air Force had some very substantial advantages: ground control radar, SAMs to deter many flight paths, and the ability to pick and choose when and where to fight.
And the Americans made serious mistakes, such as overreliance on BVR and WVR missiles, lack of training in basic ACM, and overly predictable bombing patterns.
Despite these advantages, the best the NV Air Force could do was 1:1 kill ratios over some periods. Overall, the kill ratios favored the Americans, although not as much as they had in Korea.
I wouldn’t put the blame on Johnson and McNamara both have their own crimes against the US military.
But I will say what caused problems was the US fixation on interceptors in the 1950’s.
The F-102, F-104, F-106 and arguably the F-4 all were designed to get to a point fast and shoot at a bomber. They weren’t designed to turn.
A Mig 21 was designed to turn. I would say that only turning dogfighter to come out of that period of time was the F-8 crusader
@@guaporeturns9472’s not total BS since many F-4 Phantom pilots weren’t trained in dogfighting because it was first thought by the Air Force that BVR was going to be the main method of air combat so the F-4 Phantom was designed to be a heavy fighter that can carry heavy loads of long range missiles like the AIM-7 Sparrow and also carry unguided bombs with little in the way for maneuverability and it didn’t help that the early F-4 Phantom’s specially the B and C variants didn’t have an internal gun but he isn’t wrong about the F-4’s performance being attributed to poor use
@@CloakerV8 😂Keep making excuses .. bottom line is cheap Soviet crap kicked the shit outta high dollar American tech and all the fragile American egos just can’t come to grips with that. So funny 😆
Pilots in the German airforce who flew the Mig29s report that it had/has an incredibly short range.
The F-16C has about 30% longer range just as the MIG-23MF or ML.
The combat radius of the MiG-29 9.12 /9.13 is closer to a MiG-21BIS than 23s.
Fighter evolution series.
ua-cam.com/video/Q_PmrvP6yRA/v-deo.html
@@molnibalage83F-16C has 300% longer range, not 30%.
@@LRRPFco52 Just because the 29 has shorter range such insanely stupid comments are not needed. Just open their FM and do the same calculation what I and many other ppl. did.
@@molnibalage83 We did technical analysis of the MiG-29 back in the 1990s right after we were on the F-16 program, then on the F-15 Combined Test Force at the time. Russians brought MiG-29s to Edwards as part of a base exchange program through Nunn-Lugar. Very rarely will you ever have the chance to converse with someone who has "under-the-hood” experience with both fighter designs.
@@LRRPFco52 The FMs are the foundations of the operation. Period. I do not care about BSing. The consumption data comes from the FM not from "under the hood" experience.
Finally a video that acknowledges how amazing the Mig 29 really was, if you could describe that plane in one word I would say "unfortunate" because it had a lot of potential and was very capable, but the USSR fell, there was no money for upgrades or further development and the countries that bought the plane received a weaker variant, you can't say the Mig 29 was inferior to the F16 or F15 if you have never seen them fight on equal terms, normally the F15 was always supported by F16, F18 and AWACS while the Mig 29 had to fly and fight alone, an F16 would be an easy target for a coalition of Fulcrums, supported by Flankers and all of them backed by an AWACS giving them vital info