-
Hello again. I read the post on the MiG-29 fuel consumption. No, Firebird, you are wrong. The MiG-29 WAS NOT INTENDED TO BE AN INTERCEPTER. A common misconception is that all Soviet fighters are designed to be GCI-controlled "robotic Interceptors", this is untrue.
The VVS or Frontal Aviation, operated (during USSR) light, agile and relatively inexpensive fighters designed to operate from rough airfields (bad airfields because the VVS was intended to follow closely behind the ground forces).The PVO however, operated much heavier aircraft, carrying longer ranged weapons, using a larger more sophisticated and/or more powerful radar.
An example of this is during the 1970s. The MiG-23/MiG-27(yes I know MiG-27 is not truly a fighter) and the MiG-25. The MiG-23 is a light single seat aircraft, able to operate from short airstrips, with tough landing gear for bad terrain and in some models has multi-role capability. The MiG-25 was a much larger and much heavier aircraft, designed purely for missile warfare; it features a very large radar, 20 ft long AA-6 or AA-9 missiles and is designed to follow GCI control.
Clearly,the smaller and more nimble MiG-23 was designed for the VVS, while the heavier MiG-25 (needing solid, paved airfields) is designed for the PVO as an interceptor.
The Same is true during the 1960s with MiG-21s, MiG-17s serving the VVS while heavier fighters like the Su-15 and the Tu-128 carried out intercept roles.
As for the MiG-29, the MiG-29 was designed as a counter-air superiority fighter, able to surpass the F-16 and F-18 and at least match the F-15 (whether it does is debatable, but these were design specs). It doesn't make sense to have the MiG-29 designed as an interceptor when you can assign a more suitable MiG-31.
Now the situation is different. When planes like the Su-27 appeared, it changed the Soviet concepts of air warfare. It was lighter than a MiG-31, yet could dogfight like a MiG-29, and featured a sophisticated radar and weapons suite. Since the Su-27 is a blend of both, it served in both the VVS and PVO at the end of the cold war.
I hope this clears up any questions. I'd love to have lively debate in this forum, thanks for all feedback.
-
Hello again. I read the post on the MiG-29 fuel consumption. No, Firebird, you are wrong. The MiG-29 WAS NOT INTENDED TO BE AN INTERCEPTER. A common misconception is that all Soviet fighters are designed to be GCI-controlled "robotic Interceptors", this is untrue.
The VVS or Frontal Aviation, operated (during USSR) light, agile and relatively inexpensive fighters designed to operate from rough airfields (bad airfields because the VVS was intended to follow closely behind the ground forces).The PVO however, operated much heavier aircraft, carrying longer ranged weapons, using a larger more sophisticated and/or more powerful radar.
An example of this is during the 1970s. The MiG-23/MiG-27(yes I know MiG-27 is not truly a fighter) and the MiG-25. The MiG-23 is a light single seat aircraft, able to operate from short airstrips, with tough landing gear for bad terrain and in some models has multi-role capability. The MiG-25 was a much larger and much heavier aircraft, designed purely for missile warfare; it features a very large radar, 20 ft long AA-6 or AA-9 missiles and is designed to follow GCI control.
Clearly,the smaller and more nimble MiG-23 was designed for the VVS, while the heavier MiG-25 (needing solid, paved airfields) is designed for the PVO as an interceptor.
The Same is true during the 1960s with MiG-21s, MiG-17s serving the VVS while heavier fighters like the Su-15 and the Tu-128 carried out intercept roles.
As for the MiG-29, the MiG-29 was designed as a counter-air superiority fighter, able to surpass the F-16 and F-18 and at least match the F-15 (whether it does is debatable, but these were design specs). It doesn't make sense to have the MiG-29 designed as an interceptor when you can assign a more suitable MiG-31.
Now the situation is different. When planes like the Su-27 appeared, it changed the Soviet concepts of air warfare. It was lighter than a MiG-31, yet could dogfight like a MiG-29, and featured a sophisticated radar and weapons suite. Since the Su-27 is a blend of both, it served in both the VVS and PVO at the end of the cold war.
I hope this clears up any questions. I'd love to have lively debate in this forum, thanks for all feedback.
-
As for I know the Mig 29 pilots (at least in Czech Air force in 80') were never trained for real dogfighting, only for intercept mission with full GCI support. Although MiG 29 is quite maneuvrable (sp?) and good performer, it's not so much suitable for CAC (pilot workload, hard to maintain SA in low seated cockpit,low fuel load). CAC was in VVS doctrine always conceived asB&Z tactics assisted by GCI, prolonged CAC is a last resort, althoug LW pilots have been doing it a lot in DAC against NATO's fighters for training.
Neverthless I understant that MiG 29, once in CAC can be a very dangerous adversary if having skilled and experienced driver inside.
-
Any modern fighter jet if u put a skilled fighter or experienced pilot in there is a dangerous adversary not only mig.
Viper
-
lol
But this is a thread about Mig, no?
[img]/i/smilies/16x16_robot-happy.gif[/img]
-
To FireBird77
You know, the use of MiG-29 as interseptors in some countries (like Czech Republic in your example) is caused by relatively small area of that countries. As I know from my co-worker (who was an officer on early warning radar station relatively not far from Caspian Sea during his two-years term of military service), such plane as MiG-31 crossed the Caspian Sea in three clicks on radar screen(approx. 3 minutes). Compare areas of Caspian sea and mentioned above Czech Republic -- and you'll see the difference [img]/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif[/img] .
That is why in countries of small area it is wiser to use a relatevely slow multirole MiG-29 instead of too quick MiG-31 which (roughly said), being airborned, have to perform Return-To-Base maneuvers to avoid crossing own country boundaries. Here the use of MiG-29 as interseptor is forced by special conitions and reasonable sense. But originally (as I know from articles of "Aviation and Cosmonautics" and former "Soviet Military Review" russian military magazines) Mig-29 was designed as (m-m-m... how to find an appropriate term in english for russian "frontovoj istrebitel'"?.. ) kinda "tactical fighter" with purposes to gain superiority in the air over the battlefield (by use of air-to-air missiles and gun) and possible air support of ground units (by means of unguided rockets). Next modifications made MiG-29 more multi-purpose and flexible in use (for example as interseptor).
Conserning MiG-29 in close air combat I can say that Mig-29 has good trust/weight ratio and managed to be good dogfighter. Such reasons as limited (comparing to different american F-s) area of pilot sight over form and position of canopy cannot be seriously taken into consideration because the result of dogfight consists of many factors (pilot skill is a most important) and this one is almost the last by its meaning (noted for different forum members whose heightened senses of beauty and smooth forms force to think forejudgeably).
Alexander S. Golub
e-mail ASGolub@mail.ru
ICQ PIN 82626767
Minsk, Belarus
-
Ancient bump!
These people posting in this thread have long since perished and the civilization from which this argument
arouse has faded into history...
(I was bored)
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
Reply With Quote