But...But...I thought you said every time one takes off, it explodes...
..We should have been out of the space business a long time ago.
Rediculous...the US can lose many more shuttles and rockets and NASA would still continue to get funding.
Instead, the fleet accomplished more for US and the world than the MIG-25 did for its gullible clients.
Your fleet also uses Russian engines. And NASA uses Russian engineers such as my cousin to make sure your rockets don't end up in some feild in Texas. Our clients were morons, give them an F-22 and they would still manage to get shot out of the sky.
The MIG-25 is an embarrassment for Soviet/Russian aviation and your feeble defense of it an embarrassment to you.
When did i ever defend it? I brought up the Space shuttle because you insulted Russian aviation. The early Mig-25 had poor engines, the mig-31, on the other hand, had much better engines. The thrust was improved by about 10,000lb each and they had a longer service life. The Mig-25/31 were to keep below mach 2.8 in order to maintain engine life. However, my father flew a Mig-31 to mach 3.0 both engines were fine. I was never a fan of the Mig-25, i'm a Mig-31 guy.
Weapon load (including external fuel tank): Mig-29 3500kg
JH-7 9000kg
Ferry Range: Mig-29 2100km, JH-7 3700km
Combat Radius: Mig-29 700km, JH-7 1760km
The Mig-35/29 has a Combat Range: 1,500 km and a weopons load of 6500kg's. A Mig-29 can be upgraded to Mig-35 standars but it wouldn't be cheap.
Mikoyan MiG-35 - Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre
In conclusion, Mig-29 has no advantage over JF-17 and J-10 in AA scenario.
Your arguments are weak, and your opinions are worthless.
Also, Mig-29 does not quality as a heavy fighter but is almost as expensive to maintain because of its twin engine design.
Its short range also makes it incapable of providing any meaningful escort mission for bombers.
The latest Mig-29 varient aka the Mig-35 is a heavy class fighter.
Generally I like Russian weapons but Mig-29 is an outstandingly failed product despite being received by so many countries. It is hands down the worst 3rd gen (4th by western definition) fighter ever developed.
now i have to clean the coffee off my computer. Are you telling me Chinese aircraft such as the JH-7 can take out a Mig-35 with AESA, TVC, HMD, OLS, ect? Dont let the 35 scare you it's still a Mig-29 with a new name.
The fact it faired miserably against U.S jets really has something to do with its original design flaw. Yes, spending a lot on upgrade may help improve its performance, but why bother when you can just buy news ones instead for less?
Outdated Mig-29 did very well against F-16, and F-18 in mock combat. The biggest reason for the Mig-29's record was the pilots, US pilots are some of the best, their opponests were some of the worst. A number of Iraqi pilots some flying the Mig-29 crashed during dog fights
one moron got behind an F-111 and somehow crashed when the F-111 took evasive action
The other reasons Mig-29's did so poorly was because of maintance and upgrade issues, and to put the iceing on the cake, Mig-29's even the ones exported to communist countries had downgraded EW suits! So lets put this in perspective. The Arabs had jackass pilots, horrible maintance, horrible command structure, received downgraded Mig-29's, and rarely sought to modernize their fleets. Bravo!
Russian aircraft flown by good pilot perform exceptionally. Mig-21's, for example, were getting wasted by the Israeli's untell Pakistani pilots flew the Mig-21 and downed a number of Israeli fighters, Pakistani Mig-21's had a perfect combat record! Russian pilots flying the Mig-15's over Korea also made a mochery of American's best aces, i beleive one Russian had 21 kills. Same situation applies to the Mig-29. Good pilots=good results.
