The Fulcrum is a fast fighter with excellent maneuverability. The MiG-29 can exceed Mach 2.0 easily with its two powerful engines and still perform as an agile dogfighter in during slow-speed engagements. In terms of energy performance, the MiG-29 is fantastic with an outstanding rate of climb and an enviable sustained turn rate. The price is that the MiG-29 has a relatively small fuel tank, and a rather disappointing combat radius. The Fulcrum simply cannot go very far when it must feed two hungry engines from one meager fuel tank, making it an excellent defensive fighter but a poor attacker. The MiG-29M is an upgraded version that features a larger fuel capacity and more hardpoints for carrying ordinance.
>>28412806
Fulcrum a shit.
>>28412860
Flanker best waifu
>>28412912
Flanker a cute, but also a shit.
Tiger II best waifu
>>28412806
>Iraqi mig-29s
>Fucking joke in the sky
>>28412806
The only thing which gave the MiG-29 any sort of advantage in WVR combat against the competing F-16 and F-18s of NATO was the HOBS ability of the Archer, which is now lost with the AIM-9X. With that gone, it is inferior in every way, and was operating at a severe disadvantage even before. BVR/outer envelope of WVR it was dog meat. It's not a better combat maneuvered than the F-16 and lacks the ridiculous AoA pointing abilities of the F-18 (which both went a long way to offsetting any situational HOBS advantage in the early 90's).
>>28412806
Fulcrum a good, but its RD-33 engines a literally smoking pile of shite.
Even though they have good T/W ratio, it will be a disadvantage in dogfighting due to them being easily spotted because of their smoke.
>>28412806
the year is 1948, and this technolgoy is amazing.
If the happening is inevitable anyways...
I would at least enjoy the sight of chinkshit and and slavshit Su-35s get parted out by literally-deteriorating F-15s.
At least then the CIDF would get paid their 50 cents by spouting some different bullshit for a change.
>>28413125
yea. the US fixed that in the F-4 in 1968 with the E model
>>28414069
The Soviets/Russians have been behind for quite some time in aircraft engine design. This is the main thing holding up PAK-FA development at the moment.
>>28412806
Why are Russian jets so sexy?
>>28414343
actually al-41f prototype was more advanced than p&w f-119, but russians ran out of money before they got it working right.
>>28415974
Suuuuuuuure it was. Just like every other unfinished russian project was more advanced, amirite?
>>28416180
there were many finished advanced projects.
for example r-7 icbm, s-300 sam, va-111 supersonic torpedo, p-700 anti-ship missile, tu-160 bomber, buran space shuttle
russians can do some amazing shit when they have the resources. too bad they always had crappy governments,
>>28413125
Come now, a good military aircraft should look death as well as be death. Thick plumes of black smoke helps.
>>28416393
If you can't make mother nature cry, how will you make your enemies cry?
>>28415974
>It was better, but was never functional.
Then it wasn't better. Theoretical great performance is always muted when you have to acutely build them in a factory out of real materials, then put them in the field where they need to last for at least a thousand hours.
>>28416387
If that's the extent of "amazing shit" from a slavic perspective, I begin to see why you all seem so complacent with such supremely shitty governance for the last 500 years.
>>28416826
as i said, shitty governments. always spent the most money on military.
but at least r-7 got the first man into space.
>>28416851
Just about the only first on that list, unless we're counting the single unmanned Buran flight, which is a step backwards more than anything.
>>28412806
Too bad it's flight time is measured in minutes, it's avionics shit tier, and it gets fucked in the ass by BVR capable fighters.
>>28416393
>>28416513
They only do that in water injection mode, I don't think they even have that anymore.
But goddamn, that's a sight.
>>28413125
So hypothetically speaking, what if you threw a pair of American engines in a MiG-29, like a pair of F414s or better?
>>28412860
Flanker<Fulcrum in terms of aesthetics though, that is undisputable
>>28418129
Still shit avionics, weapons and sensors. Hard to say what would happen to the kinematics, but it still wouldn't have an F-16's turn rate, instantaneous or sustained. Nor the F-18s AoA limits. Biggest thing would still be the cripplingly small gas tanks.
MiG-35 have rectified all the problem, but Mikoyan can be considered as pariah in aviation industry(about as bad as HAL) due to workmanship quality and inability to honor contract.
They've lost money (and more importantly, reputation) when Algeria refused to take delivery of MiG-29SMT because they've found out that Mikoyan used old (soviet old) airframes and parts for its construction. Russian air force has to absorb these rejected planes instead (to prevent mikoyan from going bankrupt). Now that everyone else is retiring their MiG-29 ans nobody else buying MiG-35, Mikoyan is forced to take scraps (being subcontractor to Sukhoi) in the big UAC company
