The Truth About MiG-29 ("Air & Space", USA)

111
The Truth About MiG-29 ("Air & Space", USA)


In the bow of the MiG-29 (Fulcrum on the NATO classification), standing near the building of the national military-air and space intelligence center at the Wright-Paterson airbase in Ohio, a hornet nest has grown. Tires on his wheels raised above the ground were cracked and torn. Avian droppings dried up on the fairing. The plane gives the impression of a military trophy, paraded as a head at the peak. In a sense, this is the trophy taken as a result of the victory in the Cold War. This is one of the seventeen MiG-29-s, purchased by the US government in the former Soviet republic of Moldova in 1997 year. They purchased airplanes so that they would not be sold to Iran. The weak confederation that replaced the Soviet Union was not able to stop this deal, which was another act of humiliation after the collapse of the USSR. "Any military department in any country would be seriously upset if the adversary were able to study and test his most modern weapon- says the Moscow historian aviation Sergey Isaev. “I wonder if the White House and the Pentagon would be happy if, for example, Mexico tried to sell its UH-60L Blackhawk helicopters to the Russian Federation?”

This acquisition also gave Western analysts, some of whom worked in the gloomy building of this national intelligence center, a chance to explore the fighter they were looking at from afar for 20 years. When the MiG-29 first appeared in the 1977 year, he, like his distant ancestor of the MiG-15, became a startling revelation: it turns out, the Soviets are catching up with the United States in the field of aviation technology!

American intelligence first learned about the new Soviet aircraft from satellite photographs taken in November 1977 of the year, about the same time that the fighter made its first flight. “It was enough to look at its size and shape in order to understand: The Soviets are designing an analogue of our F-16 and F / A-18, says Benjamin Lambeth, who wrote the book AIR Power in Crisis in the year power during the crisis period), and at the end of 1999-s worked as a military analyst at the RAND strategic research center in Santa Monica, California. “Of all the numerous intelligence sources and means of collecting electronic and other information, the American government knew quite a lot about this plane from the very beginning, and it was clear to us that we had to do something.” The Air Force began to design stealth technology and electronic systems for tracking and targeting several aircraft simultaneously. In 1970, the leadership of the air force came up with the first official application for the development of the next-generation fighter technology — a promising tactical fighter that would eventually become an airplane called the F-1981 Raptor.

In subsequent years, the scattered information that was collected about the MiG-29, has developed into a clearer picture, because it became possible to study the 21 Moldovan MiG. From 20 to 27 in October 1997, these MiGs (14 front-line fighters of the “C” model, six “A” older models and one two-seater aircraft of the “B” modification) were dismantled in Moldova and sent in parts to the National Intelligence Center in Dayton, where carefully studied at the facility for the operation of foreign military equipment. What happened next - the National Air Force and Space Intelligence Center does not report this. Public Relations Officer James Lunsford says: "We don’t want our opponents to know what we know." Perhaps a few MiGs that were in flightable condition were sent for testing at the Edwards Air Force Base in California. At least one copy was in Nevada at Nellis airbase. There he was sent to a training center, which the pilots call the "menagerie for young animals." In the center there is a whole exhibition of foreign-made military equipment, which is exhibited there to familiarize it with young intelligence officers. As for the rest of the machines and parts, the data about them is classified, except for one of the first model "A", which got into the national museum of the USAF.

Inside the museum, his curator Jeff Dufford (Jeff Duford) invites me to explore the gallery of the Cold War, which is located on almost four thousand square meters of exhibition space. First, he shows me the Checkpoint Charlie exhibit. This newly acquired NASA space shuttle crew simulator takes up the entire left side of the hangar, pushing the planes into the right, where they stand like a hodgepodge. There, the second MiG-29 from Ohio stands face to face with the unattractive attack aircraft Fairchild Republic A-10 nicknamed Warthog (warthog, ugly, monster - approx. Transl.).

Dufford removes the tape fence, and we come closer to inspect the plane more closely. Unlike the Mig-29, rotting near the intelligence center, this specimen is remarkably restored and basks in comfort with climate control, enjoying the soft light of the lamps and glittering in fresh paint that feels like satin.

Let's admit: Soviet fighters were ugly, and MiGs are almost the most disgusting in appearance. Aircraft MiG-17 and MiG-19 since the Vietnam War is a utilitarian pipe with wings. After them came the deadly MiG-21, representing a rational sculpture of corners and a cone. But Mig-29 is completely different. This beautiful in its streamlined machine resembles its two-kilogram contemporary with flat sides F-15 Eagle no more than a ballerina from the Bolshoi Theater boxer from the street ring. When the gallery is ready, these two icons of air combat will be displayed together, Dufford says. Either Fulcrum will flaunt a pair with its more sleek rival F-16. Dufford, together with his colleagues, is devising a plan for placing the exhibits in such a way that the MiG-29 looks like a worthy opponent, which it is.

“We were very lucky that we received this aircraft,” says Dufford, passing his hand along the right air intake of the MiG-29. - When he came to us, he was painted Moldovan Air Force. Everything was done very rudely. When the repair and restoration work began, the workers, cleaning the surface, hoped to find the airborne numbers (the equivalent of the serial number in the Air Force). During the stripping process, the 08 number was clearly visible. ”

Having learned the number, Dufford realized that this MiG was not only one of the first combat vehicles of this brand, located at the Air Force base in Kubinka near Moscow, but also one of the first aircraft shown from outside the Soviet Union. “Some details helped to clarify its origin,” says Dufford, “Plates for reflecting the flames .... There are only six holes, and this indicates that our plane is one of the first models.” Another tip was the method of drawing numbers. Unlike the US Air Force planes, where the rules are very strict in size, up to a millimeter, "on Russian planes, the distance between the numbers can be different," Dufford notes. He carefully studied the images of the MiG-29, taken in 1986 year at the aviation exhibition in Finland in Kuopio-Rissala. “It's like a fingerprint. Looking at the distance between the numbers and their location, I made sure that this car was exhibited in Finland. ”

In 1986, Jukka Hoffren was a photographer for the Finnish Air Force, working at the Tikkakoski Air Force Base, where the Finnish Air Force Academy is located. Fascinated by the new MiG, Hoffren went to the Kuopio-Rissala air show for the aircraft's international debut. Until 1986, foreigners only saw the fighter in fuzzy satellite imagery published in Aviation Week & Space Technology magazine. “This whole air show was built around the MiG-29,” Hoffren told me by e-mail. The Soviets were interested in selling their new aircraft to the Finnish Air Force, which had a very diversified fleet of aircraft, stemming from the complex policy of post-war Finland, governed by various treaties. The air force included the Soviet MiG-21 bis, the Swedish Saab Draken, and the British Hawk produced by British Aerospace. According to Hoffren, in comparison with the highly combat-ready MiG-21, which was built in Tbilisi, Georgia in such a way that the construction method can be called “hammering”, the new MiG was an amazing machine. "If the MiG-21 can be called a rocket with wings, then the MiG-29 was a very maneuverable aircraft in aerial combat, and it seemed that it was in no way inferior, and maybe even superior to the F-16."

Seeing not a photo, but a real car that Hoffren made in Finland was much more informative; but the plane can only be known in flight. And in December 1989, Lambet got that opportunity. December 15, based in Kubinka in disgusting weather conditions, he became the first Western analyst to fly the MiG-29, and also the first Western representative after the end of World War II, invited to take off in Soviet airspace on a combat aircraft on the MiG in August 1989 at the Abbotford Airshow).

Two years after the debut of Mig-29 in Kuopio-Rissal, the Soviets showed this car in England at the air show in Farnborough, and in 1989, at the air show in Paris. Lambeth was a senior analyst at the RAND research center at the time. Previously, he worked as a specialist in Soviet military technology at the CIA, as well as a civilian pilot. Lambet's work in RAND with a specialization in the combat use of tactical aviation gave him the opportunity to fly on many jet planes with excellent flight tactical characteristics. In Farnborough, he met with the chief test pilot of the Mikoyan design bureau Valery Menitsky, who accompanied a group of pilots, technicians and support personnel at the first major western exhibition in which MiG-29 participated. They became friends.

“I have been writing about Soviet aircraft for many years,” says Lambet. - When I heard that the MiG-29 was brought to Farnborough, I could not believe it. I could not even imagine that I would be so lucky, and I could fly on it. It was a kind of drama of the Cold War - a man who worked for the CIA gets a chance to fly into the sky in a Soviet fighter with a red star. ” Lambet told Menitsky that he really wants to fly the MiG-29. "He did not fall out of his chair laughing, but said that maybe it will work out." Lambet chose the right time: the Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev recently began to pursue a policy of glasnost, and since the Soviets hoped to sell the new fighter to other countries, they were ready to demonstrate its capabilities and characteristics in every way.

The weather in Kubinka was disgusting that winter, so before taking off for the MiG-29UB Menitsky took the front seat, and Lambet climbed into the back. The flight involved a series of maneuvers that Lambet had been performing on F-15 National Air Force aircraft at Hickam airbase in Honolulu a few weeks before. Lambet's RAND report, published in 1990, was the first unclassified analysis of a mysterious fighter before. Lambet stressed that he did not undergo any training as a test pilot or fighter pilot, but in his report he described in detail the impressions of flying in the cockpit of the MiG-29.

Soon, the West learned all about the MiG-29, having the opportunity to use it. Three months before Lambet’s flight to Kubinka to Hungary, they traveled around 7000 East Germans on tourist visas, who camped near Budapest. 10 September 1989 Hungary officially opened its border with Austria, giving the refugees the opportunity to go to West Germany. By 1990, Germany was united, and the day after Christmas, 1991, the Soviet Union ceased to exist.

The MiG-29 was the only combat aircraft in the armed forces of East Germany, which the combined German government retained as part of the Air Force. “The Germans have done an invaluable service,” says a historian from the military-air and space intelligence center Rob Young. - They told us about the MiG-29 more than we could find anywhere. Our exchange program included majors and lieutenant colonels. It was similar to the MiG-15 in that we created models with it and conducted simulation experiments long before we were able to get this car. ” During the Korean War, the Airborne Technical Intelligence Center, the forerunner of the national military-air and space intelligence center at Wright-Paterson airbase, obtained details of the MiG-15 crashed and explored the wreckage to learn more about the characteristics of this altered MiG force. The US Air Force test pilots were able to fly on such a plane after a North Korean pilot deserted 1953 of the year in September.

In 1991, the former East Germany had 29 MiG-29 machines based in Presche near the Polish border. When the Iron Curtain fell, the pilots and technicians of West Germany began to assess their former opponents, trying to figure out whether they could be introduced into the new German Air Force. Eventually they began a training program in which the pilots of the former East Germany acted as instructors.

The best of the best young West German lieutenants and captains were selected for retraining to MiGs. In the following years, the 73 wing of fighter aviation, which was deployed on the Baltic coast at Laag, was bombarded with requests from Western air forces and navies who wanted to fly in a training battle against the MiG-29.

Peter Steiniger was a fighter pilot of the West German Air Force and a graduate of the prestigious joint training courses for European-NATO jet aircraft pilots at the Sheppard Air Force Base, Texas. Returning to Germany, he flew the F-4F, which was the export version of the legendary "Phantoms" of the company McDonnell Douglas, who were in service in the German Air Force until the year 2013. When he was a lieutenant in 1986, he and his comrades were shown satellite images of a sobering Soviet development. But less than five years after unification, as he found himself in surrealistic circumstances, generated by intricate bends stories: Steiniger not only became a well-trained MiG-29 pilot, but also an officer in the operations department of the 73 wing who coordinated the exchange program. “For example,” says Steiniger, “I put a young, excited and over-excited F-16 pilot together with a pilot from the former GDR air force. They rise into the sky and make several elementary maneuvers taken in fighter aircraft. We had hundreds of such departures, and thousands of lessons during the debriefing with colleagues from Western planes who listened to us and watched our videos ... mostly with amazement. ”

Pilots from numerous MiG-29 opponents who arrogantly called us to the competition and gave us the words “come on, show what you are capable of” (among them are airplanes like the F-14 Tomcat and the F / A-18 Hornet Navy USA) were confounded and often figuratively broke their noses in the blood after the first collision with 29. “With some experience, you could outperform any jet plane, even the F-16 and Hornet, with a large angle of attack,” says Steiniger. “The beautiful design combined with one type of on-board armament turned the aircraft into a real killer: this is an Archer AA-11 rocket (the name of the P-73 rocket in the NATO classification is approx. Transl.).” This is a rocket with a thermal homing system, which has remarkable characteristics and a greater range than the American Sidewinder. "A simple monocular lens in front of the right eye allowed me to point a homing head at a target at a very large angle." The ability of the MiG-29 to capture the target for automatic tracking, even when its nose was turned away from it, made it "shed a lot of tears," says Steiniger.

But although the MiG-29 was good in close combat, Western pilots soon discovered several flaws in it. Former F-16 pilot Mike Jaensch, who studied at an Air Force weapons school and served in air defense, returned to active military service in 1994 after he was fired from American airlines. Good German, Jensh got a place in the group of pilots who went to 1998 for the exchange in Laag in the squadron, where there were MiGs. Jensh literally fell in love with this plane, with its power and maneuverability, but experienced certain difficulties with the on-board radar and auxiliary systems. “The Soviet system of views was such that the pilot is basically an actuator for the control stick,” he says. - The plane was very different from what we are used to. Onboard electronics was the bare minimum. Such a belief system also meant that the Soviets did not need to transfer information to the pilot. ” Since MiG systems could not transmit to the pilot information about a complex combat space, combat flights by car were prohibited. In 1998, NATO forces thought about sending MiGs from Laage to Kosovo, but abandoned the idea. The operators of the on-board radar detection and warning system (AWACS) would have to pay special and special attention to the MiGs. “AWACS gives information to three to six aircraft on combat patrols, but for us we would have to pass on additional information,” says Jensh. “We decided that in the end we would interfere more than help.” In addition, the Serbs also had MiG-29, and therefore the identification of "friend or foe" in the air would be difficult.

In 1996, Fred Clifton (Fred Clifton) became the first in the framework of the exchange program for the MiG-29 pilot, seconded to the 73-th wing. This graduate of the Air Force weapons school, who served on the F-16, and also flown thousands of hours on the F-15, F-5 and MiG-29, fits the characteristics of the Russian aircraft soberly and coldly as an analyst. “This is a great machine [in terms of elementary maneuvers],” he says. “But of the four fighters I flew, this is the most disobedient and difficult to control.” Before becoming a MiG-29 pilot, Clifton received his first instructor assignment, becoming an “enemy plane” pilot and flying an F-5 through an intensive training program for experienced pilots who mastered combat skills against known threats, including MiG -29. Upon arrival at the 73-e wing, he received a unique opportunity to critically test the curriculum in which the pilots were engaged in the United States. “I got a chance to understand how correctly I trained pilots as an enemy pilot,” he says. “Much of what intelligence gave us turned out to be true.” Yes, the MiG-29 was an exceptionally combat-ready machine in an air battle, and was impressed with its ability to launch rockets at a very large angle relative to the direction of flight (by 2002, the Russians lost this pointing advantage, because the Americans adopted AIM-9X rocket and assault target designation system). But the plane had a small capacity of fuel tanks, and, therefore, a short range, a close cockpit with many buttons and switches on the dashboard, an average radar quality and low indicators in terms of versatility. His capabilities were limited by the fact that he intercepted and shot down enemy targets at a short distance from his own aerodrome. The Eastern bloc pilots were taught to obediently follow the instructions of the ground operators, so the MiG-29 systems, including the indicator on the windshield, were not developed well enough, and the pilots had very little control of the situation in the air.

The pilot of civilian airlines Doug Russell (Doug Russell) at one time participated in the exchange program and flew as part of the 73-th wing. Today, he occasionally flies on the MiG-29 registered as a civilian machine, acquired in Kyrgyzstan and owned by Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen (Paul Allen, Russell sometimes flies on other MiG-29 registered in the United States in Illinois). He likes this plane, but he says that the flight on it looks like a weekend in Vegas: there is not enough thirst for pleasure, and there is little satisfaction with the result. “We were in a high degree of readiness and flew with on-board armament, but this did not give us anything,” he says about the time spent in the German Air Force. “It was difficult for a guy from the West to fly this car because he didn’t have that level of awareness of the environment .... We were never invited to dance.” Russell believes that NATO analysts were very interested in the MiG and insisted that the Germans continue to fly it.

Shortly after arriving at 73-wing, Clifton learned that technical analysts in the United States would soon find out all the remaining secrets of the MiG-29. During a business trip to Ramstein Air Base, he attended a secret briefing, where it was said that the US Air Force was purchasing Moldovan MiGs. Many believed that the Air Force would form a squadron from the MiG-29, so that they participated in the training of pilots as enemy aircraft. But only a few of the vehicles purchased were fit for flight. To lift the rest into the air, big expenses were needed. In addition, it was extremely inconvenient to bargain with the Russian Federation because of the spare parts. Therefore, the creation of a squadron of the "enemy" turned out to be impractical.

Peter Steiniger launched a website on which he chronicles the German MiGs enthusiastically and shares his feelings about flying to them. There are many striking photographs and words of praise addressed to the MiG-29. At the same time, Steiniger says: “Would I like to fight on such an airplane? Not. If we set aside the Archer AA-11 rocket, the work in the cockpit is very laborious. Possession of the situation beyond the line of sight is limited to the map. ” In other words, the pilot has to lower his head, open the map and watch where he has appeared.

Some MiG-29 aircraft are still undergoing further modernization: new flight computers, navigation equipment, and even Rockwell Collins UHF / UHF radio are installed on Polish MiGs. But the rest of the Air Force, short of a small number of former Soviet allies, is not in a hurry to get in line to buy MiG-29 after the Cold War. “After the fall of the Iron Curtain, the MiG-29 was left to the mercy of fate,” says Clifton. - There are practically no new deliveries abroad. Who buys it? Yes, no one. And about the feasibility of upgrading this machine in order to transform it into a modern computerized multipurpose fighter, Clifton says: “Buy F-16. It is more economical and better. ”

Today, the Russians offer to export a new MiG, the 35. This aircraft is of higher quality. “Over the years, the Russians modified the MiG-29. They have improved it, made changes, - says Ben Lambet. “MiG-35 is similar to MiG-29, but it has much more features.” So far, he has attracted the attention of only one potential buyer: India. According to the available information, the Russian Air Force MiG-35 will be in service in 2016 year. But the attention of Western analysts, and probably the compilers of training programs in the Air Force weapons school today is attracted by the products of another aviation design bureau.

In 2010, the Russians launched the F-22 Raptor in the sky. This machine Sukhoi Design Bureau, which is a descendant of the Su-27. The T-50 is a multipurpose fighter whose onboard electronics can compete with the F-22. But Lambet notes that he is still ten years behind Raptor. “Many have a suspicion that it will not be so subtle,” he says. “This aircraft has many such features and features that will give it out on the radar screen.” But from a distance it is difficult to judge how T-50 will show itself, and whether Russia will continue to develop it at all. This is a new mystery, and in the near future the Russians are unlikely to invite anyone from the West to ride this car to solve it.








Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

111 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +84
    28 August 2014 08: 44
    Let's admit: Soviet fighters were ugly, and MiGs were almost the most vile in appearance. MiG-17 and MiG-19 aircraft of the Vietnam War are a utilitarian tube with wings. Following them came the deadly MiG-21, which is a rational sculpture of corners and a cone.
    I read this article yesterday on another resource, but this phrase killed on the spot. Yes, you look at your creations, then judge our already. About F-35 I generally am silent, as well as F-117. They also found the standard of beauty - F-16, a rare crocodile. Or here's another handsome man:
    1. +19
      28 August 2014 08: 56
      A lot of our military secrets flowed to America in post-perestroika times, the MiG-29 is no exception, thank God that this period in our history has ended.
      1. s1н7т
        +4
        28 August 2014 11: 55
        Quote: Giant thought
        A lot of our military secrets flowed to America in post-perestroika times, the MiG-29 is no exception, thank God that this period in our history has ended.

        Yeah. There are simply no more secrets - that’s the whole difference.
        1. +1
          19 March 2017 08: 28
          s1n7t, if not, if you search well, you can find a lot of things. Soviet engineers - it was a special caste ....
      2. 0
        28 August 2014 16: 01
        Yes, for some reason, the article does not mention the cost. 21 MIG-29 was sold by Moldovans for $ 40 million. Less than 2 million apiece ..
      3. 0
        27 March 2017 11: 58
        The MiG-29 has no secrets. Carefully read the reviews of Western pilots: they are used to a completely different quality of information about the combat situation, and the MiG-29 pilot is blind and deaf. And the rest - a great plane (for piloting). The interest of US intelligence in the aircraft of a potential enemy is explained by the desire to solve problems practically without losses and good financing.
    2. +20
      28 August 2014 08: 56
      Do not forget the A-10, also handsome.
      1. +26
        28 August 2014 09: 07
        Quote: ssergn
        Do not forget the A-10, also handsome.

        I don’t know how anyone, but I like Thunderbolt for its brutality.
        1. +8
          28 August 2014 09: 13
          To me, the thunderbolt reminds me of a cuttlefish.
        2. +1
          28 August 2014 11: 26
          Similarly!
        3. 52
          +3
          28 August 2014 16: 28
          A stormtrooper doesn't have to be pretty, it's functional, like a tipper or lawn mower! But the A-10 is still a pretty "death machine".
      2. +10
        28 August 2014 09: 28
        Quote: ssergn
        also handsome.

        and saber? and F-4? A log with a hole and a pregnant cockroach.
      3. +6
        28 August 2014 09: 37
        Our Su 25 will be prettier smile
      4. 0
        28 August 2014 23: 05
        And the nickname to match Warthog "warthog".
    3. +21
      28 August 2014 09: 02
      Let's admit: Soviet fighters were ugly, and MiGs were almost the most vile in appearance. MiG-17 and MiG-19 aircraft of the Vietnam War are a utilitarian tube with wings.


      IT WRITTEN A TYPICAL LIBERAL ..... he has all of our bad ..... and for me any liberal is a sucker.
      1. +11
        28 August 2014 09: 43
        This was written by John Sotham (USA). Maybe he is a liberal, but certainly not ours.
      2. +9
        28 August 2014 11: 15
        Ahaha))) ... In my opinion, the reason for such an assessment is "disgusting in appearance" (c) from this American author of the article is much more prosaic - perhaps he himself, or his relatives were related to that war ... And in Vietnam, our guys made a not weak a sensation that appeared in the sky ... While American concerns were knocking out money from their government for their titanium super-dupper cars, ours consisted of steel ... They were much cheaper ... But at the same time, in order to fill the MIG into it it was necessary to hit from a machine gun, hell knows how many times ... while the titanium "americos" injected very cheerfully ... Americans on Spitfires and Phantoms (if memory serves) in Vietnam got from our "advisers" so hard and efficiently, that the Americans obviously could not like MIGs))) ...
        Remember the song about the Phantom))) ... "Our pilot Li Xi Qing shot you down" (c)))
    4. +30
      28 August 2014 09: 30
      They have other standards of beauty. laughing
      Nuland, Pusachka and Ashton ..... wink laughing
    5. +1
      28 August 2014 09: 38
      Well here you are wrong, brother. Old Migi, with all the patriotism, look very archaic. Here I agree with the author. You must be able to admit the truth.
      1. +38
        28 August 2014 10: 10
        Old Migi, with all patriotism, look very archaic


        So they look after more than half a century, and for their time - they are like swift silver arrows !!! And now they are damn good !!!
        1. +14
          28 August 2014 12: 16
          My grandfather flew this one. When a bullet hit the lantern at a high altitude, his membrane burst from a sharp pressure drop. And there was a moment when the front leg did not go out, he already wanted to get on the belly next to the strip, but at the last moment it fell out, something was damaged there. And he also said that when landing on his stomach on a metal strip, a pilot died, the plane "raked" on itself with cannons. He noted that it was hard on simple MIG-15s, but when the encores went (MIG-15bis, the engine is more powerful), "here we have them ...". I keep my grandfather's leather headset, although it is already produced in 1953. And two more Solingen razors brought from Germany in 1945. Passed away 22 years ago. We should have asked him more questions and recorded ...
        2. +1
          28 August 2014 15: 27
          From one species, the Matrasikov veins became cold
          No wonder the section of the border with China and Korea was called the Alley of MiGs
          During their participation in the conflict from November 1950 to July 1953, the pilots of the 64 Corps flew around 64 000 sorties. Spent 1872 air combat. The hull was shot down by enemy 1250 aircraft. 150 aircraft self-defense anti-aircraft artillery, 1100 fighter groups. The hull's own losses were 335 aircraft. In Korea, at least 120 Soviet pilots and 68 anti-aircraft gunners died.
      2. +18
        28 August 2014 10: 11
        And this, is it not beauties? !!!
        1. +5
          28 August 2014 10: 19
          Yeah. You can see right away - a fighter.
        2. 0
          28 August 2014 13: 28
          As far as I remember, I can of course be mistaken, the picture is not MiG but SU
        3. s1н7т
          +2
          28 August 2014 13: 29
          Quote: viktorrymar
          And this, is it not beauties? !!!

          Good, of course, but compared with the Su-17, when I first saw it, it seemed unrealistically small. For me, the Su-17M3 is the most beautiful laughing
      3. +4
        28 August 2014 10: 13
        What a clean line of contours !!!!
      4. +9
        28 August 2014 10: 17
        I could not resist, beauty!
        1. 52
          0
          28 August 2014 16: 33
          And 21-f-13 in general, in my opinion, is the most elegant of the 21st family!
          1. 0
            20 September 2017 23: 23
            YES and just F was not bad

            And so PERSONALLY I have the most beautiful MiG is the MiG-23


      5. +12
        28 August 2014 10: 27
        Quote: Fingolfin
        . Old Migi, with all the patriotism, look very archaic. Here I agree with the author. You must be able to admit the truth.

        Well truth is true
        1. +3
          28 August 2014 10: 29
          And here is the truth
          1. +4
            28 August 2014 10: 30
            and open our eyes to it
            1. +4
              28 August 2014 10: 32
              and this "wonderful" design is NOT archaic
              1. +2
                28 August 2014 10: 33
                Is it not a flying pipe, as the Yankers say about our moments?
                1. +2
                  28 August 2014 10: 36
                  And this is So I want to point out to you the log in the eyes of "your"
                  1. +2
                    28 August 2014 10: 57
                    Here are a couple of handsome men
                    1. +2
                      28 August 2014 10: 59
                      ))) And that too
                    2. +2
                      28 August 2014 11: 13
                      But this one looks cool. Tadpole with wings.
            2. 0
              28 August 2014 10: 33
              Quote: sssla
              and open our eyes to it

              Yeah, the Phantom is still handsome.
        2. 0
          29 August 2014 09: 48
          Well, actually it was about the F-15 ...
      6. +1
        28 August 2014 15: 00
        If we compare contemporaries, then, for example, with the MiG-15 you need to compare the Saber, apparently both of them, according to the author, is a pipe with wings. But what a swift and beautiful pipe! :) After the piston, it was a breakthrough, including in appearance, due to reagent requirements.
      7. 0
        20 September 2017 22: 59
        C'mon, Mig -15 is much prettier than their contemporaries

        Here is Saber - it looks like a catfish in front of a suction
    6. 0
      28 August 2014 12: 24
      The Americans themselves said that the MiG-21 is great :)
    7. +2
      28 August 2014 12: 39
      I draw attention to the next point in terms of neuro-linguistic programming - the word is excessively common - vile, vile. The word itself is rarely used in everyday life, and in near-technical texts it should not be at all. I do not think that this is a translation defect or the author (foreigner) had periods. Trainee damn ....
    8. +1
      28 August 2014 14: 07
      Something did not understand the author. And where does the "truth about Mige?" Is it that pigeons walk on it or how do they trade? The performance characteristics of the Miga-29 on the "VO" have been around for a long time with all the discussion. Or is there something wrong? hi
    9. +2
      28 August 2014 17: 01
      Mig-17-19 were pipes, but nevertheless they beat amers in Vietnam, only feathers flew.
      1. s1н7т
        +1
        28 August 2014 18: 39
        Quote: viktor3316
        Mig-17-19 were pipes, but nevertheless they beat amers in Vietnam, only feathers flew.

        We had a pilot in our regiment who was in Vietnam at that time - he claimed that ours were forbidden to fly on the DB after some incident there. Ours only instructed. It turns out that the Vietnamese "soaked" them! That is, our equipment, even in the hands of the Vietnamese, was cooler lol And there - even call the pipe laughing
    10. 0
      April 11 2018 13: 46
      ugly?
      Well yes
      Here is a sample of beauty for you.
  2. +12
    28 August 2014 09: 00
    Under no circumstances should the secrets of our weapons reach our enemies.
    Unfortunately in this article, joyless information .... the enemy got the opportunity to study our military weapons ....
    IT IS UNACCEPTABLE.
    1. P-38
      +5
      28 August 2014 09: 27
      Quote: The same LYOKHA
      the enemy got the opportunity to study our military weapons ....
      IT IS UNACCEPTABLE

      It's right. But note - the Americans sniffed the MiG-29 from top to bottom, had previously familiarized themselves with the hijacked MiG-25, but they could not create anything like it. As the Germans could not create anything similar to the T-34.
      1. +2
        28 August 2014 09: 56
        There was no need to create an analogue of "25th"! Who threatens them that builds narrowly specialized interceptors?
      2. +4
        28 August 2014 09: 58
        How the Germans could not create anything similar to the T-34

        Well, here you do not compare, the Germans have their own tank building school. And the Americans rested on immigrants from Russia and Germany.
      3. +1
        28 August 2014 10: 24
        Quote: P-38
        Quote: The same LYOKHA
        the enemy got the opportunity to study our military weapons ....
        IT IS UNACCEPTABLE

        It's right. But note - the Americans sniffed the MiG-29 from top to bottom, had previously familiarized themselves with the hijacked MiG-25, but they could not create anything like it. As the Germans could not create anything similar to the T-34.

        we have different views on beauty!
        By the way, speaking beautifully, this is not an analogue of practicality.
        and ... as one hero from the movie used to say, "beauty is when you take a stone and cut off all that is superfluous ..."
  3. +8
    28 August 2014 09: 02
    The Americans with the designers of military equipment are mostly trouble. Their military ships (with the exception of aircraft carriers) are ugly and more like a merchant fleet for some reason. And during the MIG-17 years, the overall design was tube-shaped.
  4. +15
    28 August 2014 09: 05
    n-yeah. betrayal of a hunchback for a long time we will come around am
    1. 0
      28 August 2014 13: 36
      I must admit that Humpback was only the tip of the iceberg. After all, he was surrounded by a whole bunch of party members of different stripes. If desired, they could overthrow him or leave him out of work, as was the case with Khrushchev and Brezhnev. So it's not his fault alone.
  5. VICTOR-61
    +3
    28 August 2014 09: 07
    I like a lot of design in our military equipment.
  6. +6
    28 August 2014 09: 12
    The plane gives the impression of a trophy, paraded like a head at the peak. In a certain sense, this is a trophy taken as a result of victory in the Cold War. This is one of seventeen MiG-29's purchased by the US government in the former Soviet Republic of Moldova in 1997.

    That is, stolen secretly, this is called a trophy. Anyway, the article is some kind, g.v.n.s.a.m. on white bread.
    1. 0
      21 March 2017 15: 13
      Moldovans are also those “brothers”. Although ... If not for them - then Ukrainians or former Yugoslavs or Poles - they would still have sold
  7. +3
    28 August 2014 09: 12
    Yes, with such friends and enemies is not necessary.
  8. +16
    28 August 2014 09: 13
    Pindoras have a short memory, as in the Korean and Vietnamese wars, the "pipe with wings" drove them to diarrhea and unacceptable losses.
    1. +2
      28 August 2014 09: 19
      There were unacceptably many losses in Vietnam of our MIGs, but this is, of course, primarily due to poorly trained inexperienced pilots (Vietnamese)
  9. +2
    28 August 2014 09: 14
    Interesting article.
  10. yulka2980
    +7
    28 August 2014 09: 14
    Our planes are handsome! But for a long time people will remember Gorbach and Yeltsin with a kind word ((((
  11. +3
    28 August 2014 09: 15
    What difference does it make whether an airplane is beautiful or not, the main thing is its performance characteristics and then you can talk about beauty, military equipment is not civilian!
    1. +3
      28 August 2014 09: 28
      Quote: pomegranate
      What difference does it make whether an airplane is beautiful or not, the main thing is its performance characteristics and then you can talk about beauty, military equipment is not civilian!

      Well, I would like, of course, that ferrari and larbojins would fly ... smile
      Po-2 was not handsome, but the Germans respectfully feared him ... Especially at night. smile

      But in essence, you are right, if the plane performs its tasks, it can look like anything, even a poop, even a grindizer with a member.
    2. +8
      28 August 2014 09: 46
      "Only beautiful airplanes can fly well" (c) A.N. Tupolev
      1. 0
        28 August 2014 10: 02
        I don’t argue with the coryphaeus of the aircraft industry ... It’s good to fly, this is one thing, and the tasks performed, for example, to land, take off from an aircraft carrier, is another. smile
      2. 52
        +1
        28 August 2014 16: 41
        Yeah, Tu-22 is really beautiful, and what's the point? Widows Factory, no worse than 104 "Starboy!"
  12. +8
    28 August 2014 09: 15
    I remember reading a report about the T-34. The Americans wrote that after testing the tank, not an aesthetic appearance, the quality of the seams is terrible! But Sherman had even seams, but only the name among the tankers he had was "Matchbox" ! Because it burned very well, unlike the same T-34!
    1. +5
      28 August 2014 10: 34
      The trouble is that they did not write who the T-34 was doing ... Not a well-fed and happy American worker with decades of experience, and children and women who got up to the machine yesterday and barely kept the welding machine in half-starved condition ... they compare lovers with soft and so from time immemorial.
  13. +9
    28 August 2014 09: 16
    the opinion about beauty is subjective, as well as the biased opinion about this or that L.A. For example, "VAF", respected by me, likes the 27th, and he will challenge everyone who says that this is an "unimportant plane" to a duel !!! (photo Mig, at Brand airbase, GSVG, 1000 times I passed here ...)
    1. +1
      28 August 2014 09: 54
      opinion about beauty is subjective

      I agree, you can argue until hoarseness. For me, MIG-27, like MIG-23, is not at all the top of the design and looks somehow ... unstable, on the ground, in flight.
      1. +3
        28 August 2014 09: 58
        Quote: Wedmak
        opinion about beauty is subjective

        I agree, you can argue until hoarseness. For me, MIG-27, like MIG-23, is not at all the top of the design and looks somehow ... unstable, on the ground, in flight.

        Oh, Denis, you will get rid of "VAF" a, when you come, you will see and you will scrape ... wassat
        1. +1
          28 August 2014 10: 05
          here comes, sees and rakes ...

          I didn’t say anything bad about his flying and combat qualities. winked
      2. +2
        28 August 2014 12: 03
        Design by design, instability-instability, but before ... I don’t remember exactly .... Belgium or Holland from Poland, one flew by. At the same time, he flew without a pilot, who ejected)))))))
    2. Sergeqr
      0
      28 August 2014 09: 55
      Well, yes ... 23rd ..
      The compact machine was .. wink
      But flew. laughing
    3. 0
      28 August 2014 09: 58
      Nothing can be said, handsome)))) laughing
  14. +2
    28 August 2014 09: 16
    The ugliness of "phantoms" gives rise to envy, I'm not talking about flight characteristics - in vertical and horizontal lines 29 in his class has no equal ...
  15. +3
    28 August 2014 09: 18
    Dogs rejoice at their trophies, obtained not in battle, but with various intrigues and meanness.
  16. +6
    28 August 2014 09: 23
    how cute it sounds: Moldavian Air Force !!!!
    1. +4
      28 August 2014 09: 32
      how cute it sounds: Moldavian Air Force !!!!


      I’ll add .. how cute it sounds:. FORMED Moldavian Air Force !!!! smile
      1. +1
        28 August 2014 14: 08
        Quote: The same LYOKHA
        how cute it sounds:. FORMED Moldavian Air Force !!!!
        Yeah, these are the same guys who reliably cover the airborne Moldavian paratroopers.
  17. +10
    28 August 2014 09: 23
    I don’t know, people! Whoever, but I like our military aircraft! And power and beauty!
    What can not be said about the American and Russian "products -
    "banged" the loot on the "F-22" - in fact, bullshit, another "cut" - F-35, bullshit, the Yankes themselves admit!
    And ours is beautiful and powerful! What is one "White Swan" worth! And much good has been said about the Su and Mig family, only the lazy one does not recognize their superiority!
    These "A-10" and ours, which is better ?! (forgive an amateur - a patriot, I judge only by external signs and open infe!)
    1. 0
      28 August 2014 09: 31
      Nice to go ... smile
    2. +1
      28 August 2014 09: 48
      If ... beauty will save the world ... then this is not about this photo. Thank you Dear! You +
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. 0
        28 August 2014 10: 03
        Quote: s.melioxin
        If ... beauty will save the world ... then this is not about this photo. Thank you Dear! You +

        smile I agree with you, such beauty will not save the world ...
    3. +1
      28 August 2014 10: 00
      I really like the cannon, it’s completely suitable for your A-10 asshole and the beauty is not important here!
    4. +1
      28 August 2014 11: 43
      "These A-10s and ours, which is better ?!"
      I do not know which is better, the A-10 is built around a small seven-barrel 30mm cannon from the picture ;-)
    5. +3
      28 August 2014 12: 02
      Quote: asar
      I don’t know, people! Whoever, but I like our military aircraft! And power and beauty!
      What can not be said about the American and Russian "products -
      "banged" the loot on the "F-22" - in fact, bullshit, another "cut" - F-35, bullshit, the Yankes themselves admit!
      And ours is beautiful and powerful! What is one "White Swan" worth! And much good has been said about the Su and Mig family, only the lazy one does not recognize their superiority!
      These "A-10" and ours, which is better ?! (forgive an amateur - a patriot, I judge only by external signs and open infe!)

      about these flyers, by the standards of pin.dos.ov, freaks from freaks, but the stormtroopers are still those!
      you call me of course, but for me it’s so beautiful in the details, and not in the general plaster in which they try to hide the nature.
      I like these freaks, they have superiority, I like our "Rooks", especially when he is all arrogant after the battle returns to the airfield and carries a living pilot.
      in the end, it’s not beauty that fights, but practicality ...
      and these are Western standards of beauty, this is only to attract our attention, to begin to treat our own as something not good, but theirs, as a standard ...
      you know, by their standards and gays are beautiful ...
    6. +1
      28 August 2014 13: 56
      I would not be harsh about quality. The F-22 had an excellent predecessor, the F-15 Eagle (which, by the way, looks pretty good, although it is far from the Su-27), so the Predator should not be underestimated. And about MiGs and Su, I completely agree, and I don’t understand people who say that the B1B is more beautiful than the Tu-160
    7. 0
      28 August 2014 14: 00
      By the way, the Americans plan to remove the A-10 from service
      A-10 - “the ugliest and most beautiful plane on the planet”

      The Pentagon’s decision to withdraw from the US Air Force’s A-10 attack aircraft is a painful but necessary step to save money, March.yahoo.com reports 14 March.
      US Air Force chief of staff General Mark Welsh said at a Congressional meeting that decommissioning the 283 “tank killers” would save 3,7 billion dollars over five years, plus 500 million would be saved from canceling the planned modernization of attack aircraft.

      The money saved will go to finance other Air Force programs, including the refinement of the F-35 stealth fighter, the creation of a new refueling aircraft and a long-range bomber.
      “By making this difficult decision, we aim to maintain the Air Force’s combat effectiveness with the most efficient use of every taxpayer dollar,” Air Force Minister Deborah James said in Congress. This reduction, which is met with resistance on Capitol Hill, is adopted as part of the savings of 1 trillion dollars in budget over the next 10 years.

      The heavily armored subsonic attack aircraft A-10 is extremely popular with soldiers and marines. It can withstand enemy ground fire and is capable of engaging tanks and other armored targets with an onboard 30mm cannon firing projectiles with a depleted uranium core. General of the Army Martin Dempsey, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, called the A-10 “the ugliest yet most beautiful combat aircraft on the planet.” General Welch believes that the withdrawal of the A-10 attack aircraft from the Air Force is a decision with "the lowest level of risk from an operational point of view." “Direct air support for ground forces is not a secondary task of the Air Force and never will be. But the air support is not limited to one aircraft, it is a mission that will be very efficiently carried out by a range of types of combat aircraft, "said the general, whose son is a Marine."
    8. +1
      28 August 2014 14: 59
      As my brother would say: "H ... ynya from under the nails."
  18. +6
    28 August 2014 09: 25
    Calm down brothers, the author praised himself in this article.
  19. +12
    28 August 2014 09: 28
    If the enemy says "bad" - then in fact it is very good. Westerners write little about real battles with the participation of MiG-29s, Su-27s, reluctantly and biasedly, although the battles were in the most unfavorable conditions for these aircraft. There was information about training battles between Indian (not the latest modification of the Su) and American pilots. After these exercises, not a single Indian had a desire to fly in American cars, in view of the advantages of the Su. And about the unattractive appearance
    MiG-17 and MiG-19 are utter nonsense. Rapid traits, rockets under the wings - real fighters.
    1. 0
      28 August 2014 12: 05
      I will say more. in training battles between the American F-15 and the upgraded Indian MiG-21, losses were estimated by 1: 1. information, please note, from open sources
      1. +3
        28 August 2014 13: 26
        Quote: spec.78
        I will say more. in training battles between the American F-15 and the upgraded Indian MiG-21, losses were estimated by 1: 1. information, please note, from open sources

        How many F-15s were shot down by the MiG-21? No one. A lot has been written about the opposite ...
  20. +6
    28 August 2014 09: 33
    The article is biased because: Here is who would talk about the grace of airplanes, but not the Americans, with their "Black Widow" "Phantom", nicknamed - fat-ass and twice ugly, "Lame Goblin", "Super Saber" with his fishy face. MiG-15 pipe with wings, then what is "Starfighter" ??? About the MiG-21, the conduct of highly maneuverable combat, in the understanding that is now, began on it.
    1. +2
      28 August 2014 09: 49
      Quote: tomket
      The article is biased because: Here is who would talk about the grace of airplanes, but not the Americans, with their "Black Widow" "Phantom", nicknamed - fat-ass and twice ugly, "Lame Goblin", "Super Saber" with his fishy face. MiG-15 pipe with wings, then what is "Starfighter" ??? About the MiG-21, the conduct of highly maneuverable combat, in the understanding that is now, began on it.

      and Tomket F-14 ??? (I'm making fun of the "nickname") feel
      1. +1
        28 August 2014 15: 35
        f-14, in my opinion, the most elegant and harmonious of the American 4 exterminators of the first generation, and indeed for the entire history of the American and world aircraft industry.
  21. 0
    28 August 2014 09: 33
    Quote: ssergn
    Do not forget the A-10, also handsome.


    He is brutal! smile
  22. +3
    28 August 2014 09: 37
    “Buy an F-16. It is more economical and better. ”

    America sells only planes that knowingly lose the air battle. They don't sell raptors to anyone.
    1. +3
      28 August 2014 09: 50
      Because the Raptor, apart from the base in Idaho, cannot really fly anywhere:
      "afraid" of moisture, dust ... In Hawaii, Guam, its shortcomings were revealed! So what for is such an eroplan, sorry ?! Another "cut" of the state budget, as well as all their latest "achievements" in the state military industry! Yes, and the Raptor is worth more than 2 lards!
      1. +7
        28 August 2014 10: 02
        Quote: asar
        Because the Raptor, apart from the base in Idaho, cannot really fly anywhere:
        "afraid" of moisture, dust ... In Hawaii, Guam, its shortcomings were revealed! So what for is such an eroplan, sorry ?! Another "cut" of the state budget, as well as all their latest "achievements" in the state military industry! Yes, and the Raptor is worth more than 2 lards!

        And in the rain it dissolves in general. wassat
        Where such nonsense comes from ....

        1. 0
          28 August 2014 10: 20
          Another blow to the image of the fifth-generation American fighter was struck at the end of March 2011, when it turned out that the US Air Force had introduced a limitation on the maximum flight height of the F-22. According to the order of the Air Force Command (ACC) of the US Air Force, the maximum flight altitude of the F-22 should not exceed 7,6 thousand meters - despite the fact that, according to the declared technical characteristics, the "ceiling" of the Raptor is about 20 thousand meters. The reason for this decision was an investigation, the purpose of which is to test the onboard oxygen generation systems (OBOGS) installed on many US Air Force fighters.

          According to ACC, military OBOGS used may be defective. In particular, it is assumed that the cause of the loss of F-22 17 on November 2010 in Alaska could be OBOGS problems. This system is responsible for the generation of oxygen and the flow of the breathing mixture into the pilot's mask at high altitudes. Due to OBOGS crash, the pilot of the crashed F-22, Jeffrey Haney, could experience oxygen starvation and pass out. By introducing a ban on conventional flights, the US Air Force clarified that it does not apply to combat missions of American fighters, which are still unlimited in their movements.

          The limitation in the ACC was explained by the fact that at a flight altitude of 15 thousand meters or more, the pilot has at his disposal only ten seconds before losing consciousness if the supply of oxygen to the mask stops. This time is not enough to lower the plane to a height where you can breathe without a mask with a breathing mixture. An altitude of 7,6 thousand meters was considered safe by the command, because in case of stopping the flow of oxygen, the pilot has the opportunity to drop to 5,4 thousand meters - a height at which you can already breathe without a mask.

          However, the authority of the F-22 was undermined much earlier. So, in February 2010, the US Air Force suspended flights of all Raptors for some time - it turned out that the aircraft body was unstable to moisture and easily corroded. Corrosion on fighters was detected earlier, but in this case it turned out that the system for removing excess moisture from the aircraft canopy is structurally bad and does not cope with its task. As a result, rust appeared on some elements of the aircraft canopy and even inside the cockpit, and the resulting corrosion could cause malfunctions of the ejection system.

          In the 2009 year, the U.S. Air Force sent 12 F-22 fighters from Alaska to Andersen Base in Guam as an experiment. Rainy weather on the island turned out to be merciless to military vehicles, and it soon became clear that in conditions of high humidity electronic systems of aircraft are unstable, and the cooling system of computing components in a humid atmosphere simply refuses to serve. Whether this defect has been fixed is unknown. But it is known that since then the F-22 has never been used in humid climates.

          In the same year, former Lockheed Martin engineer Darrol Olsen accused the U.S. company of creating a defective F-22. According to Olsen, several extra coating layers were applied to the F-22 aircraft so that the fighter could pass all the necessary radar tests. The marriage is that the F-22 radar absorbing coating is easily erased from the fuselage under the influence of water, oil or fuel. At Lockheed Martin, Olsen was denied allegations that the aircraft were manufactured using persistent and high-quality radio-absorbing coating.


          Well, what is this nonsense, excuse me ?!
          1. +4
            28 August 2014 10: 37
            Quote: asar
            Well, what is this nonsense, excuse me ?!

            The most ordinary. Journalists and not so write.
            F-22 is already 10 years old based in Alaska and not far from the coast, flying almost every day. Rains, snow, etc. is not an obstacle. The climate there is terrible (storms a couple of times a year) On duty, the F-22 on the street is on an ongoing basis.
            There are facts, but there are notions of journalists for "sensation".
            Quote: asar
            just ten seconds before losing consciousness in case

            A person loses consciousness in 10 seconds without breathing?
            OBOGS was another problem not the one described here.
            1. +1
              28 August 2014 12: 03
              Quote: iwind
              A person loses consciousness in 10 seconds without breathing?

              OBOGS and diaper literally suck out oxygen from the pilot’s body wink
              With everything else I agree to 100500 !!!
              Fu-22 flies and lives in all atmospheric environments.
              And more recently, they are based on Guam and fly in those places.
  23. +5
    28 August 2014 09: 40
    the article kind of enfolds our planes, and it's not about MIG-29, but
    Another American praises his.
    I agree that in the 80's, the MIG was inferior in quality to electronics, but hardly any in flight!
    and on ugly MIGI- it’s finally something!
  24. +6
    28 August 2014 09: 45
    Quote: Metlik
    “Buy an F-16. It is more economical and better. ”

    America sells only planes that knowingly lose the air battle. They don't sell raptors to anyone.


    Raptors because of SERIOUS restrictions on use they want to decommission altogether, by the way touches the opinion of the Americans that PAK FA will be ALMOST ka Raptor ... Well, aren't there any ribs? IMHO until 2050 meeting in a battle with PAK FA will be a disaster for ANY aircraft in the world.
  25. +7
    28 August 2014 09: 46
    You can immediately see the American way of presenting information: a maximum of water and a minimum of facts.
  26. Who
    +3
    28 August 2014 09: 55
    A few years ago, on the Su-30, the Indians twice gave the Americans a score of 14: 1
  27. +4
    28 August 2014 10: 00
    The article is an advertisement.
    So they say look at the Russian poop dumb on which it’s both difficult and scary to fly, and we don’t have a plane, but a cadillac.
    Pros know what's what, and the price is almost in the first place among the importer countries.
    So the author can sit at home with her blah blah blah blah.
    + and his ability to launch missiles at a very large angle with respect to the direction of flight was impressive (by 2002, the Russians lost this advantage in pointing, says Fred Clifton, because the Americans adopted the AIM-9X missile and helmet-mounted target designation system).
    Ahhh, well, here you are certainly well done, 25 years after the MIG they introduced the same system, take a pie from the shelf.
    According to rumors, the stealth systems (a la STELS) were introduced at MIG29 in the 80s.
  28. +5
    28 August 2014 10: 05
    Beautiful, powerful!
  29. +3
    28 August 2014 10: 13
    At the moment, bets are being made on maneuverable combat, so the design of the aircraft has ceased to resemble pipes with wings (MIG-21) or pillars with wings (F-4). And those planes were sharpened at maximum speed, for a massive breakthrough in air defense and the delivery of nuclear weapons to targets. (In any case, this is exactly the case with the phantom, it was their military doctrine of the use of phantoms in Europe). And now the center-sections are striving for dynamic disequilibrium, to increase maneuverability, such as the Su family.
    1. 0
      28 August 2014 13: 41
      At SU I like their conceptual development of the S-37, with a forward swept wing and a "canard" system, developed in the 80s-90s. And in terms of performance characteristics, the machine was not bad, with the F-22 it was equal, if not bypassed. BUT due to the lack of money, or rather, with their presence in another pocket, I did not go into the series
  30. +3
    28 August 2014 10: 20
    Quote: Vladimirets
    I don’t know how anyone, but I like Thunderbolt for its brutality.

    Well, actually the A-10 is this flying one.) Why is this beauty?
  31. +2
    28 August 2014 10: 27
    Stir the water in the mortar. But do not drink water from the face. In the class of attack aircraft (for which beauty and lickiness is nothing at all), the A-10A takes 1st place. Behind him is the SU-25. The first has a higher combat load and a little bit of protection. Both cars are very good.
    1. +2
      28 August 2014 10: 38
      The first has a higher combat load and a little bit of protection.

      And after increasing the armor of tanks and the appearance of MANPADS and SAM systems, the A-10 gun became an extra burden. But you can’t remove it. And flies with an empty gun and UAB on pylons. Only guided precision munitions help out.
  32. DPN
    +2
    28 August 2014 10: 42
    This article once again shows that the traitor Gorbachev should have been responsible for his actions, and not receive the highest awards of Russia. A traitor he is, no matter what post he holds.
  33. +2
    28 August 2014 10: 57
    As usual: "a very mediocre radar" And this despite the fact that its detection range was higher than the radar F-16 and F-18. Here they are everywhere fussing about our backwardness in electronics. But by the 80s, our radars were better than American ones. And the first station that surpassed the American one was Sapphire-23, installed on the MiG-23ML, and it surpassed the F-15A radar. Then the Americans broke free with the F-15C, but then ours also mastered the serial production of the Su-27, and again we were ahead, until the mid-90s. Well, about "Barrier" I generally keep quiet.
    About the design of aircraft. Well, here it tastes and color. MiG-15 is really not handsome, solid functionality. But of the fighter jets, the most clumsy in appearance is the F-4. F-16, on the contrary, is beautiful in my opinion, and the MiG-29 is not handsome and not. But the MiG-23 .. This car has a very predatory look. It is immediately obvious that this is a dangerous fighter, an inevitable killer, a fighter hawk.
    1. +1
      28 August 2014 15: 25
      As for the radar, the world's first digital radar with a phased array, was installed in the early 80s on the MiG-31 and it was developed in the 70s, the four 31s can control a strip with a width of almost 1000km, if one aircraft detects the target, it automatically transmits the data to the target, to the entire group, or the group flies in the radio silence mode (the radar is turned off) receives data from the A-50 AWACS, then they also redistribute the targets among themselves. And this is in the early 80's! west phased array radar in the aircraft, began to install only in the late 90s in the early 2000s! Draw your own conclusions. hi
  34. +1
    28 August 2014 11: 15
    It seems to me, or in the penultimate photo of F / A-18 with stars on the wings? There is no direction finder and the wing is narrower ... Yes, and on the last F-18.
    1. +1
      28 August 2014 11: 28
      It seems to me, or on the penultimate photo of F / A-18 with stars on the wings?

      Squadron "Aggressor". They are imitating just our MIGs and Sushki during exercises.
  35. +1
    28 August 2014 11: 24
    Aerodynamics dictates the appearance of the aircraft. If he is flying, maneuverable and capable of gaining the required speed and altitude, then he is beautiful.
  36. 0
    28 August 2014 11: 27
    Early ATF research involving battlefield operations. The picture is dated December 10 1964 of the year.
    http://alternathistory.org.ua/seans-aviatsionnoi-arkheologii-v-ofise-lockheed-ma
    rtin
  37. Codename49
    +1
    28 August 2014 11: 29
    I know that MIG-29 in the USSR, test pilots dubbed the KILLER OF FIGHTERS-And do not listen about him what Western pilots say !!!!!!!!
  38. 0
    28 August 2014 11: 39
    Appearance for military equipment is the last thing to think about. Its main functionality, convenience, survivability. When you are fighting about the appearance you don’t bother. Technique like a fighter should always be ugly - so that the enemy is afraid laughing
  39. +1
    28 August 2014 11: 40
    "Who buys them? Nobody."

    A foreign specialist modestly kept silent about such things as modernization and maintenance.
    And the plane itself is very good.
    1. 0
      28 August 2014 13: 47
      Quote: Crabio
      A foreign specialist modestly kept silent about such things as modernization

      What are the MiG-29 modernization options? I know only one option 9-13.
      Quote: Crabio
      and maintenance.

      Oh, about this and do not stutter. Overhaul life RD-33 is only 350 hours versus 2000 hours with F100-PW-229 ...
      1. 0
        29 August 2014 09: 36
        Quote: Nayhas
        Overhaul resource RD-33 total 350 hours against 2000

        RD-33 allows MiG-29 aircraft to take off with full combat load on one engine with the second engine on already in the air.

        The main disadvantage early models engine - small overhaul life (350 h).

        The RD-33 turbojet engine is one of the world's best fourth-generation dual-circuit engines in its thrust class.

        A modification of the RD-33Н for single-engine MiG-21 aircraft was developed, including: СМР-95 for the modernization of the French Mirage III and Mirage F-1 fighters.
        To improve the flight performance of the MiG-29 fighter, a nozzle with a thrust vector has been developed.
        Resource, hours: 4000.
  40. +1
    28 August 2014 11: 57
    Quote: asar
    Because the Raptor, apart from the base in Idaho, cannot really fly anywhere:
    "afraid" of moisture, dust ... In Hawaii, Guam, its shortcomings were revealed! So what for is such an eroplan, sorry ?! Another "cut" of the state budget, as well as all their latest "achievements" in the state military industry! Yes, and the Raptor is worth more than 2 lards!


    Actually, about 150 million Baku, and he flies be healthy.
  41. 0
    28 August 2014 12: 13
    According to comparisons by British journalist experts, losses in battles between the raptors and the Su-27 are estimated as 7: 1. The most interesting thing is that the cost of the raptor is almost 10 times the cost of the Su-27, i.e. in other words, the Yankees can produce 1 raptor, and we 10 Su-27. Well, and who will win the war in the air in this situation?
    I’m even more interested to see how, for example, 8 raptors, with 64 missiles on board (on all), will fight off hundreds or two hundred Chinese ruins, with 600-1200 missiles on board. I think that the outcome of such a battle is known in advance
    1. +3
      28 August 2014 14: 53
      Quote: spec.78
      ... losses in battles between raptors and Su-27 are estimated as 7: 1. The most interesting thing is that the cost of the raptor is almost 10 times the cost of the Su-27, i.e. in other words, the Yankees can produce 1 raptor, and we 10 Su-27. Well, and who will win the war in the air in this situation?

      And you wrote down the pilots in cannon fodder, I understand correctly? No.
  42. +1
    28 August 2014 12: 28
    It is necessary to ask the author - why do pilots all over the world start to shake about remembering the words "MIG" and "SU"?
    1. +5
      28 August 2014 13: 49
      Quote: Barracuda
      It is necessary to ask the author - why do pilots all over the world start to shake about remembering the words "MIG" and "SU"?

      Have you seen such a picture? For example, you say to the US Air Force pilot "Su-27!" and he really starts to beat in convulsions?
    2. 0
      28 August 2014 14: 15
      And by the fact that these are the only worthy opponents, that’s all! You can talk about airplanes here for a long time, but in the 80s the USSR had the best fighters since the average annual raid of our pilots was more than that of the Americans, and 70% of the pilots could show what the Russian knights show. In addition, our Air Force received at that time the MIG-29 and Su-27 super-planes, NATO simply had no equal in maneuverability. This is where the fear comes from, we add here the unpredictability of behavior and squeezing our maximum out of the car in critical situations, contrary to all instructions. The Russian Air Force has just begun to fly constantly, slowly gaining experience, the Soviet pilots have all left, and in addition to a very good aircraft, we also need an excellent pilot. So MIG and SU is not the main thing, you need someone who masterly plays these instruments.
    3. +1
      28 August 2014 14: 58
      Quote: Barracuda
      The author should be asked - why do pilots all over the world start to shake about remembering the words "MIG" and "SU"?

      I don’t know how it is with the whole world, but those pilots with whom I know really start to shake ... from the hunting excitement. lol
  43. +3
    28 August 2014 14: 18
    Quote: Nayhas
    I will say more. in training battles between the American F-15 and the upgraded Indian MiG-21, losses were estimated by 1: 1. information, please note, from open sources

    How many F-15s were shot down by the MiG-21? No one. A lot has been written about the opposite ...

    It was, it was written. Something about the MiG-21-93 and about the F-15 during the exercises. But there such a result was obtained during close combat with the use of short-range missiles. Moreover, there were also stipulated the conditions that the machines operate without the help of AWACS and a few more assumptions.
    But in general, it was concluded that, under certain conditions, the MiG-21-93 could fight on equal terms against the F-15. On it, the P-73 and P-77 are also equipped with the Spear radar (based on the Beetle). I read it in the magazine 2 years ago when I glued the MiG-21 model. I think it can be found on the Internet. Joint teachings of India and someone else.
    But in real wars, for the MiG-21 to bring down the F-15, I don’t remember that. MiG-23 ML shot down Eagles. I haven’t heard about the MiG-21. In short, both opponents are right.
  44. 0
    28 August 2014 14: 22
    Actually, during the reunification of Germany, NATO received legally a large number of different samples of Soviet military equipment in perfect condition .. Then Poland, which ran to NATO, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Romania had so many military Soviet equipment ... Therefore, the Moldavian scrap metal for the states did not represent huge military secret or interest ...
  45. +2
    28 August 2014 15: 07
    Well, the taste and color of a friend is not ...

    Don’t say, but Russian women are the most beautiful! And beauty is known to inspire love , and that’s also why we have such beautiful airplanes hi
  46. 52
    0
    28 August 2014 16: 54
    "As a child, I first saw an airplane in the sky, so beautiful and inaccessible, flying in the blue of the sky! And then I already realized that This is mine! But then I only had a slingshot in my hands ..." (memories of the commander of the C- 75). laughing
  47. The Art of War
    0
    28 August 2014 17: 34
    Discovery-F22 vs SU-37
  48. +1
    12 September 2014 16: 20
    This year I read that, at the next international air show, our pilot, after an all-out show (from which his eyes went all the way), summoned anyone to the training battle, and there were Americans, Israel, France, etc. No one took a chance! There were no equal! Like this!
    It’s a pity I just don’t remember where it was and on which plane our pilot flew, or MIG, Su, ... - I don’t remember !!!
  49. 0
    14 March 2017 21: 37
    More terrible than French cars and planes in nature is not)
  50. +1
    21 March 2017 15: 10
    “Buy an F-16. It is more economical and better ”is the essence of the article. the rest is verbiage for advertising the products of the American defense industry
  51. 0
    21 March 2017 19: 47
    Buy F16 wassat , a rare thing wassat

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"