Aviapedia

Mig-29VFT video from “Smotr” tv-series

By Pavel | February 6, 2006 on 4:29 pm | In Aviation Video, Fighters, MiG-29 Fulcrum, Mikoyan, Smotr |

Right-click to download Mig-29 VFT video.
21,5 Mb, 8:56, 480 x 360, wmv
Excellent, exclusive material prepared by “Smotr” tv-program team from NTV Russian channel. Russian language, translation in this post.

The “fighter of the future” from “Stealth” movie demonstrates us the “Kulbit” figure, which is supposed to be the science fiction for todays fighter aircraft. However Russian Su-37 and Mig-29VFT (Mig-29OVT) equipped with thrust vectoring engine nozzles have already became centerpiece of every airshow.

Mig-29VFT Fulcrum Mig-29OVT is almost ready to enter serial production. This aircraft became the star of MAKS 2005 airshow.
It is Mig-29M - the new modification that is supposed to replace basic Mig-29. Its main shape differences - “teeth” on the fin, the more sharp front edge and missing additional air intake. There were only 6 such planes built before 1991. One of them received engine with thrust vectoring engine nozzles. This particular feature allows Mig-29OVT to perform unique flying. It can fly tail forward, make flips and perform “boomerang” aerobatic figure.

“Performance capabilities of VFT engine you were able to see today on the show. The main task of this flight was to demonstrate that due to vectoring throttle flight in zero-speed and negative-speed (tail forward movements) areas became to be fully controlled in distinction from previous modifications of planes like Mig-29 and Su-27, which could only temporarily get into this area while performing Kobra, for example.” - says Pavel Vlasov, test-pilot, the Hero of Russia.

Mig-29VFT Fulcrum Airplane. The hardware, that opposite to the balloons is heavier then the air. There were times when simple fact of such hardware flight was taken like a great achievement. First aircrafts were highly maneuverable and could land on any relatively flat surface. Then it was the speed to come. And it was the price to pay for it - lowering down of maneuvering abilities and much more hard requirements for the flight strip. Concrete rolls for take-offs and landings were needed. Hundreds of meters were required for aircraft to perform a simple turn. In 60’s on the West and in USSR appeared jet aircraft of vertical take-off and landing - Harrier and Yak-38. The “heli” style performance was achieved by usage of rotable nozzle extensions. They directed the exhaust down. During the first flight it became clear that the controlled thrust vector gives planes great advantage during the dogfight maneuvers. So were started works on the thrust vectoring engines. The main mission was to increase the maneuvering abilities of general fighters and attack planes with usual take-off and landing rolls.

Mig-29VFT Fulcrum Great flight performance Mig-29OVT gets thanks to the engines - two RD-133. The main difference from the other engines - ability to change thrust vector.

From the beginning moveable engine nozzles were tryed to create in two variants.
The most simple, so-called “flat” one consists only of 4 vanes. Such construction allows to change thrust vector only in two ways - horizontal and vertical. Besides, if to make it more reliable and less radar-detectible it becomes to be very heavy and massive.

The more advanced variant is OVT (VFT) equipped with round turning nozzles. This unique moving flower of steel makes possible the thrust vector deflection in any direction which makes the plane phenomenally maneuverable.

Mig-29VFT Fulcrum Pugachev’s “Kobra” not so long time ago amazed people. Sukhoi fighters were “The Kings of the Maneuver” for the last several years. Klimov design bureau engineers were a little bit late with their Mig’s new engine development. But the main idea of the vectored thrust they’ve implemented on the completely new level. MAKS 2005 airshow clearly demonstrated Sukhoi design bureau product received very strong competitor - Mig-29OVT. Opposite to the Sukhoi engine nozzle that allows to change thrust vector only in one dimension, Mig-29 engine nozzles are full-aspect. Controlling devices are hidden under three cowlings, positioned 120 degrees from each other, which allows to deflect nozzle in any destination. Thrust vector deflects for the approximately 15 degrees.
First flight of Mig-29OVT was performed by the test-pilot Pavel Vlasov, the Hero of Russia in august 2003. Despite of bad prognosis the flight proved the highest engines reliability.

Mig-29VFT Fulcrum “Everybody is afraid the lifetime cycle of this moveable hardware will be very short. To the honor of engine manufacturer I need to say that during 2 years of test flights not even one small part both in engines and nozzles were replaced.” - says Pavel Vlasov.

The demonstration flight of Mig-29OVT on MAKS2005 was performed under endless applauses. You could think it’s not the aircraft but UFO in the air which can move against all the physic laws. “Double Kulbit”, “Boomerang”, another “Kulbit”. All this aerobatics is not only about to impress the show visitors and to attract the potentional buyer’s attention. Successful usage of these figures in the dogfights will not leave any chance to the opponent - there is no need to get on enemy’s tail hardly and spending time - flash-like flip and the plane is in the aim of rapid-fire gun.

Mig-29VFT Fulcrum Though the plane is equipped with thrust vectoring engine, cockpit view almost didn’t change - only one switch was added: “OVT mode on/off.”

For today Mig-29OVT exists only in a single copy. But against to it’s west competitors it can be put into series production in the nearest time.

“There is no serial production of planes of that level or just “ready to go into series” stage prototypes in the world.” - says Pavel Vlasov.

The fact that thrust vectoring engine nozzles gives plane exclusive maneuvering abilities is obvious. But is it really necessary? Does the dogfight have a future? This discussion goes already for tens of years - since aircraft started to be equipped with effective air-to-air missiles. The dogfight opposition says aircraft equipped with modern air-to-air missiles just will not allow the enemy plane to get close.

Mig-29VFT Fulcrum The weapon development process puts the dogfight existence under the big question. And the same process gave an answer - yes, dogfight will stay.

Modern countermeasures systems allow fighters to avoid opponent’s missiles more and more effective. The number of carried long- and medium-range air-to-air missiles is very limited on every plane. After their launch they will have to start the dogfight - and here the victory will belong to the vectored thrust planes. Planes like Mig-29OVT.

“Smotr” tv-program material.

In the program were used materials from the RAC MiG Mig-29OVT promotional clip.

73 Comments »

RSS feed for comments on this post.

To me it seems that this plane is even more agile than the Su37 (although that one has better cockpit). Can you imagine what a MiG29OVT could be with canards, six-degree free sidestick guidance, switchable canard-flaps-elevon deflection modes (i.e. direct lift control and direct sideforce control to differential deflection mode), an even faster responding engine RPM, a ballistic landing system (ballistic parachute with terminal control reaction rockets on each landing gear struts) and a few novelties in the weapon-arsenal? I think I can!

Comment by janos — February 8, 2006 #
Future-fighter?
How did you say in forum - “This is what makes the question of advancement interesting.” ? I think excellent example, how good frame can get new boost.

While I am still in love with Su-family fighters, this is personal But I appreciate what Mikoyan design bureau achieved, for today this is really unique fighter.

Comment by Pavel — February 9, 2006 #
privet,
mig 29 is the more beatifull plane!!!
“dasvidania” fabiano

Comment by fabiano bressanelli — February 27, 2006 #
“Mig-29VFT (Mig-29OVT) equipped with thrust vectoring engine nozzles”

OMG, already without that is the legendary MiG-29 the most agile airplane.

Comment by Frank — March 19, 2006 #
Mig 29 was offered to India with Licence to produce it.I Think India shuold produce under that option or Exercise that option with MIGOVT.

Comment by Kuldip Chager — March 28, 2006 #
Ouh, I really don’t know. I would sell it for completely other money, if I would in general.

Comment by Pavel — March 28, 2006 #
Is this the only available video material around from this aircraft?
Was this a one time performance during MAKS 2005?

Would like to know more about this technology.

Comment by Ice — April 1, 2006 #
Presently, there are two deadly angels from Russia.
To beat F-22 and F-35. Bravo………………

Comment by Sena — April 26, 2006 #
Awesome! Breathtaking! Have seen it at thr Berlin ILA airshow may-20-2006. Unforgettable impressive!

Comment by Alex — May 22, 2006 #
Who was at the controls?

Comment by Pavel — May 22, 2006 #
Yes .. I saw it on the ILA 2006 too .. great show This was also the 156 …

Comment by Matthijs — May 23, 2006 #
I’m going to get to se this plane at the fairford air show on 15-16/07/06. I……..CAN’T…….WAIT!!!.
I don’t think Sukhoi are going to be there though:-(

Comment by David — June 30, 2006 #
This is really a groovy site!

Comment by Jimmy Janko — July 2, 2006 #
this plane is great but…
eurofighter is better!!

Comment by nameless — July 4, 2006 #
Just seen this baby perform its prep for the Farnborough Airshow.
To be completely blunt, it blows ALL competition out of the water - it makes the F16 look jaded, the F18 ordinary, the Grippen bland and the Typhoon outdated…. you can see why the French have stayed away !

Comment by Frimley White — July 18, 2006 #
agree with Frimley White.. seen the Mig first hand - amazing! The others - ordinary.

Comment by seenitflying — July 18, 2006 #
I live in Farnborough. Been watching it all week. It stops in the sky and still recovers. All they have to do now is remove the pilot to show what it can really do….

Mike

Comment by Letlightningsfly — July 23, 2006 #
Yeah, I have seen it at the Farnborough airshow, too. It stole the show with its unparalleled awesomeness. There was a spontaneous applause after the demonstration. Eurofighter and F-18 were great, but not even close to MIG 29.

Comment by killroy — July 25, 2006 #
The “OVT” button solution is very elegant!

Comment by aura — August 10, 2006 #
This is just the begining!

Comment by Iman Rastgoo — August 12, 2006 #
Maybe one of the greatest fighters of the 21st century.
Even greater than the F/A-22

Comment by Jim Kiziridis — August 17, 2006 #
i have seen airplanes comparables whit mig 29 performances but this airplane isnt comparable whit the t-35 pillan ,of the airforce of Chile , really amazing

Comment by benjamin — August 22, 2006 #
For Farnborough International Airshow 2006, there was nothing so beautiful as that MiG-29 OVT in the hands of the Russian.

Comment by Markus Billsson — August 28, 2006 #
i like all russian fighters specially the one which is supplied to us i.e.SU30MKI.can you recommend me any magazine which is having details of advanced russian airctafts,so that i can subscribe the same.
thanking you,
mahesh bhole

Comment by maheshbhole — September 3, 2006 #
I’m a lifelong fan of Russian Aviation and I first saw this aircraft at MAKS 2005, then Fairford and it does blow away all other western aircraft…

See you at MAKS 2007!

Comment by FuLcRuM — September 17, 2006 #
The vectored thrust was a must, and it is the greatest thing since the invention of the loops and rolls. But the usefulness of it is hardly limited to “dogfight” activity. Furthermore: It is just the beginning of an alltogether new freedom in flight and maneuvering. More to come…

Comment by sicsok — September 26, 2006 #
MiG 29OVT manuoevers are absolutely amazing and may well give the Sukhois a run for their money.The movement of teh exhaust nozzles is mindblowing. Although they do not look as hi-tech as those on the F-22, but performance is amazing.The red and white color scheme with a star on the back is also very appealing. This is the most beautiful and manouverable plane i have ever seen. By the way what is the long form of OVT and VFT?

Comment by chetan kathalay — October 12, 2006 #
kathalay, OVT probably stands for Orientable Vector Thrust… not sure though, it’s just a guess. VFT must be the russian initials for that.

And yes, this one is a very beautiful airplane. I remember the old days when the MiG 19 had the best sustained turn of all airplanes, not even Mirages could beat it… Time flies… But well, this new beauty is simply gorgeous.

By the way, WHAT A GREAT SITE!

Best regards from Buenos Aires, Argentina,
Sebastian.

Comment by Sebastian — October 22, 2006 #
OVT is just transliteration of OBT - russian designation, which is Otklonyaemiy Bector Tyagi - vectoring force thrust, which is VFT, though it is some kind of home-made translation.

As far as I know official English designation is Mig-29TVC - Thrust Vector Control

Comment by Pavel — October 24, 2006 #
Ok, Ok, but the question is: how to escape of BVR missiles with an TVC engine?
the advantage of this plane was in close range.
but what we gonna do if a plane like this go shot down before get in close range?

Comment by Mauro Oliveira — October 30, 2006 #
today’s aerial engagements are won or lost before you get to the visual arena. Unless this Mig-29 has substantially upgrade avionics, I don’t think so, then it is just a “wow” factor for airshows. In the visual arena it is the training of the pilot that will determine victory. I’ll take my chances in a F-16, F-15, F-18 or F-22.

Comment by Dula — December 7, 2006 #
Dula, you wouldn’t be American would you ?
This would be one of those arguments ‘Uncle Sam’ would never win !

Comment by Frimley White — December 17, 2006 #
Hmm…
“today’s aerial engagements are won or lost before you get to the visual arena.”
lol… hasnt that been said more then once in the 20th century…

Comment by Nikolay — December 18, 2006 #
The early F-4 Phantom II did not have guns on it because it was decided all it would need are missiles and engagements would be decided with missiles. Vietnam proved that wrong.
Tactics change with technology. Technologies change with changing tactics. Its and endless cycle.
Its better to have and not need than need and not have.
Adapt or die.

Comment by Captmatt — December 20, 2006 #
i can do the same things with my cessna 172 sp :DD

Comment by Tebin Ulrich — December 20, 2006 #
RED OCTOBER, this was a silulated fight between German mig-29 pilots(iG-73rd Luttwaffe Squadron) and US F-18 pilots((VFA) 106 NAS Oceana). Both had their advantages, the mig-29 had manuverability and much better close quarters weaponry. The F-18 on the other hand could manuver much better at slow speeds. Of course the Mig-29 sounds like a much better air-to-air fighter, but then again, THATS WHAT IS WAS MADE FOR!!! The F-18 is a multi-role jet, made to get good performance in all cases but not the best in air-to-air. In the “Red October” exercise, the first plane down was a Mig-29. In that case it came down to the pilot. He came down on the Mig and made a hit on this left wing, then the mig pilot tryed to pull up to get above the f-18, the f-18 pilot saw this and compensated be slowing, and turning into the mig’s flight path. He hit the mig again 3 times in the rear and once in the cockpit, gameover. The F-18 shot down the Mig-29 (simulated of course). Both aircraft had their advantages and in this exercise, that advantage tipped toward the f-18. It all comes down to the pilot
Check this article out:
http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/9-66.aspx

Comment by Desolate — December 24, 2006 #
oh, me again, heres a link to the documentary:
http://movies2.nytimes.com/gst/movies/movie.html?v_id=258573

Comment by Desolate — December 24, 2006 #
Some things to consider about comparing Lufttwaffe
Migs and VFA-106 f/a 18s.
The Migs that ig 73 flys Mig 29a(1984-86) which
Use detuned(about 85-90%) rd-33 to extend their
life cycle and use nato standard JP-8 vs the
Russian equivalent of JP-4
VFA-106 has about 40 hornets of all types but they
used the newest(at the time) C and D models 1990+.
The GE F404 was designed for JP-5 and JP-8 and
losses very little performance going from one to
the other.
IMO a better comparison would have been an
original F-18A with a Mig 29a
this way the hornet would have no AMRAAM a much
less capable APG-65 radar and the older GE F400
with 20% less thrust.
Oh yea… In close range any fight with a mig 29
would have been almost impossible (imo) to win for
a US figter in the 80s and 90s b/c US had nothing
like the R-73.

Comment by Nikolay — December 27, 2006 #
I allwas knuw tha a MIG-29 can munuver like that.

Comment by donald — December 30, 2006 #
I have seen F-15’s do what the flanker did, i.e the Cobra, I have seen F/A-18’s do what the Terminator did. But those maneuvers can only be carried out under very specific conditions, i.e one on one, close range, etc. For all these conditions to combine I think is impossible, therefore, I would rather be in an F-15. not an F-16, F/A-18, or anything else. The Weapons Suite, the Electronics, the sheer power (the F-15 is the only fighter able to ACCELERATE TO SUPERSONIC SPEEDS in the VERTICAL, ie straight up.) but if I were to dogfight as they did in WWII, then a MiG-29 OVT is a must.

Comment by hawk — January 4, 2007 #
hmm…”(the F-15 is the only fighter able to ACCELERATE TO SUPERSONIC SPEEDS in the VERTICAL, ie straight up.)”
Not sure were you got this information from but if you look at world time to hight records you can see that the f-15 is not the fastest fighter in vertical, not even in its weight class.
here are some stats:
Rate of climb
F-15 255 m/s
Su-27 325 m/s
Mig-29 330 m/s
you can check out the records at FAI
F-15 Streak Eagle records
http://records.fai.org/general_aviation/aircraft.asp?id=2751
Su 27 P-42 records
http://records.fai.org/general_aviation/aircraft.asp?id=180

Comment by Nikolay — January 7, 2007 #
“”the F-15 is the only fighter able to ACCELERATE TO SUPERSONIC SPEEDS in the VERTICAL, ie straight up.”" amusing. with a power to weight ratio of approx. 9.3 N/kg @ 24 tons(=no weapons), F-15 cannot even accelerate vertically. For a Su-37 with power to weight ratio 11.6 N/kg @ 26 tons, it can. You will find F-22 and F-35 is the only fighters in the west that can accelerate vertically(not to supersonic speeds).
Please post the links of videos F-15 doing cobra and F-18 doing anything close to Su-37 does.
For BVR, you will find a flanker can carry more missiles than an F-15, with longer ranges (AMRAAM C-5 = 110 km vs R-77M1 = 175 km)
ps: TVC maneuvers in real dogfight is not a rare condition. When an aircraft starts to take corner, it quickly bleeds energy loses speed. after cornering, an aircraft like F-18 will exceed its Max AOA leading to stall or spin, whereas a Mig-29OVT can continue turning, also exceeding its Max AOA but remaining under control.
Does dogfight necessary? As long as fighters can carry only 10 missiles in offense and 50 chaff/flares + ECM + stealth in defense, i believe it is going to be necessary.

Comment by Andraxxus — January 10, 2007 #
cete, pune has started new EMC test lab

Comment by chetan — January 11, 2007 #
if I can get videos of Saudi Air force Air shows I will gladly link them. it will show how an F-15 can do a cobra. Actually, the 9.3 N/kg spec you mentioned is close to being correct, for the older engines that is. Not the new Engines in the -E, -I, -S versions. Those, with approx. 10.3 N/kg, mounted on the -C, have shown that acceleration capability.
p.s. rate of climb has nothing to do with acceleration, take it from an engineer, climb rate is in m/s, acc. in m/squared seconds. above 70000Feet, some aircraft lose velocity (slow down) while still climbing, i.e negative acceleration, positive climb rate, it is called momentum.
to Andrxxus, a real dogfight yes. Real dogfights rarely happen in todays battles, it is long done before WVR is reached. Range is not the only criterion; accuracy, ability to shake the missile from a lock is much easier in the longer ranges. that is why AIM-9X and the new Russian equivalents are deadly, no way out of those. actually the reason for dogfights these days is not number of missiles, it is because most nations, including threats, use the same type of aircraft, ie western. for positive ID, you need WVR, then a dogfight may be necessary.

Comment by hawk — January 17, 2007 #
Sergey Klimov was the best pilot ever.

Comment by Roman — January 25, 2007 #
to Hawk: my point about vertical ACCELERATION to supersonic SPEED is this: the more power per kilogram you have, better you accelerate in any situation (vertical horizontal etc). Swift acceleration is more important than agility in ranged air combats, in order to out run missiles.
For the climb rate, the Su-27 has broken the F-15s climb record a dozen times.
PS: cobra is not an incredible manouver, AT HEIGHT, most aircraft can do. Personally I really like F-15, I find it equal to Su-27. but Su-30MKI and Su-35/37s are different. Same goes for F-18 and F-16 againist Mig-29. They are similar but OVT is different.
For accuracy, US missiles have the advantage. That is why russian planes carry more missile than the US counterparts.
MY F/A-18E Mig-29 OVT comparison (its my idea not about facts)
150 km > Mig becouse of the missile/radar ranges
100 km advantege is to the Hornet becouse of the superior missiles + radar
50 km > both aircrafts are completely equal.
5 km > Mig becouse of the better targeting modes (helmet etc) and maneuvrability.

Comment by Andraxxus — February 14, 2007 #
Great video of Mig 29. So finally after a long time Mikoyan Gurevich has come up with something that tilts the situation into their favor.If we go by the comments of the test Pilot ” no part of the exhaust pipe needed replacement in last 2 years is amazing.The Russians have always been superior when it comes to materials whether composites or pure steel!! With the advent of these planes the west has got a lot to worry about. But does anybody have any idea about the fuel consumption of the Sukhois or Migs during these maneouvres? Coz if it ultimately comes to a dogfight then how long can these planes sustain such dogfights say in a hypothetical scenario where a F-16 OR F-18 manages to survive initial strikes by these aircraft.

Comment by Milind — March 5, 2007 #
I’m flying simulators, I know its nothing like real flying, but when I red discuss about F-15 versus Mig-29 I have to add that I have been trying to achieve supersonic vertical flight with F-15 in LOCKON simulation and it was impossible.(clean configuration without amunition, external tanks) If this information is based on higher levels of altitude where air is not so dense than it is possible, (theoretically) but that can do any aircraft like any aircraft can reach mach number with less power in higher altitudes. But still even F-15 could by capable of vertical supersonic speeds its useles in fight, because this part needs prepare like speeds up aircraft before entering vertical flight from level flight and then reach supersonic vertical flight, I mean that even if thats true, F-15 can reach supersonic speeds in vertical flight, its not possible to use it in fight, in other words this feature is useles at all, close dogfight or BVR…But Mig-29 OVT features can be used in fight much much more!
I was disappointed when I was flying F-15 in LOCKON simulation, how fast it can “eat” all fuel in such a short time, basicaly it was only couple high turns on max afterburners non stop from taking off till land. The fact is that F-15 has only 5 260kg of fuel in internal tanks (!) Then I was flying same aerobatics with MiG-29 and time spent on afterburners from take off till land was much much longer and it was pleasure. It reminds me the F-15 internal tanks are real disadvantage when you consider that F-15 is using external tank capacity more than internals - external tanks are 5 395kg (!) On the end the so called “hourly endurance” in fight is big disadvantage, so even supersonic vertical flight will not help because there will be no remainig fuel to get home safe…
PS: Sorry for my english I am slovak

Comment by Joe — March 7, 2007 #
Bottom line Mig 29 is 2-29 in combat and the only two victories were against other Mig-29s while it might be the greatest airshow performer there is thats not wtat its built for.

Comment by Bkerr — March 8, 2007 #
For all those haters out there I have only one suggestion, don’t hate. Most of you out there that are quick to suggest the superiority of American aircraft are of course American. Well then that is called bias. You need to judge based on an international level, meaning with no preference. Most of you who say Russian planes are not as good as their American counterparts are taking preference into account and that defeats the purpose for naming what is better and what isn’t.

The guy above that was comparing mig 29 and said it is 2-29 in victories, that does not mean that is is a bad plane, it means the pilots were inexperienced. The US planes have better records because they are flown by pilots who receive an endless amount of flying hours, part of the reason why the US government is in debt, and not because their planes are superior. Plus it looks as if planes perform better with pilots who are native to the country of origin of the airplane. Russian planes are sold around the world and the reputation they get is the average of all users of the world while US planes only get the reputation that Americans bestow upon it. And of course they are not going to say its bad because they think everything of theirs is best. WELL NEWS BREAK, IT IS NOT. Many Americans have a false reality of the world, they think they are in control of everything but if the need for superior aircraft arises then that means that there are other more capable airplanes out there such as the mig29 ovt.

Bottom line: Americans need to accept other great planes such as MIG 29 OVT.

P.S.- All the people who seem to think that Mig 29 OVT is not as good as American counterparts, it safe to say most are American because that is what they want to believe and not how it really is.

If US ever went to war with Russia, its safe to say that it would either end quickly because of all the powerful missiles or it would last for a long time due to many superior planes that Russia posseses and then we would see who truly has air superiority.

Comment by UCSD — March 13, 2007 #
What can be a more unbiased judge of a combat aircrafts abilities than actual play for keeps combat? As far as the International perspective most of those combats didn’t have any US pilots involved. They were Israeli, Arab, and UAE pilots as well as others including former Soviet trained pilots. And considering the numbers of MIG-29s in the hands of the USAF being used by Red Flag it would seem the US believes them to be a good aircraft. As far as the MIG-29 OVT it’s an incredible performer but a human being can only withstand so much G forces. The X-29 was a great success as a technology demonstrator but a dead end as a manned combat aircraft because a human pilot couldn’t withstand the G-forces the plane could induce. The Su-37 and 47 are both incredibly maneuverable aircraft but neither can exploit this advantage in real combat because pulling those Gs will result in disabling the pilot or impairing him enough so he can’t function in the combat environment. When we watch these machines perform in airshow demonstrations it is a choreographed dance that pushes the pilot to his physical and mental limits there is no way they can be done under the additional strain of combat without disastrous results for the pilot. So While you seem to think I have a false sense of reality I am pretty well grounded when it comes to physics and human physiology. I knew Chuck Sewell (1st test pilot of the X-29)and listened as he told my dad(an engineer for Grumman) about the limits that needed to be programmed into the flight computers to keep the plane from out performing the pilot physical abilities and that with these limitations a forward swept design would be inferior to a similar rear swept airframe. So maybe this new generation of Migs and Sukois are technologically better aircraft than the F-15s and 16s but they are beyond the ability of their pilots to fly them effectivly in a combat environment

Comment by Bkerr — March 23, 2007 #
So let me get this straight, first you say that Mig29 is 2-29 in combat then you say then new generation of Migs and Sukois are technologically better than the F-15s and 16s. So what is your ideat of a good airplane that is out right now?

Comment by UCSD — March 24, 2007 #
P.S - I see where you get your bias from. Your dad works for Grumman and you can’t afford to aknowledge the competition as being better. But no matter what you say Russian planes are leading the world. I can guarantee that results from an international survey would agree with me that the modern MiGs and Sukhois are greatly revered.

Comment by UCSD — March 24, 2007 #
I,m sorry I should have said technologically more advanced instead of better. But in their case they are over designed to do the job required of them. The point some of you are missing is that these aircraft are basically technology demonstrators not intended for production as is. Once the operational avionics and weapon systems are installed they will no longer perform like they do in those exhibitions.
The aerial maneuvers the new Su’s and Mig’s can do are nothing new either. There is nothing they can do in terms of maneuverability that the X-31A couldn’t do better in 1990. Thrust vectoring has been around for almost 2 decades now. The problem is that agility is still limited by the ability of the pilot to perform under the g-loading and despite the wishful thinking of some people a piloted aircraft is not going to out maneuver an unmanned missile. the plane might be capable of the move but the pilot won’t be. The future of combat aircraft is UCAV’s piloted by pilots in their 1G recliners.

P.S. When you finish that international survey of combat pilots on which plane they would prefer to fly in combat get back to me. One last note on the value of hyper-maneuverability did you know that the now nearly 40 year old design F-14D could do most of the Stuff the Su-37 can do as far as angle of attack and stall maneuvers go though it was handicapped by an inadequate power plant. At Calverton I once saw one tailslide nearly the length of the runway and that was without thrust vectoring. You can chalk it up to my being “biased” but the despite its engine problems the Tomcat was the Top-Gun when it came to Air-Superiority in the 70’s and 80’s and there were no Soviet designs that could share its sky. The Testament to the respect its opponents had for it wasn’t it’s combat record but rather the FACT that except for a couple of stupid Libyans the opposing aircraft just stayed on the ground when the “cats” were in the neighborhood.

Comment by Bkerr — March 27, 2007 #
“revered”? of course Russian jets are revered! but without experienced pilots, what good are they?

Comment by DeSoLaTe — March 27, 2007 #
You can say all you want but the Americans are working on the same type of airplane, F-22, and it is ready for service about now.

P.S. - Grumman is working on UCAV’s, huh? LOL!

Comment by UCSD — March 27, 2007 #
well after reading al of this at 11:35pm …i have to say there are many misinformed and uniformed people the mig 35 as it is being called no is more manuverable than the F22 but it hasent got the avonics or stelth of the 35… that being said the F-14 couldent do a kulbit to save its life but it can do a cobra (as most jets we have been talking about can..) the F22 can du a duble kulbit just like the 35 but it dosent have yaw controle during such manuvers 35 dose though..
as for the Gs pulled during the coabra it shuldent go over 4 Gs i would think and kulbit shuld be about the same. (to the guy who was talking about lomac it is compleatly unreal.. still a good game

Comment by chris — March 31, 2007 #
The arguments of who or which aircraft are the best are totally elementary in the end. The idea of a multi-axis thrust vectoring nozzle system on jet fighters is nothing new. This was pioneered in the US back in the early 90’s in the F-16 MATV(Multi-Axis Thrust Vectoring) and the F-15 ACTIVE & F-18 HARV long before Mig or Sukhoi built their versions. There are obvious advantages of having such systems in a jet fighter to enhance close in dogfighting capabilities. The obvious disadvantages are increased maintanance costs/time in each airframe, increased complexity of the systems, and more importantly, increased need for pilot training to master the new performance parameters of the thrust vectoring. When it comes to stealth, weapons systems, data-links/radar, and aircraft systems/engines, the F-22 & F-35 have the advantage. The Mig-29 & Sukhoi’s give nothing up in terms of aerodynamic performance and in my opinion have the edge in that area. It all boils down to one thing. The pilot and his tactics. Never forget the old adage-
“For every measure there will be a counter-measure”.
As far as the rhetorical non-sense of who will beat who? Well, historically speaking, US Fighters have maintained a 10 to 1 Kill Ratio over Russian Fighters since 1950. The F-15 has an unmatched kill ratio of any figbter in history. This is from actually combat and not mock-dogfighting missions. The F-15’s record more than likely will never be matched. But the F-22 will rule the skies! (That is my rhetorical blast!)

Comment by ForceTen — April 5, 2007 #
Comparing any Mig or Sukhoi that is in production (which the OVT is not) to an F-22 is absolute bias… Does anyone out there really think that 1)a plane which spent 4.5 years in a Dem/Val program, which 2) uses more NEW technologies than any other fighter program before or since, which 3) cruises 1.5 to 2 times faster than any other fighter out there, which 4) has the most advanced radar and EWS system ever put into a fighter, which 5)utilizes supercomputers which NO country can contest, and which 6)was designed and proven far superior to the reigning king of fighters, is going to have a problem with any 4th gen fighter it was designed to not only defeat but Dominate?… Come on, use your heads!…I may be American, but that’s not bias, that’s fact..The only aircraft that will be able to challenge it will be the Pak Fa, if and when it finally arrives.

Comment by TIZ — June 6, 2007 #
Good points, TIZ, thanks. Unfortunately you are right, even MiG-35 is not in production, and Su-27 modernization process to slow and too late. So for today - definitely, you are right. Though I think we have good potential
Just for the information - PAK FA is not official designation anymore, there is no PAK FA program. There is 5 generation fighter program.. whatever that means.

Comment by Pavel — June 6, 2007 #
I bought the model of exposure with colors and its cool.

Comment by Bob — June 30, 2007 #
The FA/22A is in a class of it’s own. Almost to the point of a “Super Fighter”. It makes, ALL 4th generation fighter aircraft, obsolete. Not for sale for military export either, this should show you on what mentality it has created with the USAF. No offense at all. But, the FA/22A, is, by far a 5th generation fighter. And will most likely be the last manned fighter in the USAF inventory. Giving way to unmanned aircraft with unmatched capabilities has ever seen.

In combat? My opinion remains, the USAF, entering a small number of Raptor teams, looks at the battlefield with a 360 degree prospective. By the time thrust vectors are even implied, AIM 120s will be tracking inbound toward targets. Fired from invisible shadows. The weapon bays on a F/A22A can open and shut in under a second. If chaff is employed, and the weapons are evaded. Then the only limits to the aircraft’s low and high speed maneuverability is the pilot. Even a mighty Su 37, would have it’s hands full, with a aircraft that is manned by crews who have piloting experience, along squadron tactics, then it makes for a high stakes struggle for control of the skies in any conflict.

And performance will only improve over the years.

Calling it obsolete, is foolishness……

Comment by .......... — June 30, 2007 #
I was working at fairford a year ago .. and managed to chat to the pilots . i gave him my goodwood cap .. and he gave me his mig corp cap .. how cool :))

Comment by Matt — July 13, 2007 #
Mig 29 is only a copy of F 14 .It is tried to be modernised but it is always a copy of F 14.And in dogfight F 16 is better than F 14

Comment by mavoula — July 21, 2007 #
The Mig 29 had some influence from the YF 17, soon to become the FA/ 18. The world’s first mulitrole. It was designed in part to counter it. In later stages of the Cold war arms race. As you notice, it the later years of the Cold War, the U.S. and her allies as well as the Soviets leaned more towards conventional conflict should war have broken out. Not automatically going for MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) tactics.

And teh Mig 29 was just part of that game.

Comment by ...... — July 25, 2007 #
mig”s are the best!

Comment by stax-serbia — September 12, 2007 #
I’ve been reading you all with pleasure. All those planes are made for different roles So it must be very difficult to compare them. As for the best pilots, i thought that would be the Israelis? And if i ever was in a dogfight i would go for Mig-29OVT or maybe a Gripen. Not because they are the best all round but because they were built for that. Defending their homeland that is, and in a real situation i would probably use myself over my limits if necessary as we all would, and thats when the Mig-29OVT (and Gripen) will answer.

Cheers
Yoron.

Comment by yoron — October 14, 2007 #
question - will a dogfight really be necessary if your radar / avionics are advanced enough to detect and fire on an enemy fighter? Although the phantoms at the start of Vietnam weren’t equipped with guns, the radar / avionics weren’t anywhere near technically advanced as they are today. I personally can’t imagine a scenario in today’s combat area that fighter planes would use guns. I may be naive.

This is my argument for the Raptor. I’ve heard that in mock combat trials against F15s, the Raptor won every single encouter, maily due to the fact that the 15 never saw the raptor on Radar. Never. They were completely invisible. Assuming that American Radar technology is at least as good as the Russians, wouldn’t this make the Raptor most effective fighter in today’s battlefield? I really don’t know many technical details of radar technology and real-world usefulness in air-to-air combat. I do know that the F14 used a phoenix missle with a range of 100 miles because it had the most advanced fighter-based radar of its day. Now that it’s been replaced by the f18, who cares. But it was a milestone in American Radar technology that gave it a definte edge in the battlefield.

BTW - UCAVs will eventually own the skies. It’s a long ways away, but it’s inevitable. the B2 bomber has a flight control computer that guides the plane to the pre-programmed target. The pilot is only engaged when ordinance is dropped or if the plane is ever detected on radar. That hasn’t happened yet, to my knowledge.

Comment by nate — October 19, 2007 #
The mig’s and Sukhoi make wonderful planes, but the Russian Air Force has been having a huge shortage of spare parts for decades now. Very little of their aircraft are still at adequate combat readiness. In addition, the USAF has the best aircraft support system thanks to the E-767’s. The myth that the f-22 is less maneuverable then Russian designs is untrue. F-22 have a built in handicap that prevents the aircraft from using its full potential because it would kill the pilot from the extreme G-forces. Also, the immense economic decline in the former Soviets makes putting a new generation fighter into production very difficult if not impossible. Add this to the mastery of stealth and fighter support of the Americans, the USAF will have the upper hand in air combat for decades. They remain the only nation truly capable of producing next generation fighters on a large scale basis by itself. I don’t see any current nation rising to challenge America any time in the near future. In my opinion, the Russians and the Americans should become close allies and stop mistrusting each other, both countries face similar problems after all and diplomatic disagreements only weaken both nations.

Comment by Newman — November 16, 2007 #
Nate made some good points, The maneuverability of the plane will be useless against a fighter opponent that is undetectable on radar.

Comment by TVPC — November 20, 2007 #
thanks for the information

Comment by sreevachan — December 30, 2007 #
F-22 is another high-tech plane done by not Americans but by enginers form all over the world that live in USA so you cant really call it the American plane and take pride for it. So far what I seen what Mig and SU can do Id give some credit to russian for been broken apart and still come out with something like that it might be not as high-tach as F-22 but its close to it, its something that will be compared to f-22… In order to judge whitch plane is better we would need to see it in real. its like boxers, make a little mistake you could get knock out… So its all about pilots…

P.S I like the show that Su put on on airshow it was nice

Comment by Alek — August 17, 2008 #
Mig 29ovt is the most agile fighter in the world todate.I’would like to see the Russian government give Mig design bureau the opportunity to build 5th generation light combact fighter jet to much F-35.Alot of pple get confused when they hear or read that f-22 can track enemy fighters from miles away, that’s true but remember the missiles are the one’s that bring down enemy planes thus of today their no known missiles that can travel the same distance as the radar tracking,if you compare the AIM sidewinder and the Russian counterpart the Russian missile fares well in all aspects by that I’mean in distance,maneuverability of the missile and immunity to decoy’s like chuff.So to put all this in one whole picture F-22 will be able to track let’s say Su-35 from longer distances but to shoot its missiles it will have to move to detection range from the Su-35 and who know’s what will happen from their,I’will let the aerospace enthusiast decide.

Comment by frank — November 8, 2008 #