What's new

Is Mig-29 jets Good for Pakistan, For Maritime Attack?

I think these birds just need BVR upgrade, and and may be a cruise missle addition or two - and these babies will be ready to protect Pakistani Air

The Mig 29 are still used by Russian and infact they have upgraded these birds , and made them even more potent so with little support can surely improve these planes even more

The main point is China could run some upgrades to our our Mig , I am sure they must have handled Migs in Past or so , so we can learn

Also it will help bring us close to Russians

J11 is coming to Pakistan since its Chinese plane - so I don't see problem , also Russia and China have great ties together
 
.
Respectfully disagree. Besides its obvious short comings, I don't see why Pakistan has any need for Mig-29 when it will field hundreds of JF-17 and F-16s (I think the twin engine, stealth version JF-17 is being developed). What exactly is Mig-29's advantage over JF-17s? J-10s will fend off India's MKI threat very well, so air to air is not a big issue. Now for Maritime attack, Pakistan might be better buy JH-7 instead, which has TWICE the weapon load of Mig-29 and more than TWICE the combat radius (which is critical).

Weapon load (including external fuel tank): Mig-29 3500kg
JH-7 9000kg
Ferry Range: Mig-29 2100km, JH-7 3700km

Combat Radius: Mig-29 700km, JH-7 1760km

In conclusion, Mig-29 has no advantage over JF-17 and J-10 in AA scenario, and is much inferior to JH-7 in Air to Ground or Air to Sea scenario. Also, Mig-29 does not quality as a heavy fighter but is almost as expensive to maintain because of its twin engine design.
Its short range also makes it incapable of providing any meaningful escort mission for bombers.

Basically, I fail see what Mig-29 is good for. I don't think BVR upgrade will make it that much better given these constraints. If a heavy fighter/bomber is needed, Pakistan will be better off going directly for J-11Bs, which has excellent air to air capability as well as over 2000 km combat radius and about 6000 kg weapon load. Of course, China will seek Russian nod for its sell.


Generally I like Russian weapons but Mig-29 is an outstandingly failed product despite being received by so many countries. It is hands down the worst 3rd gen (4th by western definition) fighter ever developed. The fact it faired miserably against U.S jets really has something to do with its original design flaw. Yes, spending a lot on upgrade may help improve its performance, but why bother when you can just buy news ones instead for less?

I think these birds just need BVR upgrade, and and may be a cruise missle addition or two - and these babies will be ready to protect Pakistani Air

The Mig 29 are still used by Russian and infact they have upgraded these birds , and made them even more potent so with little support can surely improve these planes even more

The main point is China could run some upgrades to our our Mig , I am sure they must have handled Migs in Past or so , so we can learn

Also it will help bring us close to Russians

J11 is coming to Pakistan since its Chinese plane - so I don't see problem , also Russia and China have great ties together
 
Last edited:
.
But...But...I thought you said every time one takes off, it explodes...:rofl:..We should have been out of the space business a long time ago.

Rediculous...the US can lose many more shuttles and rockets and NASA would still continue to get funding.

Instead, the fleet accomplished more for US and the world than the MIG-25 did for its gullible clients.

Your fleet also uses Russian engines. And NASA uses Russian engineers such as my cousin to make sure your rockets don't end up in some feild in Texas. Our clients were morons, give them an F-22 and they would still manage to get shot out of the sky.



The MIG-25 is an embarrassment for Soviet/Russian aviation and your feeble defense of it an embarrassment to you.

When did i ever defend it? I brought up the Space shuttle because you insulted Russian aviation. The early Mig-25 had poor engines, the mig-31, on the other hand, had much better engines. The thrust was improved by about 10,000lb each and they had a longer service life. The Mig-25/31 were to keep below mach 2.8 in order to maintain engine life. However, my father flew a Mig-31 to mach 3.0 both engines were fine. I was never a fan of the Mig-25, i'm a Mig-31 guy.

Weapon load (including external fuel tank): Mig-29 3500kg
JH-7 9000kg
Ferry Range: Mig-29 2100km, JH-7 3700km

Combat Radius: Mig-29 700km, JH-7 1760km

The Mig-35/29 has a Combat Range: 1,500 km and a weopons load of 6500kg's. A Mig-29 can be upgraded to Mig-35 standars but it wouldn't be cheap.

Mikoyan MiG-35 - Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre


In conclusion, Mig-29 has no advantage over JF-17 and J-10 in AA scenario.

Your arguments are weak, and your opinions are worthless.

Also, Mig-29 does not quality as a heavy fighter but is almost as expensive to maintain because of its twin engine design.
Its short range also makes it incapable of providing any meaningful escort mission for bombers.

The latest Mig-29 varient aka the Mig-35 is a heavy class fighter.


Generally I like Russian weapons but Mig-29 is an outstandingly failed product despite being received by so many countries. It is hands down the worst 3rd gen (4th by western definition) fighter ever developed.

:rofl: now i have to clean the coffee off my computer. Are you telling me Chinese aircraft such as the JH-7 can take out a Mig-35 with AESA, TVC, HMD, OLS, ect? Dont let the 35 scare you it's still a Mig-29 with a new name.


The fact it faired miserably against U.S jets really has something to do with its original design flaw. Yes, spending a lot on upgrade may help improve its performance, but why bother when you can just buy news ones instead for less?

Outdated Mig-29 did very well against F-16, and F-18 in mock combat. The biggest reason for the Mig-29's record was the pilots, US pilots are some of the best, their opponests were some of the worst. A number of Iraqi pilots some flying the Mig-29 crashed during dog fights :hitwall: one moron got behind an F-111 and somehow crashed when the F-111 took evasive action :lol: The other reasons Mig-29's did so poorly was because of maintance and upgrade issues, and to put the iceing on the cake, Mig-29's even the ones exported to communist countries had downgraded EW suits! So lets put this in perspective. The Arabs had jackass pilots, horrible maintance, horrible command structure, received downgraded Mig-29's, and rarely sought to modernize their fleets. Bravo!

Russian aircraft flown by good pilot perform exceptionally. Mig-21's, for example, were getting wasted by the Israeli's untell Pakistani pilots flew the Mig-21 and downed a number of Israeli fighters, Pakistani Mig-21's had a perfect combat record! Russian pilots flying the Mig-15's over Korea also made a mochery of American's best aces, i beleive one Russian had 21 kills. Same situation applies to the Mig-29. Good pilots=good results.
 
Last edited:
.
Respectfully disagree. Besides its obvious short comings, I don't see why Pakistan has any need for Mig-29 when it will field hundreds of JF-17 and F-16s (I think the twin engine, stealth version JF-17 is being developed). What exactly is Mig-29's advantage over JF-17s? J-10s will fend off India's MKI threat very well, so air to air is not a big issue. Now for Maritime attack, Pakistan might be better buy JH-7 instead, which has TWICE the weapon load of Mig-29 and more than TWICE the combat radius (which is critical).

Weapon load (including external fuel tank): Mig-29 3500kg
JH-7 9000kg
Ferry Range: Mig-29 2100km, JH-7 3700km

Combat Radius: Mig-29 700km, JH-7 1760km

In conclusion, Mig-29 has no advantage over JF-17 and J-10 in AA scenario, and is much inferior to JH-7 in Air to Ground or Air to Sea scenario. Also, Mig-29 does not quality as a heavy fighter but is almost as expensive to maintain because of its twin engine design.
Its short range also makes it incapable of providing any meaningful escort mission for bombers.

Basically, I fail see what Mig-29 is good for. I don't think BVR upgrade will make it that much better given these constraints. If a heavy fighter/bomber is needed, Pakistan will be better off going directly for J-11Bs, which has excellent air to air capability as well as over 2000 km combat radius and about 6000 kg weapon load. Of course, China will seek Russian nod for its sell.


Generally I like Russian weapons but Mig-29 is an outstandingly failed product despite being received by so many countries. It is hands down the worst 3rd gen (4th by western definition) fighter ever developed. The fact it faired miserably against U.S jets really has something to do with its original design flaw. Yes, spending a lot on upgrade may help improve its performance, but why bother when you can just buy news ones instead for less?


A BIRD IN HAND IS WORTH 18 in President Bush
 
. . .
to ptldM3:

You obviously don't know much about weapon systems. Russia does not currently field AESA and you did not understand the difference between ferry range and combat radius. It is insulting to call someone's opinion worthess by the way, but I guess maybe you are one of these MIG fanatics.

Also JH-7 is an attacker, not a fighter. It is built to sink ships, so your comment on how JH-7 cannot fight is outlandishly irrelevant. For maritime attack Mig-29 is about as useful as a paper plane. The Mig-29 in summary is a short range intercepter with little offensive capability.

To others: I agree this thread should be closed. Pakistan has no need for this one.
 
.
where all others are grounding replacing and retiring these old airframes why would PAF acquire them? we could fairly acquire m2000-5 instead a bit expensive but more reliable and technologically more advance with infrastructure for mirages in place..
It about time this thread is closed..
 
. . .
so we have to go fleetwhich is grounded by russians.there is 0.0000001% chance of any mig in paf.
 
.
to ptldM3:

You obviously don't know much about weapon systems.

You obviously no nothing about wepons systems. Calling a Mig-29 the worst fourth gen fighter is just foolish. Saying the Mig-29 has no edvantage over a JF-17 and J-10 is foolish. Saying the Mig-29 is too small to have twin engines is foolish esspecially when the Rafale and EF-2000 use twin engines dispite them being smaller than a Mig-29, but i guess you know better right? I may have seemed rude. However, your comments/opinions are wrong and just too foolish to ignore.



Russia does not currently field AESA

I don't ever recall saying Russia fieldes an AESA. However, 10 Mig-35's exist as of today and all have Phazotron Zhuk AESA. If Russian decides to purchase the 10 Mig-35's then we will have AESA. I hope you didn't think we were not capable of producing AESA.



and you did not understand the difference between ferry range and combat radius. It is insulting to call someone's opinion worthess by the way, but I guess maybe you are one of these MIG fanatics.

1500km was the combat radius, i gave you a link, use it. If you cant read Spanish use google translate. Just so we're clear i'm talking about the Mig-35. In your earlier post you asked me do find a Mig-29 varient that has a range greater than 400km.



Also JH-7 is an attacker, not a fighter. It is built to sink ships, so your comment on how JH-7 cannot fight is outlandishly irrelevant. For maritime attack Mig-29 is about as useful as a paper plane. The Mig-29 in summary is a short range intercepter with little offensive capability.

It's a fighter/bomber able to carry three air to air missles: PL5, PL8, and PL9. It was also you that compaired the two for maritime attack. The Mig-29 is an air superiority fighter not a heavy ground attack aircraft, although i do agree Mig-29 is not the best choice for maritime attack.
 
Last edited:
.
welcome mr prldm3 we have pleasure hearing ur views on ur fighter jets thanx and keep talking ur views on forum on regular bases we neeed more an more russians in forum more than americans for sure
 
. . .
Back
Top Bottom