MiG-29

Mikoyan MiG-29

FULCRUM

MiG-29

MiG-29

Jane'sHOW TO FLY AND FIGHT IN THE

Mikoyan MiG-29

FULCRUJON LAKE

<*i

MiG-29

In the USA for information address:HarperCollinsPublishers Inc.10 East 53rd StreetNew YorkNY 10022

In the UK for information address:HarperCollinsPublishers77-85 Fulham Palace RoadHammersmithLondon W6 8JB

First Published in Great Britain byHarperCollinsPublishers 1997

1 3 5 7 9 1 0 8 6 4 2

Copyright © Jon Lake

ISBN 0 00472144 6

Cover photograph: Artur Sarkisyan (MiG-MAPO)Colour illustrations: John Ridyard and Chris Davey (3-view)Editor: Ian DruryDesign: Rod TeasdaleProduction Manager: David Lennox

Colour reproduction byColourscanPrinted in Italy by Rotolito

All rights reserved. No part of this publicationmay be reproduced, stored in a retrievalsystem, or transmitted in any form or by anymeans, electronic, mechanical, photocopyingor otherwise, without the prior writtenpermission of the publishers.

MiG-29

CONTENTS6

INTRODUCTION

16THE MISSION

44MiG-29 IN FOCUS

54US FIGHTER PILOT'S PERSPECTIVE

8OTHE USER'S VIEWPOINT

84FUTURE 'FULCRUM'

MftG-29

INTRODUCTION:

FIRST APPEARANCESRussia's aviation industry was in anenviable position after World War II. Itenjoyed a huge captive market for itsproducts, since the climate and topographyof the USSR made reliance on aircraft fordefence almost inevitable. With the ColdWar raging, the Russian armed forces had amassive requirement for indigenous aircrafttypes. Furthermore, under a Stalinistcommand economy, the aviation industrywas completely isolated from the disciplinesand demands of the free market. When theRussian air forces wanted a new fightermoney was no object, and narrow economiccompetitiveness was an alien concept.

Above right: This flyingsuit patch was issued toOKB personnelparticipating in overseasairshows likeFarnborough. The MiGwinged badge logo isprominent.

Below: The MiG-29prototype afterretirement to the AirForces' museum atMonino, near Moscow.

The aviation industry was, as a result,massively inefficient, overmanned,bureaucratically bloated and with atremendous duplication of resources.Furthermore, it was subject to a great deal ofpolitical interference. The aims of a particularFive Year Plan were often accorded a higherpriority than meeting the requirements of thearmed forces, which could hardly turnelsewhere. Initiative was suppressed. Therewas little scope for aircraft designers to pressahead with their own visions, except wherethese coincided with an officially stated

requirement, or where success might bring apropaganda coup.

Despite this stagnant background, theindustry managed to produce some truly greatcombat aircraft. None were more impressivethan the succession of jet fighters producedby the Experimental Design Bureau (OKB)named after Artom Mikoyan, and whoseaircraft proudly bore a suffix formed from theinitial letters of the founders' names, Mikoyanand Gurevich - MiG.

The MiG-15 was in many ways superior tothe F-86 Sabre, particularly in its armament,

INTRODUCTION

Left: This aircraft (the 9-10 prototype) typifiesproduction MiG-29safter installation of theoverwing chaff/flaredispensers.

and this allowed the Russians to produce thetop-scoring aces of the Korean War. The MiG-19 was years ahead of its time, as was theMiG-21, whose basic design was so right thatlarge numbers remain in service to this day,and when modernized with contemporaryavionics the aircraft still represents a potentthreat. The MiG-25 was a superb high speed,high altitude reconnaissance platform, andwas the only interceptor capable ofcountering the mighty SR-71 Blackbird. TheMiG-29 has proved to be probably the OKB'smost impressive product.

When the MiG-29 made its firstappearance, intercepted by Swedish fightersover the Baltic, there was a great deal ofexcitement. It was clearly meant to be amodern agile fighter, in much the same classas the F/A-18 Hornet. But in truth, not muchcan be gleaned from still photographs or by

simply flying alongside a co-operating target,and experts bickered as to whether or not theMiG-29 was simply an inferior Soviet copy ofthis or that Western fighter - whether what itwas supposed to have copied was the F-14,the F-15, the F/A-1 8 or even the YF-1 7.

Intelligence sources suggested that theaircraft had been seen performingmanoeuvres which 'no Western fighter couldemulate', but this claim was treated withsome scepticism. Many suspected that it wasan exaggeration (or an outright fiction)intended as a justification for theprocurement of more advanced fightersand/or weapons by the US forces.

In fact, the MiG-29 was an entirely originaldesign, incorporating many advanced featuresnot seen in its Western counterparts, andactually more aerodynamically advanced thanany Western type. There were some broad

Above: RostislavBelyakov remains at thehelm of the MikoyanDesign Bureau despiteadvancing age and illhealth. Greatly admiredand respected by thosewho meet him, Belyakovis a legend in his ownlifetime, and was the'father' of the MiG-29.

Below: The old and thenew. A Czech air forceMiG-29 formates with anexample of Mikoyan'sprevious best-seller, theMiG-21. The CzechRepublic no longeroperates the MiG-29,having passed its aircraftto Slovakia.

INTRODUCTION

Above: Carryingunderwing fuel tanks,one of the MikoyanOKB's own MiG-29s isseen under escort byElmendorf-based F-15sduring the type's firstvisit to North America,in 1989. The similar size,wing-sweep and broadconfiguration of the twoaircraft types is apparent.

similarities with each of the latest Westernfighters, with LERXes like those on the F/A-18,widely spaced underslung engines and a'lifting body' fuselage like the F-14, and awing planform reminiscent of that of the F-15.Twin tailfins were a common feature to the F-14, F-1 5, F/A-18 and theYF-17. But in truth,the MiG-29 was no more a copy of the F/A-18 (say) than the Hornet was a copy of the F-14 or F-15. Common requirements often leadto common solutions, and in designing ahighly agile fighter, it would have been moresurprising had Mikoyan not produced adesign with some features which resembledthose on the Western aircraft.

Today, a generation of future combataircraft share a single-finned, canard Deltaconfiguration, yet no-one is seriouslysuggesting that the Gripen (for instance) is acopy of Rafale or Eurofighter. As the Westlearned more of the new Soviet superfighter,the truth became clearer, that the MiG-29 wasa highly advanced and unique product of adesign team who had done their ownhomework, and who, in some respects, haddone it better than had their Westerncounterparts.

Certainly the Russians had created anaircraft which was capable of flight at farhigher angles of attack than any Western type,and which could be flown with confidenceinto areas of the envelope which werenormally strictly 'out-of-bounds'. It latertranspired that the aircraft's weapons systemincorporated some features which were far in

advance of anything fielded by the aircraft'sWestern contemporaries.

But the accusation that Mikoyan hadsomehow 'cheated' and had simply copied anAmerican fighter proved hard to bury, andeven today, there are those who believe thatMikoyan (Russia's foremost fighter designbureau) simply refined a configuration whichAmerican know-how had created.

Six MiG-29s made a goodwill visit toFinland during 1986, where the type'saerobatic display routine was watched withgreat interest, and just over two years later, inSeptember 1988, a pair of MiG-29s becamethe first Soviet fighters to be exhibited at aWestern trade show, when they appeared atthe SBAC Farnborough show. At Farnborough,the Mikoyan OKB's test pilots put on an evenmore spectacular show routine, while on theground, the type's designers provedsurprisingly willing to talk openly about theaircraft's characteristics and capabilities.

But the controversy continued. Somemaintained that the MiG-29's airshow routine,performed by a lightly loaded machineowned by the Bureau, was a 'flashy'irrelevance, which-in contradiction of theevidence offered to the eyes of anyone whosaw the display-demonstrated no superiorityover the agile F-1 6. Other detractors pointedto the MiG-29's crude finish in certain areas,and airily claimed-with not a scrap ofevidence-that the aircraft's radar was a crudecopy of the Hornet's AN/APG-65 or theEagle's AN/APG-63. Other onlookers went the

INTRODUCTION

other way, and seemed to be blinded by theaircraft's undoubted acrobatic prowess. Theysaw the incredible turn performance, highAlpha and post-stall capabilities of theaircraft, and immediately assumed that itwould be unbeatable in air-to-air combat, andbelieved every word that its designers utteredabout the capabilities of the aircraft'savionics.

It has taken many years for a morebalanced and accurate impression of theaircraft to become accepted. There is nowlittle argument with the fact that the MiG-29is the most aerodynamically advanced aircraftof its generation, nor with the fact that it isprobably the world's best close-in dogfighter.Equally, it is widely recognised that theaircraft's avionics system severely limits itseffectiveness in any BVR engagement, andimposes an unhelpful degree of reliance onground or AWACS control for target sorting,threat prioritization, and other tasks whichWestern fighter pilots take for granted asautomated, onboard functions. Finally, it isgenerally acknowledged that the aircraft'susefulness is severely constrained by its verylimited endurance and payload/rangecharacteristics, effectively limiting it to thepoint defence role.

But while the baseline MiG-29 has itslimitations, it is in service in huge numberswith a wide variety of operators, and isamong the most common potential threataircraft likely to be faced by Western fast jetpilots. The aircraft poses a significant threat inthe BVR environment (despite the limitationsalluded to above) and is a very dangerousthreat at WVR (Within Visual Range). WVRengagements may be dictated bycircumstance, or by ROE (Rules ofEngagement) which can sometimes

necessitate visual identification.Moreover, the MiG-29 has been subject to

a wide-ranging programme of upgrades andupdates, producing a plethora of advancedvariants, some of which are now enteringservice. Many of the MiG-29's traditionalweaknesses have now been addressed, andsome of the latest MiGs represent an evenmore dangerous and deadly threat than theirprecursors.

Above: After refuelling atElmendorf, the MikoyanOKB MiGs transited toAbbotsford, escorted byCanadian CF-188s. Oneof the Canadians, MajorBob WadeofNo.441Squadron, subsequentlybecame the first Westernpilot to fly the MiG-29

Left: F-16AADFsoftheMinnesota AN G escort apair of Mikoyan OKBMiG-29s during a tour ofNorth America. The MiG-29 and F-16 are oftencompared, though theyare very different. The F-16 is used mainly as atactical 'a\r-lo-mud'fighter bomber while theMiG-29 is pure fighter.In the air-to-air arena,the F-16 pilot enjoysbetter situationalawareness, while theMiG-driver has agilityand performance on hisside.

INTRODUCTION

THE REQUIREMENT -A NEW PHILOSOPHYFor many years Western fighter pilots felt comfortable in the'knowledge' that they flew better aircraft than did the opposition.Enemy pilots (especially Soviet fighter pilots, or Soviet-trained fighterpilots) were believed to be poorly trained, ill-practised and lacking ininitiative, while their aircraft were deficient in range, armament andonboard sensors, and were designed for use with a strict system ofGCI (Ground Controlled Intercept) control which limited tactical andoperational flexibility.

Far right: Mikoyan'soriginal demonstrator,'Blue W soon gained aParis air show number inlieu of its code. It wasalso one of the first MiG-29s to receive the MiG-29S modification ofunderwing fuel tankcompatability.

Below: A Royal Air ForceTornado F.Mk 3 escortsAnatoly Kvotchur in'Blue 10' as the MiG-29(using an Aeroflotcallsign) flew intoEngland to make itsWestern debut. In thebackground is an RAF VC10 tanker.

Operational experience seemed to confirmthe worst opinions of Soviet or Soviet-trainedpilots and their aircraft, though this wassometimes because good PR camouflaged akill-to-loss ratio which was seldom asdisproportionate as was suggested. In aclimate of opinion dismissive of Sovietaircraft, many observers failed to takeaccount of the self-evident strengths of someof the best Soviet fighters. The MiG-1 7proved a difficult opponent over Vietnam andin the Middle East, demonstrating superiorlow speed agility to the F-4 Phantom, andpacking a devastatingly powerful punch withits mix of 37- and 23-mm cannon. Theaircraft's relatively small size also made it adifficult opponent - making it hard to visuallyacquire and track. The MiG-21 enjoyedbreathtaking acceleration, rate of climb andoutright performance, and was equally

difficult to detect visually, especially fromhead-on. In the MiG-25, the USSR producedthe only fighter-interceptor capable of dealingwith the Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird spyplane.All of these aircraft had their weaknesses, ofcourse, and these often tended to camouflagetheir strengths.

But however much one acknowledges thesuperb performance characteristics orruggedness of particular Soviet combataircraft, and however much one nit-picksabout the exact ratio of F-4:MiG-21 lossesover Vietnam or of Israeli and Arab fighters,there can be no doubt that Western fightersand their pilots did enjoy a very significantedge.

Nowhere was this recognised more fullythan in the USSR itself. Development of theMiG-29 as we know it today began in theearly 1970s, to meet a requirement for a newLight Frontal Fighter (Logikii FrontovoiIstrebityel). This would be capable ofdestroying enemy fighters, attack aircraft,reconnaissance, AEW and ECM aircraft, andwould be able to protect friendly aircraft,while also being capable of attacking groundtargets close to the frontline. Stated so baldly,this was not very different to the requirementswhich had produced the MiG-21 or MiG-23.Yet because it implicitely required the newfighter to beat aircraft like the F-16 in aerialcombat, and be able to intercept low levelattack aircraft like the F-111 or Tornado, itwas actually very ambitious.

INTRODUCTION

It was always intended that the new fighterwould be able to sell on its own merits in theexport market, so it was vital that the MiG-29would be genuinely competitive with thelatest generation of US combat aircraft. Theaircraft's timescale was such that its designerswere quite heavily influenced by (and couldlearn valuable lessons from) aircraft like theYF-14, YF-15,YF-16 andYF-17.

Soviet tacticians and analysts were quiteaware of the need for the aircraft to be able tooperate autonomously, and of the need for'freelance operations' by fighter pilots. Theimportance of independence of outsidecontrol, flexibility and initiative began to bestressed in Soviet air forces training literature.This marked a dramatic shift in philosophy forthe Soviet air forces, and especially forFrontal Aviation, the tactical air arm. Thus, bySoviet standards at least, the MiG-29 pilotwas given an unparallelled ability to conducthis own mission, though shortcomings inavionics (and in particular a lack of sufficient

processing capability) did mean that hecontinued to rely on GCI or AWACS controlfor threat prioritisation and tactical, or risklosing situational awareness if he relied onlyon onboard sensors and displays.

Below: On overseas salestours, Mikoyan's single-seater 'Blue W wasaccompanied by MiG-29UB 'Blue 53', later'Blue 314'.

INTRODUCTION

MiG-29 BASIC DESIGNIn Vietnam, and other conflicts during the Cold War, the intelligentuse of hit-and-run tactics had sometimes allowed less capable Sovietfighters to shoot down more modern opponents. Ground Controllershad frequently played a critical role in getting fighters into positionto make a single deadly firing pass, using the advantages of altitude,speed and surprise to make a highly effective slashing attack. Theagility, and especially the turn performance, of the MiG-17 wasuseful, and frequently allowed the aircraft to better more modern USfighter types, although it was clear that without restrictive rules ofengagement, lumbering aircraft like the F-4 would not have allowedthemselves to be drawn into a within visual range fight.

The initial Soviet response to Vietnam was todesign aircraft like the MiG-23 - essentiallyBVR-capable, longer-range and modernisedequivalents to the MiG-21. With theemergence of the US 'Teen Series' fighterprototypes (YF-14 Tomcat, YF-15 Eagle, YF-1 6Fighting Falcon and YF-1 7 Cobra) it becameclear that the US were emphasising close-in'dogfight' manoeuvring capabilities, as wellas BVR (Beyond Visual Range) targetdetection and engagement. Detailed designwork began in 1974, the year that the F-1 5entered service, and the year that the YF-1 6and YF-1 7 prototypes first flew.

Thus it soon became clear that the MiG-29would have to carry a long range pulseDoppler fire control radar and BVR missiles,yet would also have to be capable of anextraordinary degree of manoeuvrability.

Design of a new Frontal Aviation fighterbegan in 1 969, as a direct counter to theUSAF's F-1 5, which had been launched in1965. To meet what was initially known asthe PFI (Perspektivnii Frontovoi Istrebityel, orprospective frontal fighter) three design

FIRST GENERATION 'FUUCRUMS'These MiG-29 variants share the same basic airframe andthe same basic 'Slot Back* radar, and can be regarded as thebaseline variants, though the MiG-29S is much improved.

bureaus submitted competing designs.Yakovlev dropped out at an early stage,leaving Sukhoi with theT-10 and Mikoyanwith the MiG-29. Unusually, Mikoyan used aservice-type designation from the start, ratherthan the more usual E- (Ye-) number. Both theSukhoi and the Mikoyan aircraft designs wereoriginally quite similar, loosely based on acommon configuration with twin fins, widelyspaced raked intakes and prominentextensions to the leading edges of the wingroots (LERXes - leading edge root extensions).Both were also relative heavyweights, similarin size to, or larger than, the F-1 5.

But just as the USAF's fighter competition

spawned a cheaper, lightweight complementto the F-15 in the shape of the F-16, GlebLozino-Lozinsky submitted a proposal that asmaller version of the MiG-29 should also beprocured, as a lower-cost, lighter-weight,force multiplier. This led to the PFIprogramme being split into two. The SukhoiOKB were commissioned to produce a heavyfighter, the TPFI (T for Tyazholyi, or heavy)which eventually became the T-10 and thenthe Su-27. Mikoyan were instructed toproceed with development of their lighterMiG-29 (originally known as the MSG-29D,or Dubler - Double) under the LPFIprogramme (L for Logikii, or lightweight). The

P was soon dropped from both programmedesignations.

The MiG-29 represented an extremely high-risk project, since it broke new ground inevery respect. A radically new aerodynamicconfiguration was coupled with a newengine, new avionics, new radar, and a newmissile armament. Sukhoi did exactly thesame with the Su-27, and paid the price,having to revise their aircraft's aerodynamicand structural design and suffering delays tothe radar, and to the engines. Mikoyan wereluckier; development of the aircraft's disparateelements, and their integration, were toproceed remarkably smoothly.

Above: The MIG-29UBlacks radar, and so is acontinuation andconversion trainer only,without full combatcapability. The tandemcockpits of the MiG-29UB are not as steppedas on many two-seatfighter trainers, and theback-seater is thereforeprovided with aretractable periscope.The aircraft is seen heretaxying at Farnboroughduring the 1988 SBACshow.

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

CONFIGURATION ANDCHARACTERISTICSThe MiG-29 was designed to combine high performance withoutstanding manoeuvrability. In order to achieve this, the firstpriority of the aircraft's designers was to provide high installed thrustin a lightweight airframe. From the beginning, and in spite of theirlong experience with single-engined fighters, Mikoyan determinedthat the MiG-29 would have two engines for the best possiblesurvivability characteristics.

Aerodynamic design began with the forebody,lifting fuselage and wing, which wereoptimised to maximise the lift/drag ratio, andto be capable of sustaining flight at extremelyhigh angles of attack. The wing blended intothe fuselage via long, curving extensions tothe wingroots, known as LERXes (LeadingEdge Root extensions). These generatedpowerful vortices across the top of the wingand fuselage, helping to keep flow attached athigh angles of attack. This 'perfect'wing/centrebody was then 'compromised' bythe addition of the cockpit, twin tailfins(spaced wide apart for effectiveness at highangles of attack), slab tailplanes and widelyspaced engines and intake ducts. The widespacing gave room between the engines forthe carriage of external stores, and alsoallowed the intakes to flow straight back tothe compressor face - probably oneexplanation for the aircraft's superb enginehandling at high angles of attack - while theLERXes also tended to channel air back intothe intakes.

The MiG-29's aerodynamic characteristicsare unmatched. With no fly-by-wire controlsystem to prevent departure from controlledflight, the aircraft's design has been carefully

Above: 'Fulcrum-C'slined up at Sarmellek inHungary prior to theirdeparture (to Minsk) on4 October 1990. Sovietforces in Hungaryincluded three MiG-29Regiments atKiskunlachaza, Sarmellekand Tokol, together withone MiG-23 fighterregiment and MiG-27,Su-17 and Su-24 units.

tailored to 'square the circle' betweenunparallelled agility and benign departurecharacteristics. The MiG-29 will stall, ofcourse, and can depart from controlled flightin an energetic manner, but is claimed to beeffectively unspinnable, recovering from anincipient or fully developed spin (erect orinverted) as soon as full pro-spin controls arerelaxed.

The aircraft is designed to operate fromrough, semi-prepared runways, and in orderto prevent foreign object ingestion by thelow-slung intakes, they are fitted with asystem which actually closes them duringtake off and landing when the nosewheel is

Above: This 'fulcrum-C'is seen during the Sovietwithdrawal fromHungary, and carries thefull three-tank ferry fit.Underwing tanks wereoriginally part of theMIG-29S upgrade.

Far right: This colourful'Fulcrum-C' was used bythe Ukrainian air forcefor an aerobaticdemonstration tour ofCanada and NorthAmerica.

INTRODUCTION

on the ground (but based on airspeeds).During start-up, massive solid doors swingdown from the intake roof and close off theintake, and the engine then draws air throughspring-loaded louvres on the tops of theLERXes. This airflow is sufficient to allow theengines to be run at full afterburning thrust.

The first of eleven prototypes made itsmaiden flight on 6 October 1977. Theprototypes were followed by eight pre-production aircraft. The aircraft enteredservice during 1983, initially with the 234thGuards IAP at Kubinka, then with Regimentsat Ros in the Ukraine and Mikha Tskhakayain Georgia.

MiG-29

THE MISSION:THE MiG-29 IN EAST GERMANYDuring the Cold War Germany was thefrontline, where Superpower confrontedSuperpower. And because Germany wouldhave been the most likely battlefield hadthe Cold War ever turned hot, NATOconcentrated the best of its military forcesthere, ready to resist the anticipatedarmoured thrust by up to five Soviet tankarmies. On the other side of the IronCurtain* the USSR concentrated its best-equipped, best-led and most effective unitsin East Germany. Had there ever been awar, the elite troops driving westwardswould have been supported by the bestthat the Soviet air forces could provide.Specialised defence suppression aircraftwould have punched holes through whichmassed formations of fighters and bomberswould have poured. At the heart of the airforces' involvement was the 16th Air Army,based in Germany and headquartered atZossen, near Berlin. This provided theGroup of Soviet Forces in Germany with itsown organic tactical air force.

I have been criticised in the past for daringto suggest that the primary role of the 16thAir Army was one of deterrence (at least inlater years) and for suggesting that Sovietpolicy was dictated by an unreasonable, butgenuine, paranoia, a fear of attack and/oreconomic subjugation by the west. FromStalin's point of view, his regime had beenreviled in the Western press right up until theGerman invasion in 1941, and the alliancebetween the USSR and the Western allieshad been a matter of convenience, a pieceof necessary cynicism aimed at defeating thecommon enemy. After 1945 Stalin watchedas the Western allies combined and rebuilttheir zones of Germany, in what he saw as adirect and provocative contravention ofwartime agreements.

There may have been Russian politicianswho saw the spread of communism as theirsacred duty, and who would have pushed formilitary action against the West had NATOever let its guard drop. But it is by no meanscertain that such attitudes ever dominatedand by the 1980s, most Russians sawthemselves as the victims of WesternImperialism, hostility and economic warfare.But there are still those in the West who seeany attempt to explain the complex attitudesof the USSR as simple apologism, and whoprefer to regard the USSR as a genuinely 'Evil

Right: This MiG-29 wearsthe distinctive 'wingedstar' markings applied toabout half of the aircraft(the older 'Fulcrum-A's,with ventral fins)assigned to the 968thIAP at Nöbitz. Thesewere almost certainlythe aircraft used by theRegiment's secondsquadron. A typicaltraining mission flown byone of this unit's pilots isdescribed in this book.

THE MISSION

Empire' hell-bent on world domination andthe military subjugation of the Free World.

Certainly, Warsaw Pact planning in Europewas based on a massive attack against NATO- albeit one which was justified as being aresponse to the NATO attack which it wasexpected would accompany Capitalism'sdying gasps. Documents which came to lightfollowing German reunification have revealedhow a war might have been conducted in the1970s. The conflict would have opened withmassive nuclear strikes against NATOinstallations in Germany.The Dutch borderwas marked as the limit of strategic andoperational nuclear strikes' using some 320warheads. The USSR presumably hoped thatthis would keep NATO's nuclear response

similarly geographically limited. Warsaw Pactarmies would then have fought throughGermany in their NBC protective gear,occupying the whole of Germany in threedays, before rolling on to the Channel and thePyrenees. The Warsaw Pact printed and storeda new occupation currency to replace theDeutschmark, together with ID papers for300,000 East German administartors whowould take over the running of the old WestGermany. They even minted thousands ofinvasion medals!

In the 1980s, defensive tactics andconventional weapons were increasinglyemphasised, but when an East Germanofficer was questioned by his Bundeswehropposite number about his defensive plans,

Left: This view of a 968thIAP MiC-29 was taken asthe aircraft approachedAlt Lönnewitz(Falkenberg) as the unittransited back to Russia.It seems likely that someof the earliest productionMiC-29s were notplumbed for the carriageof external fuel tanks atall. Before the system fellinto disuse, the coloursof regimental codes andtheir thin outlinesindicated regimental anddivisional assignment.

Below: The 33rd IAP atWittstock applied abadge to some of itsaircraft, consisting of anImperial Russian typeroundel, on which weresuperimposed a redByelorussian bison, astylised red shark (ordolphin) and a blueMiG-29. Codes werewhite, usually with blueoutlines.

H

Above: One of the 787thlAP's 'Fulcrum-C's atEberswalde. Airfieldarchitecture on the 16thAir Army's bases was amix of Soviet andwartime Nazi!

Right: A group of MiG-29 pilots in the nowrarely-worn high altitudefull pressure suits,carrying pressurehelmets.

Below: A fully-armedQRA aircraft standingalert at Eberswalde.

the East German succinctly replied"Antwerp!" But the first use of nuclearweapons was effectively abandoned at anearly stage, placing more importance on theneutralisation of NATO air power. In 1987Gorbachev explicitely declared that theWarsaw Pact would never conduct offensiveoperations unless under armed attack,guaranteed no first use of nuclear weaponsand denied or renounced any territorialclaims in Europe and elsewhere. Russianforces in East Germany continued to occupy1,000 barracks, airfields and other facilities,which covered 10% of the area of theGerman Democratic Republic, and byOctober 1990 included 363,690 militarypersonnel, 5,880 main battle tanks, 698combat helicopters and 625 combat aircraft.

Fighters always enjoyed a disproportionateimportance in the 16th Air Army, since theyhad the vital peacetime role of preventingoverflights or incursions by Westernreconnaissance aircraft, and could undertakeoffensive or defensive operations in wartime.MiG-29s began to replace MiG-23s (and ahandful of MiG-25s) from January 1986, re-equipping fighter regiments at Wittstock,Pütnitz (Damgarten), Zerbst, Köthen,Merseburg, Nöbitz (Altenburg), AltLonnewitz, and Eberswalde (Finow) by 1989.One more fighter regiment still retainedMiG-23s by the time the Soviets began towithdraw from East Germany. This may havebeen scheduled to convert to the MiG-29, or

THE MISSION

may have been retained for longer-rangefighter duties.

The multi-role MiG-29M was developedspecifically to meet the requirements of the16th Air Army, and could have replaced Su-17s and MiG-27s (overtly hostile fighterbombers), as well as first-generation MiG-29s. While nominally appearing to re-equipall fast jet units with a defensive fighter, the16th Air Army would have dramaticallyincreased its offensive strike, SEAD and closeair support capabilities. But plans werethrown into disarray on 7 November 1989,when the Berlin Wall came down. While aSoviet withdrawal was planned and then putinto operation, MiG-29 units continued to flytheir normal training missions, but the ColdWar was effectively over.

When the two Germanies re-united on 3October 1990, the 16th Air Army comprisedNorthern and Southern Tactical Air Corps.The Northern corps controlled the 16thGuards Fighter Division, headquartered atPütnitz, and the 125th Fighter BomberDivision headquartered at Rechlin. In turn,these controlled three MiG-29 Regiments atWittstock, Pütnitz and Eberswalde, and twoSu-17 and one MiG-27 fighter-bomberregiment. The Southern corps controlledanother fighter bomber division (105th IAD)with three MiG-27 regiments, and two fighterdivisions. The 6th Guards Fighter Division atMerseburg controlled MiG-29 regiments atAlt Lonnewitz, Merseburg and Nöbitz, whilethe 126th Guards Fighter Division at Zerbstcontrolled MiG-29 regiments at Zerbst andKöthen, and a MiG-23 unit at Altes Lager.Direct reporting units includedreconnaissance and transport divisions andtwo Shturmovik regiments. All combathelicopters were army aviation assets.

MiG-29 RADII OF ACTIONThis map shows the Mig-29's radii ofaction from bases in East Germanyat different altitudes and speeds, andwith varying loiter times. (The rangefigures relate to the diagram onpage 38).

Left: The 'Fulcrum-C'differed from thebaseline MiG-29 inhaving a distinctivelyhump-backed spine. Thiscontains a new activejammer and some extrafuel. The aircraft wasoften known by thenickname Gorbatov(Hunchback). Thisaircraft is seen taxying atEberswalde, close toBerlin.

THE MISSION

WITH THE 968THISTREBEITELNYIAVIATSIONNAYA POLKOne of the 16th Air Army's MiG-29 units was the 968th IAP(Istrebeitelnyi Aviatsionnaya Polk, Fighter Aviation Regiment). Thiswas based at the airfield known to NATO as Altenburg (known tothe VVS as Nöbitz) in the southern part of East Germany from1989 until its withdrawal on 8 April 1992. Concealed in the edgeof thick woodland, Altenburg-Nöbitz was located in theeasternmost part of Thuringia, only 40 miles north of the Czechborder and about 15 miles north-west of Karl-Marx-Stadt. Firstused as an airfield during the First World War, (as Altenburg) theairfield was extensively rebuilt and modernised before beingrecommissioned in 1936.

Right: A MiG-29 roarsinto the air after a shorttake off. Lightly loaded,the MiG-29 actuallyqualifies as a STOLaircraft, and even withoperational equipmentneeds remarkably littlerunway. On Wednesday26 April 1995, a MiG-29flown by Roman Taskaevset an FAI-recognisedworld altitude record of27460 m (90,092 ft),shattering the recordpreviously set by an SR-71.

Under the Luftwaffe the airfield housed asuccession of bomber, training and night-fighter units until it fell into Soviet hands in1945. The Russians extensively rebuilt theairfield, extending the runway andimproving the facilities, though they retainedmany of the Nazi-era buildings for theirown use. Some hangars, for instance, stillbore safety and no smoking signs inGerman, and applied in the typicallyoverblown Teutonic script favoured byHitler's Luftwaffe. The airfield housed asuccession of fighter, reconnaissance andfighter-bomber types, though the based296th APIB's MiG-27s gave way to the MiG-29s of the 968th IAP in 1989. Like otherFrontal Aviation MiG-29 units the Regimentoriginally had three squadrons, the first withthe best-qualified and most experiencedpilots. This squadron was responsible for aircombat training of the whole regiment andalso had the responsibility for the nuclearstrike role.

The second squadron had a secondaryconventional ground attack capability whilethe third was the training squadron, with theunit's instructors and its less experiencedpilots. By 1990, some Soviet Regiments inEast Germany had been reduced to twosquadrons, with the training of a much-reduced number of first-tour pilots becominga secondary responsibility of the secondsquadron and of a third eskadrilya whichhad been reduced to flight strength,equipped with the regiment's two-seaters.

THE MISSION

THE MISSION

MlG-29 NUCLEAR STRIKEDuring the Cold War, as far as can be ascertained, all Soviet MiG-29regiments had a secondary nuclear strike role. Pilots from the first ofthe Regiment's three squadrons were specially trained in nuclearweapons delivery techniques, and in how to perform the complexseries of decoding and verification procedures without which thebombs could not be armed. These pilots received separate malchi-malchi (hush hush) combat proficiency evaluations to theircolleagues for the strike role, but also had to be fully proficient in allnormal aspects of the regiment's other roles. MiG-29 bases had adiscrete RTB nuclear weapons storage facility, guarded by adedicated force of soldiers who reported not to their local FrontalAviation air force headquarters, but to the Strategic ForcesCommand in Moscow.

Above: Seen at theAkhtubinsk test centre,this MiG-29 carries therarely seen underwingbomb racks. The basicMiG-29 can carry four500-kg bombs, while theupgraded MiG-295 cancarry as many as eight.

This nuclear capability was exercised fairlyfrequently, with a nuclear-capable regiment'saircraft being loaded and unloaded at leasttwice per month. This was always practisedunder cover, at night, in order to avoid theattention of US satellites. Slightly lessfrequently, full scale nuclear missions would

be simulated, with every stage being carefullyassessed and timed.

The nuclear alarm, triggered directly fromMoscow was a surprisingly innocuous sound,a relatively quiet chirruping warble, but itgenerated immediate action. Under normalreadiness conditions a regiment had 130minutes to launch its strike force - aseemingly long delay, but one barelysufficient for all the procedures to be carriedout, checked and double-checked. Such amission required the participation of virtuallythe entire regiment. While the pilots of thestrike aircraft and their escort briefed, andwhile their aircraft were armed and refuelled,the third squadron got airborne to mountdefensive patrols over the airfield. Theirinexperienced pilots' task would be completeonce the strike aircraft had left the vicinity ofthe airfield.

In the strike role a single regiment wouldtypically be assigned to attack four relativelyclosely spaced targets (perhaps enemyairfields), assigning two aircraft (and twonuclear weapons) to each target. In thenuclear role, each strike MiG-29 would carrya single 30 kT RN-40 nuclear weapon on aspecially strengthened and wired port inboardpylon. The eight strike aircraft would bedrawn from the first squadron, with the rest ofthe squadron, and the second squadron,flying as escorts and providing a fightersweep ahead of the strike aeroplanes. One ofthe primary roles of the sweep would be todestroy enemy AWACS platforms.

While the pilots were briefed, thegroundcrews loaded the MiG-29s with

Right: Conventional 250-kg high explosive bombsloaded onto a MiG-29.The inboard pylons cancarry two of theseweapons, with one moreunderwing and (ifnecesssary) two more onthe centreline.

THE MISSION

sinister grey and black, six-foot bombs;chocolate-coloured dielectric nose conescovered the radar- and barometric fuses. Onexercise, the clock would then be stoppedwhile the weapons were quickly but carefullyremoved, and replaced by ballasted sheetaluminium replicas. Meanwhile, theregiment's operations chief of staff wouldretrieve the coded orders and arming codesfrom their secure safes. The squadron deputychief of staff obtained the nuclear weaponsinstructions from a black fibreglass briefcase,and the necessary tools to complete thearming/authentication procedure.

When the strike pilots reached their aircraft,they found them accompanied by their crewchief and an officer from the RTBdetachment, with the arming/authenticationcode box already connected to the bomb.Once in the cockpit, with the radio turnedon, the pilot would open the arming-codeand and arming envelopes, extracting the twocards. He then waited to hear the secretmission code word as printed on the first cardrepeated over the radio. Without it, theprocess stopped there and then. Afterreceiving the right code word, though, thepilots would then check in, using specialcallsigns. Again, if the wrong callsign wasused, the tower would halt the procedure. Theregimental headquarters would then transmita sequence of nine numbers, which the pilothad to copy into boxes on the second card.The pilot then had to subtract the newly-written lower digits from the upper row ofprinted digits. If any 9s or Os appeared, theprocedure would be invalid, and would behalted. The numbers reaching the pilot camedirectly from Moscow.

Meanwhile, the RTB officer went through asimilar procedure over a separate landline tothe political leadership. The pilot and RTBofficer would then compare their calculateddigits. With any disparity, the procedureended. But if they tallied, the crew chiefentered the agreed nine digits into the ten-key keypad, and if correct, the bomb wouldbe armed. More than one mistake inentering the numbers, and the bomb wouldrefuse to arm.

The procedure ensured that a nuclearmission could only be launched with the fullapproval of both military and civilian chainsof command, preventing any kind ofDr.Strangelove scenario, whether triggered bya renegade general or by a politician. It hasbeen suggested that the Soviet specialweapons arming and verification system, usedsince the 1970s, was based loosely on that

used by the USAF. This may have beencompromised by nuclear-trained pilots takenprisoner in Vietnam, presumably tortured thenshot, and still posted MIA to this day.

Strike missions would have been flown atvery high speed and ultra low level, with acorrespondingly tiny radius of action.Retarded by parachute, the bomb itself wouldhave been delivered from a LABS-typeforward toss as the aircraft reached 120°through the 'loop', having climbed from 600to 3,600 ft. With dark filters for his visor andthe HUD, the pilot was relatively wellprotected against NBC contamination andflash, but it was accepted that all computerson board would be wiped out by EMP. Thepilot would have to navigate home byanalogue instruments and magnetic compass.

Above: One of MAPO'scolourful MiG-295demonstrators with anarray of some of theweaponry offered withthe baseline MiG-29,and used by a number of'Fulcrum-A' exportcustomers. Nearest thecamera are four B8Mrocket pods, eachcontaining 20 80-mmrockets, with KMGUdispenser weapons (andfuel tanks) behind. Nextare 100-, 250- and 500-kg bombs, 30-mmammunition and air-to-air missiles. (ArturSarkisyan/MiG-MAPO)

THE MISSION

TODAY'S MISSION:ALTEN BURG-NÖBITZ,6 MAY 1991Today we will be flying a training sortie with a pair of the 968thFighter Aviation Regiment's MiG-29s. These aircraft are actually veryearly 'Fulcrum-A's that have been brought up to almost the lateststandards, and which equip the Regiment's second squadron. Theaircraft carry yellow code numbers, thinly outlined in blue, andunusually wear unit insignia consisting of a red swept Star' with atrailing blue wing. This is applied only to the port side of the nose,and is derived from the insignia of the 3rd Independent Air Corps,carried during the Great Patriotic War by Yak-1Ms, Yak-7s and Yak-9s.

Above: The insigniabelow the windscreen ofthis 'Fulcrum-C' is aGuards badge, adistinction awarded to asmall number of eliteSoviet fighter Regimentsduring the GreatPatriotic War.

Right: The bulged spineof the 'Fulcrum-C' isreadily apparent in thisview of a MiG-29 fromthe31stGvlAPatAltLonnewitz, south-west ofBerlin. Red-coded MiG-29s were also based atZerbst and Köthen, andwith part of the 968thIAP at Nöbitz.

The lead aircraft is today being flown by oneof the unit's junior pilots, a real individualnow flying Su-27s at Lipetsk, who we shallrefer to by his nickname, 'Harry', (useduniversally) and not by his given name ofDmitri, since he has asked us not to reveal hissurname. 'Harry' is entirely representative ofthe MiG-29 pilots based in East Germany.'Harry' was then a Lieutenant, on only hissecond frontline tour, and while he wasoperational and fully competent on the MiG-29, he wore the wings of a Second ClassPilot, with two steps to complete before hegained the coveted wings of the 'Sniper Pilot',and which he now wears.

Russian pilots graduate from training withabout 230 flying hours and 550 sorties intheir log books, and wear wings with a plainblue shield as centrepiece. On a frontlineregiment, unrated pilots are of little real use,and are not really capable of flying asproductive members of the unit. To become a

Third Class pilot the young officer needs atotal of 350 flying hours and 600 sorties,usually achieving the rating within a year ofarriving at the frontline. Qualified to flycombat missions by day, in weatherconditions which include a 1.5-nm minimum

THE MISSION

visibility and a 750-ft minimum cloudbase,the Third Class pilot can fly in formations ofbetween four and sixteen aircraft (from azveno, or flight, to a full squadron).

Pilots gain the Second Class pilot ratingafter a further three years, with a minimum of450 hours and 770 sorties in their log books.Gaining the coveted wings with their red '2'is recognised as being a particularly difficultstep, involving written examinations andpractical testing of night- and instrument-flying abilities. A Second Class pilot is a fully-rated combat pilot, qualified to fly by day ornight, able to stand alert, qualified to flyground attack and 'manoeuvring combat'missions and fully instrument rated (with thesame day minima as a Third Class Pilot andwith night minima of 3-nm visibility and a1,500-ft cloudbase). Second Class pilotsreceived salary bonuses (effectively flyingpay) ranging from between 1 5% to 25% ofbasic pay, paid after one year's qualifiedservice. In days gone by, this was the stage atwhich Soviet pilots tended to becomeCommunist Party members. Soviet Regimentsin East Germany included a much greater

proportion of higher-graded pilots than otherFrontal Aviation units.

The First Class Pilot rating requires aminimum of 550 flying hours and 1,200sorties, and is usually achieved after some sixyears of frontline service. First Class Pilotshave weather minima (day and night) of lessthan a mile visibility and a cloudbase of 450-ft. Most frontline pilots can expect toeventually become First Class Pilots, but onlya handful get to the next step on the ladder,wearing the coveted wings of the Sniper Pilot.

Above: Although housedin hardened aircraftshelters Russian fightersin East Germany tendedto operate from aflightline. This aircraft,from the 787th IAP atEberswalde, wears an'Excellence' award on itsnose, applied torecognise the excellenttechnical condition ofthis particular aircraft.

THE MISSION

MOTIVATION AND MORALEYoung and highly motivated, 'Harry' enjoys his job and the access toconsumer goods that his posting in East Germany allows him. Withthe pulling down of the Berlin wall, he is no longer a relatively welloff member of a privileged elite as he was while the Group of SovietForces in Germany were still an army of occupation. As thewithdrawal of Soviet forces from the country gathers pace, thepurpose of the Russian presence is increasingly called into question.But 'Harry' does not see the withdrawal as evidence that his nationhas lost the Cold War. Rather he sees the long-term Soviet presenceas having provided a deterrent to NATO aggression, which has keptthe peace in Europe since the end of the Great Patriotic War. He ispleased that the Cold War is over, and would have much more incommon than his contemporaries flying F-16s at (say) Hahn orSpangdahlem than most people might think.

Top and Below: One ofthe squadrons of theKubinka-based 237thGvTsPAT forms the'Swifts' aerobatic displayteam. The Regiment hasa frontline role, but alsofunctions as a displayand demonstration unit.

Alexander Zuyev (the MiG-29 pilot whodefected to Turkey) admitted to hearingwestern rock music pounding in his headduring afterburner take offs - specifically the'Rolling Stones'. Soviet pilots were clearly asconservative in their musical tastes as manyof their western counterparts - no hip-hop orReggae here! At an air show at EberswaldeFinow, a Soviet pilot was heard teasing

American girls who wanted his friend to posewith them for a photo. "No! You don't wanthim. I am more like Tom Cruise, no?" inalmost flawless English.

Restrictions on low-flying, night-flying,carriage of live weapons and the use ofweapons ranges have been imposed since thecollapse of East Germany, and flights have tobe more closely co-ordinated by the HQ atZossen (which now has a Luftwaffe lodgerunit for airspace co-ordination). The amountof flying has also been cut back, and pilots donot always fly on both days of the week thattheir particular airfield still conducts flyingoperations. No-one knows what will happento the Regiment when it finally returns toRussia, whether they will return home toproper accomodation or to tents, but in themeantime, there are still training missions tobe flown, and morale remains high. Livingconditions are primitive, though and a pilotwith running water in his apartment (and thusable to shave in his own room) is likely to beteased as an 'effete English Gentleman'.

As the Cold War drew to a close, and asdefence cuts began to bite deeply, morale inthe Soviet armed forces generally didplummet. Pay, already eroded by gallopinginflation was delayed for months on end,while corruption, drugs, alcohol abuse, andavoidance of conscription became moreserious. Even in the Group of Soviet Forces itbecame clear that there were problems, asnon-commissioned personnel began to sellequipment from pistols to lorries (and even,in one case, a 'Scud' missile launcher!) on theblack market. But while many believed thepropaganda image of Soviet pilots as beingill-trained drunkards whose morale was atrock bottom, the truth was rather different.

In Frontal Aviation, (as in almost any otherair arm) pilots are an elite, and as such aresomething of a law unto themselves. In Sovietsociety, military pilots enjoyed huge respectand many privileges - including better foodand better medical care than the KGB or Partysupremos. They were carefully selected andhad to achieve and maintain a considerablyhigher standard of physical fitness than pilotsin western air forces. No Soviet airman couldcontinue flying fourth-generation fast jets if herequired glasses, or indeed if his eyesightslipped below the prescribed level ofperfection. No nationality on earth enjoysgetting drunk, maudlin and singing patrioticsongs more than does the average Russian,

THE MISSION

but Soviet pilots tend to keep their drinkingfor stand-downs, with the harshest possiblepenalties imposed on anyone who breachesthe strict '36 hours between bottle andthrottle' rule. This is a considerably longerperiod of abstinence than is required inNATO air forces. Drinking one beer within aday of flying would lead to a prolongedgrounding and harsh disciplinary action. In

some Regiments drinking was banned duringwhole periods of flight training, which couldlast up to a month, even on the Friday nightsof weekend stand-downs. Air Force doctorsdid their best to enforce recommended bed-times and a minimum period of 45 daysmandatory leave was strictly enforced. Pilotswere even encouraged to abstain from sexduring flight training cycles!

Above: Initiallyoperating with sixaircraft, the Swifts teamnow operates as a fiveship, with a four aircraftcore and a single soloaircraft. This ensures thatat least one aircraft is infront of the crowd at alltimes. The Kubinka-baseddemonstration unit wasoriginally designated asthe 234th GVIAP, re-designating as the 237thSAP (SmeshaninyiAviatsionnaya Polk, orMixed AviationRegiment) in 1989. Theunit then became the237th TsPAT (TsentrPozaka, Aviatsionnoi,Techniki - or Centre ofDemonstration ofAviation Techniques.

Above left: One of theSwifts MiG-29s taxiespast a row of Su-24s atKubinka. The latteraircraft wear the samecolour scheme as hasbeen applied to theexport aircraft suppliedto nations like Iran andIraq.

THE MISSION

THE FLYING DAYOn a flying day like this, the pilots of the Regiment are woken at0530, in time to enjoy what was euphemistically termed a 'lightbreakfast' of sausage, eggs, cheese and rolls. After breakfast pilotsdraw their personal weapon - a Makarov 9 mm pistol in the 16th AirArmy. In wartime, even heavier armament might be carried, there isprovision for an AK-47 or AK-74 rifle to be fixed to the ejection seat.The next part of the pilots' daily routine is a check-up by theregiment's doctor. This examination includes temperature, pulse,respiration and blood pressure, and is in many respects as tough asthe annual aircrew medical given to many Western pilots. It can beimagined that a hangover would be difficult to conceal!

Below: This plan viewshows off several aspectsof the MiG-29'sconfiguration, notablythe widely spacedengines. This spacingallows very straightintake ducts, but imposesassymetric handlingproblems in the event ofan engine failure. Thewidely spaced andslightly canted fins arealso clearly visible.

The flying day proper begins with a massbriefing, with the regiment's meteorolgistgiving a thorough briefing on the actual andforecast weather conditions at the airfield andin the local area, at the nominated diversionairfields, and more generally over theoperational area. A second, updated met briefwas given before afternoon flying. The tacticaloperations officer would then outline theobjectives of the day's missions, talkingthrough these in some detail. Often pilotswould already have 'flown' the plannedmission several times in the simulator,

especially after flying time was cut back as aresult of economic constraints. In someregiments it was still customary to 'walkthrough' elements of a mission on the ramp.The morning briefing would also include abriefing from the regiment commander, and afull briefing by the GCI controllers on thevectors and altitudes they would be assigning.

Pilots then confirm their daily SRZO IFFcodes and their tactical callsign. Each pilotchanges his callsign every quarter, tomaintain an element of security. Callsigns arenumerical rather than alpha-numeric, andconsist of a two-digit prefix (used for initialcalls to a particular station) with a three digitsuffix usually serving as the entire callsign.The mass briefing would then conclude,leaving just enough time for the squadroncommander to talk to each of the pilots flyingin the first wave individually, addressing theirindividual training needs, shortcomings andother requirements.

On a flying day, activity will be frenetic,and the aim will be to launch three wavesbefore lunch - at about 1300 hrs - with asecond breakfast after the first wave have

THE MISSION

landed. Pilots will commonly fly on two oreven all three of the waves. A mass debriefand individual debriefs will follow afterlunch, with less intensive flying activity in theafternoon. The final flight of the day wouldusually land by 1600. This was alwaysreferred to as the Krainiye (ultimate), andnever as the posledniye (last) flight, since theRussians remain intensely superstitious. Forthe same reason the regimental code '13' wasusually not assigned. In days gone by pilotswould have spent at least two hours per weekwriting political essays and reading approvedMarxist-Leninist texts. By the late 1980s,especially in the 1 6th Air Army, this wasreplaced by study of flight and tacticalmanuals, flight safety publications, andintelligence reports. Although regiments stillhad Zampolits (political officers) their rolehad generally changed, placing an emphasison welfare, the teaching of enemy strategyand tactics, or acting as flight safety officers.(When I first met 'Harry' at Altenburg Ishowed him the latest copy of World AirPower Journal, which I then edited. Hisreaction left me speechless. "\ have seen. Ver'good!" he said, then pointed out that he'd likeme to give him an older issue, which hehadn't seen, in exchange for his pilot's wings.)

Above: Black-ringedwhite missiles areinevitably dummy oracquisition rounds. Thisaircraft (a MAPOdemonstrator wearing acolour schemedeliberately reminiscentof Indonesian andMalaysian camouflagepatterns) carries thestandard load of two R-27s and four R-73s.(Artur Sarkisyan/MiC-MAPO)

Left: The MiG-29's highinstalled thrust and lowweight give it superbperformance in thevertical, and the aircraftis generally judged tohave delightful handlingcharacteristics. It makesits pilots look good. JohnFarley, BAe's HarrierChief Test Pilotcompared its ease ofhandling with that of thelet Provost trainer. (ArturSarkisyan/MiG-MAPO)

THE MISSION

PREPARING TO TAKE OFF

Above: Pilot andengineer confer duringthe pilot's preflight walk-around check. Thegroundcrew wear blackoveralls, leading to their'Black Men' nickname,which also reflects thefact that they supposedly'work like Ethiopians'.The pilot wears the lateststyle of helmet, withintegral visor. The lack ofoverwing chaff/flaredispensers identify thisaircraft as a very earlymodel 'Fulcrum-A'

We draw our helmets and g-suits and walkout to the flightline at 0845, taking a fewminutes to talk to our assigned aircraft'screw chief. Each aircraft was individuallylooked after by a small groundcrew led by ajunior officer. While a Western fightersquadron will have only two or threecommissioned engineer officers, with seniorNCOs fulfilling positions of greatresponsibility, a typical Russian fightersquadron might have as many as 20engineer lieutenants, with captains andmajors above them. This was necessarybecause the non-commissioned groundcrew(overwhelmingly conscripts) were often fromoutlying Soviet republics, ill-educated andbarely literate in Russian.

In wartime MiG-29s might have launcheddirectly from their earth-covered and heavilycamouflaged hardened aircraft shelters, buttoday, in peacetime, all the aircraft involvedin today's flying programme have been towedto a long flightline beside the runway, next tothe hangars, control tower and operationsbuildings. They will launch in waves,returning to the flightline after each flight. Atthe end of the day's flying, the aircraft willbe towed back to their shelters. Altenburg nolonger maintains aircraft on alert, but wouldonce have had two or four aircraft at fiveminutes readiness, round-the-clock, like allthe MiG-29 bases in Germany. These aircraftwere maintained in a cluster of HASs aroundan alert building, and could sometimes beseen outside their shelters, fully armed with'Archers' and 'Alamos'. In somecircumstances the aircraft were brought up toa higher state of readiness, with the pilotssometimes sitting at cockpit alert, ready tostart engines and taxy.

We complete a brief walk-aroundinspection of the aircraft - not lingering toolong, since that would imply a lack of trustin the 'black men' of the groundcrew, whohave been up half the night making sure thatwe will find nothing wrong with the aircraft!They are known as 'black men' for thecolour of their overalls, though also because,in the Russian vernacular, they 'work likeEthiopians'!

Although this is a training mission, theMiG-29s will carry a full load of 150 roundsof ammunition for the GSh-30-1 cannon.This is standard practice, even when acentreline tank is carried, though on all butthe latest sub-variants this also prevents useof the cannon. Checking the Master Armswitch is off will thus be a regular feature ofany training mission, since if it is not,depressing the trigger will fire the cannon,and not just activate the gun camera. Onone occasion a Zampolit new to the MiG-29thought that he had to arm the system toactivate the gun camera, and almost downedthe Tu-16 bomber acting as his target!Fortunately, he was a poor shot! If thetraining mission is to include simulatedmissile firings R-27 and R-73 acquisitionrounds (or smaller training pods) will becarried below the wing. These will allow thepilot to lock-up a target and do everythingshort of actually launching a weapon.

But our first action on entering the cockpit

THE MISSION

is to make the first of countless checks of theMaster Arm switch.

Once the canopy is closed, the pilotquickly completes his pre-start checks andthen starts the engines. In wartime, for anemergency scramble, the aircraft could taxyout and take off on one engine, shavingprecious seconds if the airfield was about tocome under attack. The second engine wouldthen be started after take off. Normallythough, the engines would be started insequence, and the pilot would scan therelevant instruments to check that oilpressure, RPM and jet pipe temperatureswere correct and stable before releasing thebrakes and easing forward the slide-mountedthrottles to taxy forward. To start, buttons onthe throttles are depressed to unlock themand move them from cut-off to idle, beforeselecting 'both' on the start panel on the righthand console. With the battery on, the startswitch is then pushed, with the right handengine starting first to the accompaniment ofa loud whoosh of compressed air. The lefthand engine starts automatically from airbled from the starboard engine, once thelatter had stabilised at 70% RPM. Leaving theflightline, the MiG-29s would usually taxy

faster than fighters in the West - which in anycase taxy rather quicker than the 'fastwalking pace' officially laid down. Theaircraft halts briefly at the maintenancecheckpoint, where a non-commissioned(usually enlisted) mechanic checks for leaks,checks the control surfaces, and checks thatarmament safety pins were removed. With hischeck complete, the airman salutes, and theMiG-29 may taxy forward.

Above and below: Finalpreparations are made to'Blue 42' before atraining mission. Theaircraft has been halfpulled out of itsrevetment, and will soonbe ready to taxy out tothe runway. Aircraft fromthe first productionbatches remain active.

TAKE OFFTHE MISSION

Today, as we pass the barriers swung back along the sides of thetaxyway (used to block the taxyway to prevent unauthorised takeoffs or defections) 'Harry' exchanges a cheery wave with the 'Blackman' assigned to fire flares for radio silent landing and take offclearances. No-one really thinks about the unusual precautionsdesigned to prevent defection, even though Alexander Zuyev diddefect to Turkey, in a MiG-29, as recently as 20 May 1989. Norwere the taxyway barriers the only obstacle to defectors or thieves.After flying, all the MiGs except those maintained on alert hadlocks fitted to their throttles.

Below: This fully-armedMiG-29 is seen mid-waythrough the start-upsequence, with the portengine intake still open,and with the canopy stillwide. The port intakedoor will swing down onstart-up of that engine,and the pilot will closeand lock the canopybefore he moves forward.The intake ducts aredirectly in line with thecompressor faces andjetpipes. This 'straight-through' design may helpaccount for the engines'remarkable ability tokeep running in the faceof severely disturbedairflow.

As the MiGs come to a halt the 'black man'steps out from under the makeshift umbrella-like structure which shelters him from theworst of the weather and stamps his feet tokeep warm. The two MiG-29s pull to a haltopposite him and their pilots run quicklythrough their take off checks. They confirmthat the annunciator panels were clear of redwarning lights, that canopies were closed andproperly locked, that their harnesses werelocked and that the ejection seats were armedand live. Finally the pilots check that the RPMguages are stable and showing 70% RPM atthe Gl (Ground Idle) setting.

'Harry' taxies forward onto the runway,taking the right hand side of the huge strip ofconcrete. In wartime, he could have taken offfrom the long, arrow-straight taxyway ifnecessary, or from the invisible auxiliaryrunway beside the concrete. With full runway

foundations and a turf-covering, this was farmore than a simple grass strip. Some Russianairfields in East Germany even had a shorttaxyway linking them to a nearby motorwayor road strip. Soviet airfields were built to stayoperational in the face of air attack, though intime of war, MiG-29s would inevitably havedispersed forward, perhaps to a motorwaystrip, or perhaps to a captured NATO airfield.This ability to desert an airfield was reflectedin the fact that radars tended to be truck-mounted, and even the consoles in thecontrol tower could quickly be dismantledand moved. Not for nothing was the MiG-29designed to be compatible with Westernground support equipment. But today wehave the luxury of a full-width runway and'Harry' watches in his mirrors as his wingmanswings out onto the runway behind him.'Harry' waggles his control column so thatthe flapping ailerons and tailerons attract hiswingman's attention. A standard trick in manySoviet regiments is to turn up the nav lightsand strobes to full power on the friendly .aircraft, especially useful when engagingsimilar aircraft types. 'Harry' and hiswingman do so now, though without havinghad a face-to-face brief with the Su-27 pilotswho will 'play' the opposition there can beno guarantee that they will not have decidedto use the same trick! Before take off, thepilots check that the nosewheel steering is inthe low-gain mode, with plus or minus 8° ofmovement, rather than the more sensitivehigh-gain option of plus/minus 30°.

THE MISSION

Right (bottom to top):The MiG-29 enjoyssuperb take-offperformance, with athrust-to-weight ratiowell in excess of unity(1:1) when lightlyloaded. The aircraftaccelerates very rapidlyto its 200 km/h rotatespeed, and the large andpowerful tailerons rotatethe nose positively. Caremust be taken to avoid atailscrape. Once theaircraft is airborne, thepilot cleans up firstbefore pitching up into asteeper climb. Inaerobatic displayroutines, the aircraft canclimb straight into avertical climb andtailslide, or can make animpressive 'Bat turn'.

A deliberate, slow movement of the stickfully forward pitches the tailerons leading-edge down, the signal for the wingman toadvance his throttles to 100%, full militarypower. "Ten, nine, check the brakes, seven,six, brakes holding, four, three, two, one - themandatory ten seconds are up, the RPM hasstabilised", and 'Harry' releases the brakelever on the front of the stick. Sometimes hewould engage burner, but not today. We'relightly loaded, and we need the fuel. In aircombat training configuration, the MiG-29would often enjoy a thrust to weight ratiowell in excess of unity during an afterburnertake-off, which is an unnecessary luxury."Two, one!" counts the wingman after seeingthe lead aircraft start to move. Then hereleases his brakes, and the two aircraftthunder down the runway together.

"200 km/h, rotate". 'Harry' and hiswingman ease back their control columns toraise the nosewheels from the concrete and asthe aircraft reach 230 km/h (124 knots) (abouta second later) they are lifted off the runway.As the aircraft rotates, the danger of thenosewheel throwing up FOD into the intakesvanishes, and the doors in the intakes cycleopen. As the engines start to draw their airfrom the main intakes there is a slight nose-down pitching moment, but 'Harry' and hiswingman are used to this, and trim it outwithout a second thought. The MiC-29's takeoff performance is impressive, especially whenthe aircraft is lightly loaded, and the aircrafthas set world records in the STOL class!

THE MISSION

CLIMBOUT'Harry' retracts his undercarriage before he reaches the limitingspeed of 500 km/h (270 kts) and then pitches the aircraft into a50° climb. His wingman sticks close as they climb through the thinlayer of sulphurous yellow cloud which is so common on this sideof the Iron Curtain. But once we're through, the wingman easesout into a more tactical combat spread. Because many Sovietclient states are still using the tactics they were taught when theyequipped with MiG-21s, many western forces believe that theSoviet air forces still fly around in a tight, 'welded wing' tacticallyinflexible formation, in which the wingman has to spend all histime and energy keeping in position. Not so, especially in the 16thAir Army. Since the mid-1970s the Soviet air forces have beenaware of the limitations of old-style tactics, and have kept up todate with tactical thinking in the West.

Beiow: One of the lastMiG-29s delivered to theRussian air forces, brandnew and pristine.Production of the'Fulcrum-A' continuedalongside production ofthe 'Fulcrum-C'. Whenfunding dried up,production continued,building up a stockpileof unsold aircraft at theLukhovitsky factoryairfield. These aircrafthelped allow newcustomers to takedelivery of aircraft veryquickly, but preventeddevelopment ofadvanced versions.

The magazines and training pamphlets in thepilots' ready room all stress the vitalimportance of initiative, autonomous('freelance') operations, and of tactics whichallow the wingman to be fully exploited.Frontal Aviation MiG-29 pilots are openlydismissive of PVO interceptor pilots for theirslavish reliance on GCI control, often usingthe derisive 'robot' nickname. The Sovietpilot's reputation for dogged adherence toregulations and lack of imagination andinitiative was recognised sufficiently to be thesubject of jokes. In his book 'Fulcrum'(Warner Books), Alexander Zuyev (whodefected in his MiG-29 in 1989) recountedone such joke.

'An American pilot jumps into his cockpitand sits on a thumbtack. "Shit! What's this?"

then throws it out and gets on with hischecks. Same thing happens to an Israelifighter pilot. He puts it in his pocket thinking"This may be useful someday". Same thinghappens to a Russian pilot. "Blyat! What'sthis?" He pulls the pin out of his backside but

THE MISSION

then re-considers. "What if it's meant to bethere?" he thinks, so to be safe, he sticks itback in his ass/

As we climb to the pre-briefed exercisearea, 'Harry' makes the necessary switchselections to ready his aircraft for air combattraining. After checking the Master Arm is off,he selects the relevant missile (R-27 for a BVRengagement, R-73 for close-in) and thenmoves to the armament control panel,flipping the lock-on switch from 'Enemy' to'Friend'. Without making this selection, theIFF would not allow the radar to lock on to afriendly aircraft. Munitions fusing is thenselected to 'air'.

The next task is to set up the radar for theengagement. The Delta-H switch is turned toits second position, which will scan 6,000 ftabove our flight level, since it is our intentionto sneak up on the Su-27s from below, givingour radars the relatively easy task of lookingup, and complicating life for the enemy byforcing them to look down and pick us outfrom the ground clutter. Finally we select theforward hemisphere setting, and set the radarmode switch to 'Auto'. When we actuallytransmit, the computer will automaticallytrack ten targets, analysing speeds, range and

closing angle to assign threat priority order.But initially we leave the radar in the nakal(standby) mode, turned on, warmed up butnot transmitting. For now we cannot bedetected by the enemy's radar warningreceivers. Finally we confirm that the MasterArm switch is off while switching the weaponscontrol system mode switch to 'Radar'.

Finally the pilots turn on their SPO-1 5 radarwarning receivers. If the aircraft is illuminatedby any hostile radar, bleeps will sound intheir headsets and various lights on the RWRdisplay will illuminate. Lights along thebottom indicate the threat type, while lightsaround an aircraft plan view shape indicaterange, bearing and type (search, track, orlock-on) of radar signal.

Because the engagement will begin atBeyond Visual Range, we will only check theIRST system and helmet-mounted sight, andthe associated R-73 missiles, but will notselect them for immediate use. Similarly weset up the gunsight for the anticipatedwingspan of the target (which will makeranging more accurate) and adjust the HUDbrightness to take account of the ambientlight. If necessary we will pull up the thick,smoked-glass shield which shades the HUD.

Above: At least two ofMAPO's demonstrators(coded 777 and 999)wore a distinctive bluetoned camouflage. Thisechoed the colourscheme worn byIndonesian F-16s, andmarked a deliberatemove away from thestandard Russiancamouflage. Soviet-stylered stars were replacedby more modern Russiantricolour flags, at leaston the tail fins. (Art u rSarkisyan/MiC-MAPO)

THE MISSION

BVR COMBAT

With preparations complete, 'Harry' checks in with the formation'sassigned battle control officer in the Ground Control Interceptbunker at the Regimental headquarters. Sitting behind a radar screenthe battle control officer will control the initial phase of theengagement, helping the MiG-29s get into the ideal firing position,and giving advice and information about threats and the overalltactical situation. The role of the Soviet GCI controller is still widelymisunderstood. He is there to provide information and offer advice,but many Russian fighter pilots feel (with some justification) thatthey are actually less reliant on GCI control than US pilots are oncontrol from AWACS aircraft.

Above: A Soviet MiG-29demonstrates its agilityat medium altitude. Theexact camouflage patternapplied to Soviet MiG-29s varied widely,sometimes with thedarker shade forward,sometimes with darkspine and wingtips.(Artur Sarkisyan/MiC-MAPO)

Right: For BVR combat,the MiG-29 relies on apair of R-27 semi-activeradar homing missiles,carried on the inboardunder wing pylons. Theinitial stages of anengagement willtypically be conductedunder the control of aGCI or AWACScontroller, who gives theMiG-29 pilot guidance,advice and tacticalinformation. (ArturSarkisyan/MiC-MAPO)

In a typical training sortie pitting pairs ofaircraft from the same regiment against eachother, another battle control officer may besitting in the same room, guiding the 'enemy'formation. But today the 'enemy' are Su-27sfrom a Regiment based in Poland, who willbe simulating American F-15s. Other pairs ofAltenburg MiG-29s will be targeted againstMiG-27s simulating NATO fighter bombers,but for now, that is not our concern.

Soviet pilots do not get the sameopportunities for dissimilar air combattraining as do their NATO counterparts, sincetheir is much more commonality between theWarsaw Treaty member nations. If all yourallies are flying the same basic types(principally the MiG-21, MiG-23 and MiG-29) that is all you will get to fight against.However, individual pilots, squadrons andeven whole regiments do sometimes deployto combat training centres like Mary inTurkmenistan, where they could fly againstfighters being deliberately flown to simulatespecific Western types, by specially trained'Aggressor' pilots, using real-world Westerntactics and USAF style AWACS and EWsupport. But such opportunities were rare,and most ACM training was conducted at

THE MISSION

squadron level. Thus even today's Su-27srepresent an unfamiliar and exotic opponent.

A beep in the headphones and a flash ofgreen and yellow lights in the SPO-15 RWRdisplay indicate that the formation has justbeen swept by a search radar. The lights tell

us that the enemy fighter is still too far awayto get a lock-on, but before he does so, it istime to react. The MiC-29 formation breaksturning perpendicular to the threat radar (apulse Doppler radar requiring differentialspeed (overtake or closure) to see a target. By

Above: One of Mikoyan'sdemonstrator aircraftturns over the factoryairfield at Lukhovitsky. Atleast 26 MiG-29s arevisible on the airfield'scrowded storage andflight test ramps. Theavailability of so manyunsold 'Fulcrum-A'airframes prompted thefactory and OKB toaggressively marketupgraded versions of thisbasic variant, with somesuccess. (ArturSarkisyan/MiC-MAPO)

Left: The MiG-29'ssuperb high Alpha andlow speed handlingcharacteristics gave theaircraft a useful edge inany low-speed, closerange engagement, whilethe aircraft's very rapidacceleration made it auseful BVR missilelaunch platform. (ArturSarkisyan/MiC-MAPO)

THE MISSION

RANGE/LOITER PERFORMANCEThe MiG-29's radius of action varies enormously accordingto altitude and airspeed. Generally high altitude andlowspeed gives longer range.The standard MiG-29Tulcrum-A' carries 4,400kg with a centreline fuel tank. Ituses 400kg for start-up, taxi, and take-off, 500kg during theengagment (including one minute in afterburner), andusualy requires a 1,000kg reserve on its return to base.

turning across the enemy's track, we becomeeffectively invisible, and disappear from hisradar. If the enemy had been working withGCI we might also have dived to the ground,aiming to go below the GCI's radar horizon.But against autonomous 'F-15s' 'Harry'switches the radar from 'standby' toilluminate and turns back in towards thetarget as soon as the radar has resolved someof the false returns and clutter generated as itbegan to transmit.

A rectangular radar cursor box appearedover one of the blips on the display screen."Rubege odin" (radar lock on) 'Harry' tellsthe battle control officer and his wingman.Although the radar contact is still too faraway to see, GCI can tell the MiG-29 pilotwhether it is friendly or hostile, if this is notapparent from the target's speed, altitude,heading and IFF responses. Lock-on isachieved by clicking a white button on theinner throttle. The IFF then interrogates thetarget, and the computer works out firingparameters and solutions from target courseand speed.

"Pusk razrayshon" (Launch is approved)says a friendly female voice in 'Harry'sheadset. The grating and metallic tones of thefactory-programmed female voice can easilybe replaced at unit level, and many unitshave persuaded local sirens to record thevarious messages used by the voice warningsystem. In the 968th IAP the messages havebeen taped by a Soviet GCI controller

THE MISSION

Left: Burners ablaze, aMiG-29 thunders intothe air, its landing gearjust beginning itsretraction. (ArturSarkisyan/MiC-MAPO)

Right: The MiG-29 is atits most dangerous in alow-speed turning fight,and especially in thevertical. (ArturSarkisyan/MiC-MAPO)

renowned for her attractiveness andsensuously husky voice.

The MiG-29 normally carries two R-27 (AA-10 'Alamo') missiles, either two semi-activeradar homing missiles, or one SARH versionand one IR homing. If a mixed pair arecarried they will often both be fired together,in a ripple, to maximise the probability ofachieving a kill. The two missiles home onthe target independently, and both requirecountering in different ways. Even if twoSARH versions are carried they may both befired together, especially if the fight is aboutto go from being a BVR 'joust' to a close-in'knife fight'.

The reason for this is simple. If only onemissile is fired, leaving one 'Alamo' on thelaunch aircraft, the remaining missile imposessevere limitations on the aircraft. With anassymetric underwing load of that sort, theMiG-29 is limited to 1 5° AoA, instead of 24°.The MiG-295 solved this problem by allowingthe simultaneous launch of two R-27s againstseparate targets.

Today, Harry simulates the launch of one R-27, calling "Range Two" as he does so. Havingalready calculated the range and missile flighttime he simultaneously punches the stopwatchbutton on the cockpit clock. This is vital andwill keep him aware of the missile's flight timeleft to run. He then turns hard away from thetarget, so that he is flying down one edge ofhis radar cone while the semi-active missileflies down the other edge. This complicatesthe enemy's task in returning the shot. 'Harry'and his GCI controller carefully monitor thetarget's reaction, and 'Harry' continues tomanoeuvre to prevent the target, and hismissile, from flying outside the cone generatedby the missile illuminator. When the missilereaches its target (and when the stopwatchhand reaches the pre-calculated point,showing the pilot that this has happened)'Harry' can complete his breakawaymanoeuvre, and run away out of range of areturn missile shot. With help from the battlecontrol officer he can then set up for a secondsimulated missile launch opportunity.

It will not always be possible or desirable tofire a BVR missile and run away, and theengagement may flow naturally to a close-range encounter using IR-homing missiles.

THE MISSION

CLOSE-IN COMBATThe primary sensor in the close-in fight is the IRST, which can detect,locate, and track a target from its IR signature, and which can directthe seeker-heads of the IR-homing R-73 missiles towards the target.At short BVR ranges, the IRST can function as a passive targetdetection system, freeing the pilot from reliance on his radar.

Above: The key to theMiG-29's close-incombat capability lies inthe pilot's ability todesignate off-boresighttargets for his weaponssystem (using a helmetsight) and in his ability todrag the aircraft's noseoff-axis, a capabilitydubbed 'pointability' bysome. This means thatthe MiG-29 represents asignificant threat evenwhen its nose may bepointing some way offfrom the target. (ArturSarkisyan/MiC-MAPO)

Even more significantly, the weaponscomputer can link the missile seekers to thepilots helmet, whose position is measuredusing tiny IR sensors. This allows the weaponssystem to 'know' where the pilot is looking.Since the missiles can be slaved to the helmetthey can thus follow the direction in whichthe pilot is looking, and will automaticallylock on to any target he sees. Thus the pilotonly has to look at the enemy to be able tolock on his IR-homing missiles. In a fast-moving dogfight, many MiG-29 pilots fly withthe missile trigger depressed, so that if theHMS or IRST locks onto a target as it flashespast, the missile will lock on and fireautomatically.

In our training exercise, after the secondsimulated R-27 shot, 'Harry' continues toclose with the Su-27 to engage it at close

range. As soon as the simulated missilereaches its target 'Harry' switches the sensorselector from 'Radar' to 'Close Combat InfraRed'. Immediately two parallel lines appearedin the HUD indicating the limits of the IRSTsensor's lock-on zone. 'Harry' manoeuvreshard to place the target between these linesand could squeeze the trigger, committing amissile to launch as soon as the enemy islocked-up. Instead, he waits for the enemyaircraft to enter the IRST 'ladder' and as thelock-on tone growls in his headset, hesqueezes the trigger. "Pusk" (launch) he calls.

Even in a maximum range head-on shot,the R-73 'Archer' is extremely hard to defeat.It is extremely agile, very fast, and has a longreach, so is almost impossible to out-manoeuvre. Moreover, the missileincorporates sophisticated algorithms whichallow it to discriminate between ihe IRsignature of its targets, and the IR signatureoffered by decoy flares.

If the opponent survives the first missile, orif the MiG-29 is sucked into a turning fightwith enemy survivors, the 'Archer' is evenmore effective in a turning fight. With theweapons control system selector switched to'Shlem' (helmet) and the trigger depressed, amissile will fire automatically if either the

THE MISSION

helmet or the IRST cues the missile seekerheads onto a target and they achieve a lock-on. This allows the pilot to designate a targetand achieve lock-on without having tomanoeuvre to put that target into his HUD.Essentially, if he can see the target anywherein the whole windscreen, he can fire amissile. And as if that were not enough, the

pilot can momentarily drag the nose of theMiG-29 up to 90° away from the direction offlight by performing the equivalent to anairshow 'Cobra' manoeuvre. This can beenough to give the MiG-29 pilot a missilesnapshot against a target flying directlyopposite him on the other side of a circle, ora target flying directly above him.

Above: The MiG-29'sprimary WVR missile isthe R-73 (NATO AA-11'Archer') rated by manyas being the best close-range AAM in serviceanywhere in the world.(Artur Sarkisyan/MiC-MAPO)

Left: Still laden with afull missile load, one ofMikoyan's MIG-29demonstrators settles onfinal approach. Becauseof the lack of clearancebetween jetpipes andrunway, the MiG-29approaches fast, at arelatively flat angle, andis unable to use anysignificant amount ofaerodynamic braking.

THE MISSION

BUGGING OUT AND RUNNING HOMEOnce you are out of missiles (and the MiG-29 carries four R-73s inaddition to its two R-27s, or six R-73s) the sensible option is to bug-out and run away, returning to base for reloads. But as any fighterpilot in the world will confirm, there is no kill like a guns kill, and ina training engagement (where there is no danger of being 'blownaway' by an unsporting enemy who still has a missile left) thetemptation to practise one's guns-tracking can be irresistable. Thus,as the Su-27s attempt to turn and burn with the MiG-29s (despitestill being heavily laden with fuel for their long journey back to base)the MiG-29 pilots go in for the kill. Selecting the 'narrow field ofview' for the IRST, 'Harry' sets the cannon rate of fire selector toburst, which would let loose 25 rounds of HE 30-mm ammunitionwith every squeeze of the trigger, if he had not re-checked that theMaster Armament switch was indeed still 'Off.

To destroy his opponent using the gun'Harry' manoeuvres to place the aimingreticle over the target. The letter 'A' appearsin the HUD as the laser rangefinder fires,refining the aiming solution. A tone in the

headset indicates laser and IRST lock-on.Once this is achieved, MiG-29 pilots insistthe gun cannot miss! When he told meabout the cannon and its laser rangingsystem, Mikhail Waldenberg, one of theaircraft's creators said that: "If I'd knownhow accurate the gun was going to be, I'dhave halved the capacity of the ammunitiontank. You don't need 150 rounds. Ever."

In a real engagement, there would beknow way of telling whether one of thehostiles might still have a missile, so the besttactic would be to 'bug out' and run away.But while tangling with manoeuvrable fast jetopponents for a guns kill is never a goodidea, there are times when the gun can beuseful. If you get closer to your target thanthe minimum range of your missile, the gunis a handy weapon to have in reserve. Thegun can be used for delivering a 'warning

Above: A Mikoyan demonstrator settlesonto Zhukhovskii's long runway. MiC-MAPO maintains a test complex at theonce-secret base. (ArturSarkisyan/MiG-MAPO)

Below: Clouds of smoke stream fromthe MiG-29's tyres as it 'arrives'. Thebrake chute is already fully deployed inthis photo, having been actuated wellbefore touchdown.

THE MISSION

shot' across the bows of an aircraft which isfailing to obey instructions during a short-of-war intercept. The gun also represents a low-cost method of engaging low-value orunarmed targets, and gives a ground strafecapability.

Nothing burns fuel like a manoeuvringdogfight, however, and it is soon time for'Harry' and his wingman to break off theengagement and return to Nöbitz.

With 1000 kg of fuel remaining, we willhold between 210 and 215 km/h (113-166kts) on approach, touching down at 190km/h (103 kts). 'Harry' sets the throttle to80% RPM, and deploys the flap to thelanding position (the flap limiting speed is350 km/h (189 kts). The danger of atailscrape means that the approach has to belong, fast and flat, but to reduce speed forthe touchdown, instead of raising the nosefurther, 'Harry' deploys the brake chute whilestil l airborne. The clover-leaf chute deployswith a loud crack and the aircraft

decelerates, dropping gently onto the runwayfor a soft and gentle touchdown. Behindhim, his less experienced wingman getsslightly low on approach, adding power tocompensate as the voice warning systemgently suggests: "Glissad Opasno!"(Glideslope is dangerous!). Taxying back in,'Harry' and his wingmen turn wide into theflight line, wagging tail sections out over thegrass as they release the brake chutes. This isa helpful gesture for the groundcrew, whodon't have so far to walk to retrieve thechutes. The two MiG-29s taxy back to theirparking spaces, guided by marshallers, andshut down their engines. As the canopiescome up, 'black men' plug in the built-intest equipment and brandish aircraft servicingrecords for the pilots to sign. An astonishingamount of data is recorded on tape duringevery flight, and this is downloaded foranalysis. Then it's back to the operationsbuilding for debriefing and that well-deserved second breakfast.

Below: This MiG-29 isseen landing atFarnborough during its1988 debut. The fullydeployed brake chute isdragging along therunway, and willcontinue to do so untilthe nosewheels arelowered.

A Czechoslovakia!! MiG-29manoeuvres hard during anairshow performance. MajorVaclav 'Wendy' Vasek was oneof the leading exponents of theMiG-29 at internationalairshows, demonstrating thatthe tailslide and cobra werenot the sole preserve ofMikoyan OKB test pilots.

MiG-29IN FOCUS

The MiG-29 is a fascinating aircraftfrom a technical standpoint,

aerodynamically more advancedthan any Western fighter, yet withsystems and avionics which verge

on the primitive.

MiG-29 IN FOCUS

MlG-29 'FULCRUM-A', 968TH IAPNöbitz (also known as Altenburg) was traditionally a reconnaissance and fighter-bomber base, transferring to thefighter role in 1989, when the 16th Air Army gained a less overtly offensive posture. The based MiG-27Ds andMiG-27Ms moved to Grossenhain to replace departing Su-24s, and were themselves replaced by the 968th IAP,which moved in from Russia. The Regiment's squadrons used a mix of red-coded 'Fulcrum-C's and some much olderventral-finned 'Fulcrum-As' which wore yellow codes, thinly outlined in blue. These aircraft (drawn from the firstMiG-29 production batches) carried a unit badge, in the shape of a swept red star, superimposed on a blue wing.This badge was almost identical to the insignia worn by Yak-1Ms, Yak-7s and Yak-9s of the 3rd Independent AirCorps during the Great Patriotic War. Though old, the unit's aircraft were in top-notch condition, and had beenupgraded with broad-chord rudders and some other features normally associated with later 'Fulcrum' variants.

RADARThe actual range performance and target discrimination offered by the MiG-29 s N-019's radar (known to NATO as 'Slot Back 1') is impressive, and isbroadly comparable with the parametric figures of equivalent Western radars.Where the system falls down is in the user-friendliness with which informationis presented to the pilot, while lack of onboard processing capacity limitsmultiple target tracking capability and makes automatic target prioritisationvirtually impossible. The pilot therefore has to rely on off-board sensors andcontrol agencies.

DOGFIGHTER

With its combination of superb high Alpha handling, an unparallelled ability to pointthe nose (and thus the weapons) 'off axis' and powerful short-range armament, the MiG-29 is a superb close-in fighter aircraft. The MiG-29 pilot has an unmatched ability topull the nose of his aircraft away from his direction of flight, and then to engage targetsthroughout most of his forward hemisphere. He does not have to point the nose straightat the enemy (nor even ensure that the enemy aircraft is somewhere in the HUD) inorder to be able to take a gun or missile snapshot. The MiG-29's internal gun is arelatively slow-firing but very powerful 30-mm cannon, and a combination of laserranging and well-written software algorithms make it devastatingly accurate. 150rounds of ammunition are carried for the gun.

MISSILE'Harry's MiG-29 is seen here launching a Vympel R-73 IR-homingmissile. The R-73 (known to NATO as the AA-11 'Archer') combinestremendous agility with rapid acceleration and a wide-angle seekercapable of seeing targets way-offthe missile's boresight. With a helmetmounted sight, 'Harry can engage almost any aircraft which enters hisfield of view, without having to manoeuvre to put the enemy on hisnose. The R-73 s agility is endowed by fore and aft control surfaces,and a vectoring rocket motor.

This magnificent painting of a 968th IAP MiG-29 was produced by the late Keith Fretwell, who tragically died during the preparation of this book. It is reproduced

by kind permission of Aerospace Publishing, who produce the magnificent quarterly magazine World Air Power Journal. Volumes 20 and 21 of the journal contained

an in-depth examination of the Soviet air forces in the former East Germany, and other issues contain detailed technical features on a range of modern military

aircraft and air power topics.World Air Power Journal is available direct from Aerospace Publishing, full details may be obtained by calling 044-(0) 181 -740-9554

(UK) or 001-203-838-7979/7804 (USA).

MiG-29 IN FOCUS

FLYING CONTROLSThe F-117A's flying control surfacesconsist of two elevons on the trailingedge of each wing, for pitch and rollcontrol, while the all-moving tailfins(ruddervators) can move in unison toprovide yaw control, or differentially togive pitch control. The control surfacesare actuated via the quadruplex GECAstronics fly by wire control system.

BADGEIf unit badges are rare on Russian combat aircraft, individual insignia or 'noseart' is even less common. This aircraft was the one of two MiG-29s at Pütnitz tocarry the spectacular leaping tiger motif seen here, though several of the 85thGvIAP MiG-29s at Merseburg wore a 'leaping leopard' badge in much the sameposition.

INTAKESThe MiG-29 is optimised for operation from semi-prepared strips, andhas a unique system to prevent foreign object ingestion by the engines. Onthe ground (until the nosewheel rotates on take off) the main intakes areshut off by huge solid (but perforated) doors, and the engines draw thenecessary flow of air through spring-loaded loeuvres in the top of eachwing root. The doors shut again on landing, when the nosewheel hits therunway. Later MiG-29 versions have retractable meshed grids in place ofthe solid doors, and are thus able to dispense with the auxiliary intakeloeuvres, providing extra internal volume for additional fuel.

SUB-VARIANTThe very first production MiG-29s had small auxiliary ventral fins below the tailplanes,

providing enhanced directional stability. These were removed when aircraft began to befitted with the distinctive chafflflare dispenser fairings which ran forward from the fin-roots, above the wing root. Later MiG-29s also featured extended chord rudders, andvortex generators at the base of the nose-mounted pitot, though these features wereapplied to earlier aircraft by retrofit. The overwing chafflflare dispensers were notgenerally applied by retrofit, though at least one Putnitz-based aircraft did have them,and bore obvious signs of having had its ventral fins removed. Early MiG-29s also hada 'Swift Rod' ILS antenna projecting forward from the fairing under the nose.

MiG-29 IN FOCUS

MlG-29 *FULCRUM-A'This early production MiG-29 was assigned to the 773rd Istrebeitelnyi AviatsionnayaPolk (Fighter Aviation Regiment) at Putnitz on the northern coast of the former EastGermany during the late 1980s and early 1990s. The Regiment formed one third of the16th Gvardesiskiya Istrebeitelnyi Aviatsionnaya Diviziya (Guards Fighter AviationDivision) headquartered at Putnitz on the northern coast, with other MiG-29 regimentsat Witstock and at Eberswalde, north-east of Berlin. The Russians had three fighterdivisions in East Germany, each with three Regiments of about 36 MiG-29s, though oneDivision still had one MiG-23 equipped Regiment. Further back from the frontier, EastGermany's own air force had two three-Regiment fighter divisions, one with twoRegiments of MiG-21s and one of MiG-29s, and one with two of MiG-21s and one ofMiG-23s. The 773rd IAP was the second MiG-29 regiment in East Germany, (and thefifth in the Soviet air forces), re-equipping in 1987. By 1990, the 773rd IAP had largelyre-equipped with the 'Fulcrum-C, but eight early aircraft remained on charge, two stillwith ventral fins.

COLOUR SCHEMEMost MiG-29s wear an air-superiority-type colour scheme, with grey undersidesand two-tone grey/grey-blue and grey/blue-green disruptive camouflage on theupper surfaces. In East Germany there were many exceptions, however, withoverall white and even two-tone green camouflaged aircraft common. Even thebasic camouflage was subject to a great deal of tonal variation. National insigniawas carried in the form of the traditional five-pointed Soviet red star, thinlyoutlined in white and red, on the outer surfaces of the tailfins and above andbelow each wing. Within the regiment, aircraft were identified by a large two-digit numerical code on the intake sides, this sometimes being repeated in smallercharacters on the fin-caps. At Putnitz, most aircraft had white codes, thinlyoutlined in blue.

WARLOAD

The MiG-29 has seven hardpoints for external stores, one onthe centreline (usually used for the carriage of an external fueltank) and three below each wing. On some aircraft (thosemodified to MiG-295 standards) the inboard underwingpylons are 'plumbed' for the carriage of external fuel tanks,though the underwing hardpoints usually carry the aircraft'sweapons. The baseline MiG-29 does have a basic air-to-ground capability, using B8M rocket pods or 'dumb' 500-kgbombs, but the primary mission is air-to-air, and the standardweapon load consists of two long-range R-27 (AA-10 'Alamo')AAMs (usually both semi-active radar homing) and four R-73(AA-11 'Archer') short-range IR-homing AAMs. The R-73swere sometimes replaced by older, less effective R-60 (AA-8'Aphid') missiles, using the same form ofguidnce. The R-73 isbelieved by many to be the finest short range AAM in serviceworldwide.

MiG-29 IN FOCUS

PILOTThe traditional Western view of the Soviet fighter pilot was that hewas an unthinking and inflexible automaton, ill-trained, inirregular flying practise, and with little tactical knowledge. In fact,

o J J o L o J

by the time the MiG-29 entered service, Frontal Aviation wasfocusing an unparallelled degree of attention on the need forindependence, initiative, and tactical flexibility, while trainingbecame progressively more realistic and more useful. When the MiG-29 first arrived in East Germany, Russian pilots would return fromsorties and give impromptu aerobatic displays over the base, giving anindication of their happiness with their new mount, and indicating asea-change in attitudes. The pilots sent to Regiments stationed in EastGermany were the best pilots in the air forces, such was the vitalimportance of their assignment and the intense competition for whatwere regarded as 'plum overseas postings. Before the collapse of theBerlin Wall, Soviet forces in East Germany were an economic elite,far wealthier than their comrades back in Mother Russia and withrelatively easy access to Western consumer goods.

CONFIGURATION

When the MiG-29 first appeared there was a wave of accusation that theRussians had 'copied' this or that Western aircraft type, based on the fact that itstwin engines and twin fins gave the aircraft a passing similarity to the F-14, F-15 or F/A-18. The aircraft was closest in configuration to the Hornet, and wasdesigned to a similar concept as the FIA-18'sprecursor, the YF-17. But the MiG-29 differs from the US types in many areas, and it is the differences which givethe aircraft its unique capabilities. "Just because you may see your neighbourtoiling in his field does not mean that you do not work just as hard in yourown!" was a common and perhaps typically Russian response to the accusation.

POWERPLANTThe MiG-29 is powered by a pair ofRD-33 afterburning turbofans, each rated at 81.42kN or 18,300-lb st by the manufacturers, the engine has beenreferred to under a number of manufacturers designations. Designed by Alexander Sarkisov, General Designer of the Isotov Engine Company, the enginewas originally produced under the Isotov 'label', though the company was successively re-named as the Leningrad Scientific Industrial Corporation, andthen as the Klimov corporation. To confuse matters further, while designed by the Isotov/LeningradlKlimov concern, the engine was built by V.Chernyshev,formerly known as the Moscow State Machine Building Company. But whatever the engines official name, it is a superb fighter powerplant, light yetproducing high thrust, and remarkably tolerant of heavy throttle handling and of disturbed airflow in the intakes. The engines keep running throughmanoeuvres like the tailslide or Cobra, and neither surge nor stall when the trottles are slammed to and from maximum power or afterburner. Theengine is handicapped by a relatively short time between overhauls, a short life and by a strong smoke signature at certain power settings, and whencertain types of fuel are used. Engine access is remarkably straightforward, with the lower parts of each nacelle coming off in one piece, and with a builtin winch provided. An engine change can be achieved within about 45 minutes by a small team of groundcrew. Some export customers have deliberatelyde-tuned the engines of their MiG-29s in order to gain longer overhaul intervals and extended engine life. Among these de-rated MiG-29s are thoseoperated by the German Luftwaffe, which have nevertheless impressed most of those they've come up against.

MiG-29 IN FOCUS

FUEL SYSTEMFuel is stored in tanks in the upper fuselage, and in integral tanksin the wings. The MiG-29 can also carry a centreline drop tank,though with this in place, speed is limited to below Mach 0.9 andon most variants, carriage of the centreline tank means that thegun cannot be fired. For ferry flights some MiG-29s could carryadditional tanks underwing, though these were not stressed forcombat, and prevented carriage of the primary BVR weapon, sincethey used the same hardpoint. Although an inflight refuellingprobe has now been designed and proved, Soviet MiG-29s havenever been equipped for inflight refuelling.

ROLEWithin the Soviet Group of Forces in Germany, the eight MiG-29regiments operated in the tactical fighter role, principally giving the16th Air Army its battlefield air superiority and point air defencecapability. Though lack of internal fuel limited the type's range, theMiG-29s would have flown escort and sweep missions in support ofSoviet fighter bombers as they punched through sanitised corridors inNATO's air defences, had the Cold War ever turned hot. Highlycapable, heavily armed and available in very large numbers, the 16thAir Army's MiG-29s would have presented NATO fighter pilots witha very difficult problem.

FLYING CONTROLSThe MiG-29 has conventional flying control surfaces, with outboard ailerons, rudders on the trailing edge ofeach fin, and an all-flying tailplane which can operate symmetrically for pitch control (like an ordinaryelevator) or differentially for roll control, augmenting the ailerons. The control surfaces are actuated using aconventional (if long-throw) central control column and conventional rudder pedals. Secondary controlsurfaces include full-span leading edge flaps and trailing edge flaps inboard of the ailerons. Unusually, thebasic MiG-29 does not feature a fly by wire control system, although the pilots control inputs do go to thecontrol surfaces via a sophisticated system of autostabilisers, aileron/rudder interconnects and computers,which help give the aircraft its extremely benign high Alpha handling characteristics. At very high angles ofattack, for example, the pilot might feed in a lateral stick movement to demand a roll rate, but the aircraftwill respond by feeding in progressively more rudder, and less aileron. Improvements to the basic MiG-29have resulted in progressively greater permissable control surface deflections, improving agility andbroadening the permissable Alpha envelope.

MiG-29 IN FOCUS

1. Oxygen control panel

2. Automatic flight control

system control panel

3. Communication control

panel

4. Flaps control panel

5. Throttle control lever

6. Aiming complex control

panel

7. Automatic flight control

system controller

8. Radar complex control

panel

9. Landing gear control valve

10. Canopy manual operating

handle

I I. Landing-lamp control panel

12. Landing gear emergency

extension handle

13. Pilot approach display

14. Altitude indicator

15. Speed indicator

16. Optical and electronic

aiming and navigation

complex control panel

17. Angle-of-attack and

acceleration indicator

18. Emergency braking valve

handle

19. Flight director indicator

20. Navigation instrument

21. Heading setting panel for

attitude and heading

reference

22. Pitot static tube selector

switch

23. Voltmeter

24. Cabin air temperature

selector

25. Braking system pressure

gauge

26. Clock

27. Machmeter

28. Vertical speed, turn-and-slip

indicator

29. Nose wheel braking handle

30. Head-up display and its

control panel

3 I. Radio altimeter altitude

indicator

32. Jamming release system

control panel

33. Pilot oxygen supply indicator

34. Hydraulic and pneumatic

system pressure indicator

35. Gas temperature indicator

36. Tachometer indicator

37. Direct visibility indicator

38. Fuel quantity and flow meter

system indicator

39. Ramp position indicator

40. Illumination warning station

indicator

41. Display of system EKRAN

42. Jamming station control

panel

43. Aircraft control stick

44. IFF system panel

45. Power plant emergency

modes control board

46. Magnetic compass

47. Annuciators

48. Short-range navigation and

landing system control

panel

49. Cabin, glass, probe heating

control panel

50. Canopy emergency jettison

handle

51. Internal and external lighting

panel

52. Ventilation selector switch

CANOPY-PILOT

53. Radio equipment control

panel

54. Illumination warning station

control panel

55. Radio compass control

panel

56. Intercabin lighting panel

57. IFF system panel

58. Guidance system control

panel

59. Aircraft power generating

system switching board

60. Engines starting control

panel

61. Aircraft systems switching

board

62. Aircraft systems control

panel

63. Combined armament-

control system control

panel

MiG-29 IN FOCUS

THE EJECTION SEAT IN ACTION

Below and below right: Zvezda'sK-36 seat saved two pilots whentheir 'Fulcrum-Cs' collided duringthe International Air Tattoo at RAFFairford. The pilots of the aircraftlost sight of each other during alooping manoeuvre. One aircraftsliced up through the other, almostsevering its nose and transforming itinto a fireball, from which theshocked pilot ejected. Meanwhilethe first aircraft, having lost most ofone wing and one tailplane entereda flat spin, the pilot again ejectingsafely. Neither pilot was badlyinjured.

If a fighter pilot has to use the ejection seat, he's probably lostthe fight, but his survival (perhaps to fight another day) may befar more important than the loss of his aircraft. The MiG-29'sZvezda K-36D seat maximises the chances of survival for theMiG-29 pilot. The knowledge that the seat confers a high chanceof survival may improve pilot morale, and may also giveenhanced confidence in performing edge-of-the-envelopemanoeuvres. The first public demonstration of the MiG-29'sextraordinary seat took place during the 1989 Paris Air Salon,when test pilot Anatoly Kvotchur ejected from his aircraft as ityawed violently into a vertical dive, from minimum altitude,probably after a birdstrike. Since then, other MiG-29 crasheshave provided similarly high-profile 'miraculous escapes' fromseemingly unsurvivable accidents. The seat is widely regarded asbeing the best ejection seat in service today.

Main sequence, top left to bottomright: The Paris accident happened onthe opening day of the 1989 AirSalon, as Anatoly Kvotchur engagedfull afterburner at the end of a highAlpha pass. The starboard enginestalled (perhaps after taking abirdstrike) and the aircraft departed,rolling right and diving towards theground. Kvotchur ejected about 250ft from the ground, with the aircraftin an 80° inverted dive. This meantthat Kvotchur's ejection actually firedhim towards the ground. Despite thishe survived with only minor injuries,subsequently having to eject from asecond MiG-29.

MiG-29

US FIGHTER PILOT'SPERSPECTIVE:ERGONOMICS AND COCKPIT WORKLOADA growing number of NATO fighter pilotshave now flown against NATO's own MiG-29sothe aircraft inherited from the EastGerman air force and taken into service bythe Luftwaffe when the two Germanics re-unified. A smaller number have even flownin the German two-seaters, seeing aircombat with the MiG-29 from both sides ofthe coin. These pilots have included anumber of USAFE F-16 pilots. They have auniquely interesting perspective on theMiG-29 because they fly what is nominallyNATO's equivalent to the aircraft. Frontlineaircrew who've flown the Luftwaffe MiG-29shave seen what the aeroplane is actuallylike as a fighter, and have not simply flownit merely as an aerodynamic demonstrationwith its weapons systems turned off.

A USAFE F-16C squadron commander whoseunit was one of those which has fought mockbattles with the German MiG-29s commentedthat: "We started off with simple one versusone BFM engagements with the MiG-29 fromvarious starting parameters, offensive,defensive or neutral. We then progressed totwo versus two, and then we went to the fourversus four and we even did a few two versus2 + 2, two of us against two German F-4s andtwo MiG-29s. As a rule, we felt like we didvery well. In the BFM, we learned somesignificant lessons, especially withmanoeuvrability comparisons between theaeroplanes, the differences in thrust to weightratios, some of the advantages anddisadvantages of the two aircraft andexploring the various air speed regimes"

Some of his pilots (who cannot be namedbecause they went on to fly operationalmissions over Bosnia) described what they sawas the MiG-29's strengths and weaknesses.

"Two things jump out at you right away

US FIGHTER PILOT'S PERSPECTIVE

when you fly the MiG-29. The first one is theantiquated avionics, they are totally not userfriendly. You have to make a lot of switchchanges and so on that we just don't evenhave to think about in the F-16.

By comparison with western jets, theMiG- 29 cockpit was, I thought, somewhat

Left: Iraq lost five of itsMiG-29s during the GulfWar, most of them onthe ground. Many ofthose claimed as shotdown were actually MiG-23s and MiG-25s. Morefled to Iran. The survivorswere reportedly placedin storage.

Right: Yugoslavia wasanother customer for theMiG-29, though itsaircraft have so far notbeen used againstCroatia or Bosnia.

thrown together. There didn't seem to bemuch human engineering put into it. To befair, though, the Russians do have muchgreater standardisation between the cockpitsof all their fast jets. It's actually remarkablehow similar they've made the cockpits of theSu-27, the MiG-29, the Su-25, and even the

Above: USAF F-16fighter pilots arefascinated by the MiG-29, which represents theformer USSR's closestequivalent to their ownaircraft.

US FIGHTER PILOT'S PERSPECTIVE

Above: Two F-16s fromthe Aviano based 510thFighter Squadrons flyback from the range witha Luftwaffe MiG-29.Simulated combatsbetween the two typesrevealed that eachaircraft had relativestrengths and relativeweaknesses. Withinvisual range generally,and especially at lowspeed, the MiG-29enjoyed a decisive edge.

older jets. Maybe the human factor in MiG-29cockpit design was to make it as close aspossible to the MiG-21 and MiG-23 cockpit.But they do not have a HOTAS (Hands onThrottle and Stick) philosophy in the sameway that we do in the F-1 6. In the F-1 6 I canselect missiles and fire the gun and dropbombs all with my fingers on the stick andthrottle. In the MiG-29 just launching amissile requires so many switch changeswhere they have to take their hand off thethrottle, change the switches, look downinside the cockpit, and then look back up.Whereas in my F-1 6 I can switch radarmodes, launch missiles and never have totake my hands off the controls or look downinside the cockpit. I can look outside thewhole time and that's a great advantage. It'spretty difficult to focus up close and thenrefocus your eyes out to ten miles.

If the MiG-29 pilot is trying to lock us upwith his radar, he's not looking outside, he'slooking at the radar scope. He may belooking at the radar picture in the HUD, buthe's still not going to be able to see usoutside beyond 10 miles. So we like to do a

rope-a-dope kind of thing, whereby I get toabout 50 nautical miles and get a radar lockon this guy (there's no reason for me to lookinto the radar scope anymore) and now I'mlooking out there, at where I know he'llappear. My eyes are focused at about 10miles and I'm just waiting to see a wing flashor smoke or something and then it's 'OK, Ican see him, I can break radar lock'. Now Ican flow to an engagement on this guy, wherehe doesn't get any situational awareness ofwhere I'm coming from. If he's got a RHAWSscope, (a radar warning scope), he'll get theclock position of where I'm coming into thefight but if I can see him, I can break lock,there's no need for me to lock him up on theradar anymore.

And if he doesn't get me with an 'Alamo'before the merge, his life gets very difficult.Once I get inside about 10 nautical miles, hecan't shoot me with a radar missile, so he'sgoing to have to shoot me with a heat seekingmissile. But now in the cockpit the MiG-29pilot's got to throw the switch from radar tohelmet sight, he's got to activate the IRSTSand arm up the 'Archers'. So while he's doing

US FIGHTER PILOT'S PERSPECTIVE

all that, if I blow past him before he can takea shot on me, he's got to go back into thecockpit, go back to radar mode to select hisradar missiles and deactivate the 'Archers' andmeanwhile I'm going by at high Mach, tryingto get away.

If he can't get me with an 'Archer' as I blowpast him, he has to go back to the 'Alamo'.But his ability to actually do that is very verydifficult in terms of his radar. He'll have lostlock on me as I pass, and if he breaks lock,his radar display, and scan automatically jumpback out to the 70 nautical mile rangesettings. He can't change that, till he gets anactual radar lock on me. So as I blow pasthim and he turns round to try to lock me up,he's going to have to have GCI tell him whereto lock, because he's not going to be able tosee me at that short range with his radar atthat setting. By the time he can lock me up,I'm already outside his weapons parametersso the chances of him shooting a missile atme are slim. I talked to the western-trainedMiG-29 pilots, who admitted that 'yeah, ourchances of locking you guys up as you flewpast us in a merge were slim-to-none becauseof the way the system is set up'. So you cansee that he's hampered quite a bit just by thesystems that he has.

Here in the western world we give the pilota lot of autonomy and so consequently wehave built systems in the aeroplane that givehim more situational awareness. In the easternblock the guy who had ultimate control wasthe ground controller. When they first startedusing MiG-29s in the integrated Luftwaffe,they were still actually using the groundcontrol people. That's what the East German

pilots were used to (although the MiG-29pilots had more capacity for autonomousdecision making than those flying earlierRussian-built airplanes). Too a large degreethey're still quite dependant on that, evenwith western-trained pilots. Just because theonboard systems were not designed in theWestern way they don't have the situationalawareness that they would like to have in thecockpit. They don't have the level of on boardautomatic threat prioritisation that a westernguy can take for granted".

Above: The Luftwaffetook over four MiG-29UBs from the EastGerman air force,together with 20 single-seaters. While the single-seaters were originallygreen and brown, thetwin-stickers initiallywore this two-tone greydisruptive camouflage.All Luftwaffe MiG-29sare now grey overall

Left: The cockpit of theMiG-29 is simple almostto the point ofcrudeness, with aplethora of analogueinstruments andconventional switchgear.

US FIGHTER PILOT'S PERSPECTIVE

FLYING CONTROLSANDMANOEUVRABILITY"1 was afraid that the 'Fulcrum' was going to outmanoeuvre us atmost speeds, that it was just too powerful and that it was going tohave more energy than we have. I had no idea what to expect fromthe pilots and I had a good healthy fear of the 'Archer' also.

One thing you notice straight away on goingfrom the F-1 6 to the MiG-29 is the flightcontrols. The movement of the 'Fulcrum' itselfis sluggish compared to the F-16 and that wasnoticeable the first time you take the stick andtry to do a turn. It just seems like there is asecond or two delay and you don't get thecrisp, clean quick movements that you get inthe Viper, at least in roll". (Note: This is acommon misconception among pilots whohave flown only one frontline type, especiallywhere that type has a very sensitive, limitedtravel stick. The F-16 stick was originallydesigned not to move at all, but only to sensepressure. The MiG-29 stick is designed tomove, and to move a long way. While you doneed more stick deflection and displacementto manoeuvre than you do in, say, the F/A-18,the aircraft responds just as readily, unlessyou are timid in your control column inputs).

"It takes a lot more work and a lot morecontrol input to effect the same manoeuvre.The position of the controls - the positioningof the rudder pedals, the length of the stick, itwas all very different. It was an environmentthat it would take me a few hundred hours toget used to. But if your flying background

Below: Tucking up itslanding gear, a MiG-29of IG 73 takes off. Thedefinitive Luftwaffecolour scheme is shownto advantage, while theheavily weathered noseradome is alsonoteworthy

US FIGHTER PILOT'S PERSPECTIVE

**+*>

was the L-39 or the MiG-21 it would all bevery familiar.

The aeroplane is very good in pitch, sowhen you're in a turn, it turns very well butits ability to change direction is lessimpressive. I didn't think it rolled as fast asthe F-16 did, in an aileron roll. MiG-29 pilotswho flew the F-16 were really surprised athow fast it rolled, they could almost bangtheir heads off the canopy and that's real nicebecause it means that we can changedirection in a heartbeat.

Once you get into the turn the 'Fulcrum' ishighly manoeuvrable and I was surprised thatat low airspeeds, with the nose down, itcould transition to a nose up pitch authorityremarkably quickly. I thought wow, this jetcan really pitch its nose around in a slow

speed fight and could really cause us a lot ofproblems. It certainly did cause problemswith the guys who got slow with it and wekind of purposely stayed out of that regime.Some people's plan was to get in close andhave a 'knife fight' while others used theirturn capability and energy to give themsustainability, taking care to fight a two circlefight, staying out of the slow speed fightswhich single-circle fights inevitablydegenerate into.

A lot of people are very impressed by theMiG-29's ability to point the nose away fromthe axis of flight, which is obviously mostrelevant in the slow speed regime. Theaircraft's nose authority is pretty significant,especially when it's tied into the missile. Ifyou can point the missile seeker heads away

Above: Two CanadianHornets escort a MiG-29.The Hornet is the West'sclosest analogue to theMiG-29, with genuineBVR capability, and aclose-in dogfightcapability based on highAlpha performance. TheF/A-18 enjoys aconsiderably greaterradius of action andendurance than the MiG-29, however, and hasgenuine multi-rolepotential. As such, theF/A-18 is more closelyequivalent to the laterMIG-29M.

US FIGHTER PILOT'S PERSPECTIVE

Above: France's closestcompetitor to the MiC-29 has been the Mirage2000, which is broadlyinferior in most respects,though it does havebetter air-to-groundcapability than thebaseline 'Fulcrum' and abetter man-machineinterface. These aircraftbelong to the Indian AirForce.

Right: Luftwaffe MiG-29leads USAFE F-16 after adissimilar air combatmission overDecimomannu's ranges.

more pressure you can pull through that, andthen you can go beyond 26° AOA andbeyond your 9 g.

So in the MiG-29 you have soft limits,which can be overridden to go to higheralpha or higher g. You can accept aprogressive degradation of flying qualities andyou can accept that it will becomeprogressively more likely that you will depart,but you can over-g it or over alpha it bycomparison with the placard limits. You mightwant to do that in order to out-turn youropponent or to avoid the hill you were aboutto fly into or to turn just that bit tighter todefeat the enemy missile. But you can do it.

That's nice for a fighter pilot to have. Itstelling you that if you're going against anadversary and you need a little bit more outof this jet to save your life, you can have it. Ifyou really, no kidding, need to pull that littlebit more, if it's worth running the risk ofdeparting, or over-stressing the aircraft, youcan do it. In the F-16, the computer just saysno way! It's nice to have and that's kind ofone thing I wish we had in the F-16. I pull as

from the direction you're flying that gives youan impressive off-boresight capability. That'sthe one capability that we've all sweat over!

Some of the differences in slow speedmanoeuvrability between the MiG-29 and theF-16 were down to the totally different designphilosophy. We have a limiter, which ensuresthat we cannot exceed the airplane's g andalpha limits, period. You can pull as hard asyou like and the black boxes will not let theairplane exceed 9 g, and will not less us rakethe nose too much. The airplane won't let thepilot get himself in that much trouble! In theMiG-29 when you pull on the g, you startfeeling a limit on the stick, but by applying

hard as I can in the F-1 6, but once I reach thelimit the computer goes 'Uh-oh I'm not goingto let you have any more than that, you canhave that much and that's it'. Sometimes Iwould really love to have just a little bitmore, I may depart the aircraft, but it may getme out of a situation that I need to get out of.Because the MiG-29 pilot does have theability to do that, now he does have an abilityto really raise his nose at low air speed, hecan exceed 26 AOA and that's nice to have.Even if he can only do so momentarily.

That gives them the ability to do a tailslideor to do the cobra manoeuvre. The cobramanoeuvre can only be done at certain times,

US FIGHTER PILOT'S PERSPECTIVE

it has to be done at low air speed and isnormally done from straight level flight, but it'sa hell of a manoeuvre. Suddenly the MiG-29can decelerate to almost zero forward speed,while simultaneously raking the nose back to90° from the direction of flight. Awesome!

And if the MiG-29 pilot does 'over-cook' it,departing from controlled flight is notnecessarily that big a deal. When I flew theMiG-29 I pulled the nose up to do a loop andI guess I pulled too much g at first, to the topof the loop. Once inverted the jet started todepart, the nose slicing back and forth. Iactually did depart at the top of the loop andthere I was still in afterburner trying to do thisloop, but it was just sort of slicing back andforth. So I released the stick and the MiG flewitself out, real nice and stable, that was reallyvery nice. I was kind of surprised and veryimpressed by that. And if that benignhandling was not enough, there is actually abutton on the stick, which returns you towings level, slight nose up, if you get reallydisorientated.

Of course you can get into trouble in theMiG-29, especially when differential,assymetric engine thrust enters the equation.If the afterburners don't light up together,there can be a powerful yawing moment, andto avoid problems, the established procedureis to plug in burner before rolling in to a tight,heavily banked turn at low level. That wasamazing to me because I fly single engined

jets, so I never had to really deal with that,but because they are flying twin-engined jets,(and because it's such a high performance jet)they can experience problems, but probablyno more than the pilots of any twin-jet.

In conclusion I was pleasantly surprised tosee that the F-16 actually outmanoeuvred theFulcrum, at least outside the low-speed, highalpha end of the envelope. I never got slowenough myself to give the MiG-29 thatadvantage, I tried not to and so I personallynever got into a slow speed flight. Obviouslythat's the one we want to avoid. I wouldprobably give the MiG-29 a slight advantageat lower airspeeds (certainly anything below200 knots), but at higher speeds (above 325knots) I was pleasantly surprised that wecould turn and burn a little better than the'Fulcrum'. However, it's worth noting ourconfiguration, we had no wing tanks, nocentre line tanks and even had the LAUsremoved off the wing, so we were as cleanand as light as we were going to get. Itprobably would have been a little closercompetition had we had a centre line tankand if we'd had the LAUs fitted, let aloneloaded-up."

Interestingly, this pilot, and his colleagueswere careful not to have claimed to havebeaten the MiG-29s in the majority of close-in dogfight engagements, while the GermanMiG-29 pilots remained sanguine that 'insideten miles' they could beat 'anybody'.

Above: A Royal AirForce BAe Hawk leads apair of Czech MiC-29s.Czechoslovakia tookdelivery of a smallnumber of MiG-29s,which were equallydivided when thecountry divided intoseparate Czech andSlovak states. The Czechsfelt that their nineremaining MiG-29s weretoo few to represent aviable force, and theaircraft were laterpassed to Poland.

US FIGHTER PILOT'S PERSPECTIVE

ENGINE LIMITATIONS"While we were flying lightweight and clean, the MiG-29s wereflying with a centreline tank so that obviously imposed limitations onthem. We'd have to do some exercises out in the area in order to gethis centre line tank empty before we could really start manoeuvring.Their tanks were empty, and the status of that tank makes a bigdifference to the g limits that they can use, but even empty, theywere flying with limitations which were not typical of the aircraft inits operational configuration.

Above: A rear view of aMiG-29 'Fulcrum-A'. Thebroad flat fairingbetween the jetpipesconsists of upper andlower airbrake 'petals',and these close aroundthe brake parachutecontainer. (ArturSarkisyan, MiG-MAPO)

Far right: A fully-armedMiG-29 cavorts over alayer of broken cloud.Maintaining adequatesituational awareness isthe MiG-29 pilot'sbiggest headache. (ArturSarkisyan, MiG-MAPO)

Also we were flying against German MiG-29s, which have had their engines de-tunedto make them last that little bit longer. They'vealso noticed a small decrease in thrustmoving from JP-4 to NATO standard JP-8 fuel.I remember the detuning of F-15 engineswhen we were having problems, so I can'thelp but believe that detuning the MiG-29'sengines has had a huge effect. We noticed ittremendously when they did that to the F-15.I think any time you detune a motor that'sgoing to have a significant effect in BFM. Youdon't usually notice it too much in thebeyond visual range arena, but you dosignificantly notice it in the manoeuvringfight, because as you get less thrust, yoursustained turn rate goes down and you losethat advantage.

It's difficult to guage exactly how much

difference that 10% thrust reduction makes,however. From the pilot's perspective Ipersonally would say it can make a verysignificant difference. Its going to depend onthe scenario obviously, but I did talk to one ofthe German pilots, and he said that it reallybothered him that they did it. Obviously heunderstands why, you know, they've got tosave their own engines, but that bit of thrustcan make all the difference in some scenarios.

We flew a number of comparativeacceleration runs against the MiG-29. Weboth slowed down to about 150 knots andthen went into afterburner. The first guy to400 knots called terminate. The MiG-29 wasable to out accelerate me initially, but by thetime I got to 400 knots, he was still only at360 knots. So he initially beat me off thestarting block, but then I passed him. The F-16's General Electric engine is a self tuningengine, and so its will tune itself in theairflow according to airspeed. Of course, thefact that they had tuned their engines downby about 10% could also account for theway I was able to out accelerate the MiG. Ithink if his engines were 100%, we wouldbe pretty much equal. He might then beable to beat me to the 400 knot point.Certainly it felt like the airplane had a lot ofthrust, and it was nice to have two enginesthat kicked in quickly and reliably, givingyou and lots of manoeuverability.

US FIGHTER PILOT'S PERSPECTIVE

Also the MiG-29 engine smokes more now,so it's easier to visually acquire the aircraft. Italways was an aeroplane that seemed tosmoke more than a lot of Western types, andthe de-tuned aircraft smoke even more.

I'd say it's comparable to visually acquiringan F-15 Eagle, it's a lot easier than finding anF-16. I know that those guys in their'Fulcrum's had a tough time picking us upand keeping sight of us, even in a smallturning circle like a BFM engagement,especially with the limited rearward visibilitythey had in the MiG-29.

But apart from the smoke I really didn'thave too many complaints about the engine.It's a big strong engine and I guess its onlyreal problem is its lifespan, but as far asresponse and power and everything, I thinkits a good one. They also have some uniqueadvantages, engine-wise.

It's very impressive the way those enginescan keep running in the face of what must besevere air flow distortions in the intake. I flewa tail slide in the MiG-29, and that was justeye-watering. The tailslide is pretty much alike a deliberate whip stall. You engage fullafterburner, pull the nose up to 90° (straightup) and then let the airspeed decay anddecay until the MiG flies back on its tail. Wecan't do that in the F-1 6 due to the intake,

the way the intake is designed. The MiG-29is real nice at low speeds and high angles ofattack because he has the dorsal vents for theengine over the wingroots. They open at lowair speed and high AOA so that the enginescan draw air from the top side of the aircrafteven if the main intakes can't feed theengines. That prevents the engines fromstalling or surging".

Above: The F-16's keyadvantage over the MiG-29 lies in its pilotfriendly avionics, whichminimise cockpitworkload, and help theF-16 pilot to remain fullyaware of the tacticalsituation.

US FIGHTER PILOT'S PERSPECTIVE

IN THE COCKPIT"The view from the cockpit is not as good as we enjoy from the F-16,either. They obviously came to a different judgement when coming tothe inevitable compromise between drag, birdstrike resistance, andabsolute unimpeded all-round vision. If you fly in close formationwith an F-16 and a MiG-29 you would then be able just to see thenecks and maybe the tops of the shoulders of the MiG-29 pilot, andthen only if he sat really high. In the F-16, we sit so high that we canput our arms on top of the canopy rail and so we have, pretty muchfrom our elbows up above the cockpit sides, so visibility is much,much better. But having said that, the F-16 is atypical even in theWest, and to be fair, the MiG-29 cockpit isn't so very different froman F-15 or Tornado cockpit.

the ergonomics of it was pretty surprising.In the F-1 6 everything you really need is

built into the centre console so yourinstrument cross check is very simple, it'smore of a vertical cross check. When we're inan instrument flying environment, wanting tocross check between instruments it's aclosely-spaced pattern, a left to right narrowU-shape, down and up, down and up, downand up. So you look at the main altitudeindicator versus the compass, then of coursethe tacometer's on the right side. The human

Above: A formation offour Czechoslovakia!*MiG-29s in a tight (anddecidedly non-tactical)'finger four' formation.As the Cold War came toa close, the MiG-29 wasentering service withWarsaw Pact air forces inlarge numbers, thoughmost of the USSR's allieshad received only thefirst squadron or two ofMiG-29s, and expectedfurther deliveries.

And once you're in the cockpit, it's prettytight and constrained. You're wearing thehelmet and then they hook up the oxygenhose, the communication cord andeverything and you're having to weave yourarm around all this crap so you don't gettangled up in it. Our system is real nice, ouroxygen hose is out of our way, strapped toour chest and it goes up underneath our armso it doesn't cause conflict in the cockpit atall. But in the MiG-29 you have thecommunication cord and the oxygen hoseand the g-suit hose, all individual, and all justflapping around down by your left side and

factor is very friendly, your cross check is verysimple, and in any case you can go all theway up to the HUD and that has everythingyou need, so you don't actually need to scanround the panel.

In the MiG-29 there are instruments all overthe place, so the cross check is more of a Zor a zig zag They have to look left for the ADI(the attitude indicator, and that's your primaryinstrument in instrument flying), then theyhave to look back to the right side for theengine instrument to set the engines. Andthen back to the centre to monitor theircompass, navigation and then back to the

US FIGHTER PILOT'S PERSPECTIVE

right side again, for their vertical velocityindicators etc. etc. So the cross check ismore left and right, left and right. That's prettydifficult moving your head left and right ormoving your eyeballs left and right versusmoving your eyeballs up and down,especially when you're in the weather. Whenyou bank the jet, you really don't want to bemoving your head that much, and especiallynot from side to side. You can get vertigo veryeasily due to the inner ear fluids really gettinggoing and so its real nice to keep your headnice and still, just flicking your eyeballs downand across and up, not too far".

Above: The MiG-29 iscapable, available andcheap, making it themost dangerous of thethreat aircraft likely tobe faced by Westernfighter pilots. (ArturSarkisyan, MiG-MAPO)

Left: Two LuftwaffeMiG-29s high over theMediterranean. The EastGerman MiGs taken overby West Germany, werequickly repainted.

US FIGHTER PILOT'S PERSPECTIVE

DOGFIGHT WEAPONS"The MiG-29's HUD is not as useful or as sophisticated as ours. It'spretty much an 'iron sight'. They do get a funnel type of sight for thegun, but it doesn't really do anything, it's not tied to the radar. Itmoves left and right to show you the effect of g, showing you that ifyou fire the gun the bullets will go down the flight path to the left orto the right, but it's basically similar to the gunsight of an A-10, withno F-16 type 'level 5 pipper'.

Right: This MiG-29 isfully armed for the airdefence mission, withtwo R-27 and four R-73AAMs. (Artur Sarkisyan,MiG-MAPO)

Below: A rack of live R-73missiles on the flightlineat Kubinka, in front of anSu-27 'Flanker'. Themissile is rugged, reliableand very maintainable.

In the F-1 6 the radar will take a lock on thetarget aircraft and it will show you where youneed to put the pipper to put bullets into him.It's constantly computing impact points andonce you learn the system, it improves youraccuracy quite a bit. It gives you the ability tofire at a target outside of 4,000 feet away. ButI don't think the Soviets designed it thinkingthat they would ever get into a gun fight. Theycan't even fire the gun unless the centrelinetank is gone. And they can't fire if the speedbrakes are out. So it's not really designed to

be employed, it's there as a token weapon orfor emergencies. Or maybe for use against atransport or a helicopter. But you've only got1 50 rounds and the rate of fire is very slow:boom, boom, boom, rather than b-b-b-b-b!But if the MiG-29 pilot can get his nose ontoyou at close range, if he uses his low speedcapability and 'portability' to force you toblow through past him, then a few rounds of30-mm could spoil your entire day. Andbecause their gun is a 30-mm cannon, if ashell does hit you it really does causedamage. It's totally the opposite philosophy tothe US 20-mm, which is fast firing and whichhas a high velocity. One hit from a 20-mms>hull neeUn'i be ihai big a deal, plenty ofguys have come home after one or two hits.Anyway, each approach has its adherents, andwho's to say who's right? But what they doneed is a more accurate, more user-friendlysight. The MiG-29 won't be winning anygunnery meets without one, that's for sure.

Even more impressive is the MiG-29'sprimary air-to-air weapon, the R-73 missile,allocated the reporting name AA-11 'Archer'

US FIGHTER PILOT'S PERSPECTIVE

by NATO. Many people have claimed that the'Archer' is actually the best close-in dogfightmissile in service, anywhere in the world. TheIsraeli Python 4 has its admirers, and the newBritish ASRAAM is also much admired, but atthe end of the day, the 'Archer' is superior toanything in the US inventory. There are thosewho say that we had designed a similar typeof missile long ago, and that this (fictional?)missile was compromised to the Russians andthat's how they developed the 'Archer'. Butwe still don't have anything like 'Archer', andthey do, so can you really believe theycopied it? I guess that story originated whenwe in the West couldn't believe they couldproduce anything worthwhile, unless theycopied it straight from us. But personally Ithink the Russians learned the lessons ofVietnam and the Middle East wars, then justwent out and spent more money on thetechnology.

We really were quite impressed by the'Archer', whose envelope is extremely lethalwith a very high g capability. The missile canturn very well, using forward-mounted control

surfaces, 'ruddervon' control surfaces on thefixed rear fins, and a vectored-thrust rocketmotor. The seeker has also got a very widelook-angle. Obviously it's better to fire yourmissile straight at a target and make its jobeasy - the more it manoeuvres, the moreenergy it will lose. But it's a useful capabilityfor the missile to be able to turn hard, either

Above: The key to the R-73's extraordinary agilitylies in its rear 'elevons'and thrust-vectoringrocket nozzle, whichaugment the usualforward control fins.

US FIGHTER PILOT'S PERSPECTIVE

to overcome the target's defensivemanoeuvring, or to allow you to fire at atarget that's not straight in front of you, slapahead on the nose. The 'Archer' has got avery impressive off-boresight capability, it'sreally a very good dog fight missile and to behonest with you, if you get into a dog fightwith that missile, you are going to have adifficult time staying out of its parameters.

So I'd have to say that we are a littleparanoid about the 'Archer' and its ability tobe launched at targets up to 45° off the MiG'snose. There are still a lot of unknowns aboutthe missile, they did not have any tapes that

Above: The end of theCold War, and thetransfer of MiG-29s fromthe former East Germanyto the West GermanLuftwaffe, has led tosome uniquely valuabletraining opportunities forNATO fighter pilots. Thishas allowed pilots toprepare properly forwhat they might meetover the formerYugoslavia, or over Iraq.

Right: With only sixunderwing hardpoints,some believe that theMiG-29 lacks combatpersistence. (ArturSarkisyan, MiG-MAPO)

Below: MiG-MAPO havehad to overcomeignorance and ill-founded pre-conceptionsin order to sell the MiG-29 outside its traditionalmarkets. (ArturSarkisyan, MiG-MAPO)

they could show us, they don't have any VTRmachines in their 'Fulcrums', you know andthere's no way to validate their BVR shotsduring peacetime training. A lot of the timeswe flew, we'd come back and it was just a biggrey area, whether they could have shot us,whether it would have been valid, they can'ttell exactly what they're locked onto anyhowwith their avionics. So, you know, like I said,we have a healthy respect for the missile, butbecause of the unknown aspects, we reallyjust don't know exactly how good it is.However, we expect that it's very goodindeed and that it could make a hugedifference in a BFM-type engagement.

And Vympel are about to start production ofa enhanced version of 'Archer' with an even

US FIGHTER PILOT'S PERSPECTIVE

bigger angle on the seeker which will be evenmore frightening. When this new 'Archer' thatwe've been reading about comes in it will beeven harder. Any time you improve on a goodthing, its always kind of more difficult. Weneed a missile like that in the USAF, that's ourbig complaint these days. I'd like to see themevaluating the 'Archer' for the F-1 6, prior tous getting a decent Western short rangemissile.

There's a range out there, probably a short(only just) BVR range, where the 'Archer' hasits greatest advantage, and where the 'Archer'is most scary to us. Inside ten miles they'renot thinking 'Alamos' any more and haveprobably even jettisoned them. But before wecan get into a turning engagement ourselvesor get close enough to VID (visually identify)or get a Fox Two against the 'Fulcrum', thereare 'Archers' on the way, and they'reextremely difficult to defeat.

I'm not sure exactly what the reach of theAA-11 is actually, and of course, in any casethe Russians have a different version of the'Archer' than the Germans and there are newsub-variants coming out all the time. But, atthe end of the day there's a range out therewhere we can't see the 'Fulcrum', can't tellthat the bandit is a 'Fulcrum' and yet they canshoot 'Archers' at us. That's not a goodsituation to be in.

POINTING THE NOSEThe 'Cobra* is a dynamic deceleration which allows theaircraft's nose to be rotated rapidly to extreme angles ofattack, allowing it (and weapons or sensors) to be pointed at atarget which may not be directly in front of the MiG-29.

During a turning fight, the MiG-29 islagging behind an enemy F-15, andthough slowly 'catching up due tosuperior turn performance, cannotbring weapons to bear.

By performing a Cobra in the horizontal plane,the MiG-29 pilot can point his nose and thegun and missile seekers across the circle at theF-15. Because of the helmet mounted sight, thepilot does not need to point the aircraft directlyat his opponent, but merely needs to get theF-15 in his forward hemisphere.

THE COBRADespite not having a fly-by-wire control system, the MiG-29is capable of many 'edge of the envelope* manoeuvres.The Cobra was developed as a flight test point byMikoyan's then Chief Test Pilot, Valery Menirsky, wasstolen for airshow use by Sukhoi's Victor Pugachev,and has since become a combat manoeuvre.

From balanced flight (with no yaw),the MiG-29 pilot closes the throttlesto reduce airspeed.

The pilot'breaks' dynamicallyinto the manoeuvre with a hard,snatched pull back on the stick,overriding the limiters. Theelevator travels fully nose down,pitching the aircraft nose up.

As the nose rotatesrapidly upwards,the pilot has alreadyreturned the stick to aneutral position, butthe nose continuesto rotate.

The pilot has alimited amount ofcontrol, even with thewing fully stored, withaileron and throttleaffecting nose position.With the nose rotated,the pilot may take amissile 'snapshot'.

The pilot slams the stick forward to lower the nose, simultaneously opening up thepower to accelerate away, aiming to acheive minimum height loss in the manoeuvre.

US FIGHTER PILOT'S PERSPECTIVE

GRAND SLAM!"The MiG-29 pilot has a formidable ability to point the nose of hisairplane away from where he's flying, and obviously where he canpoint the nose, he can fire a weapon. That's very significant, since itmeans he doesn't have to manoeuvre around the sky trying to get hisairplane stabilised, flying along a 'route' where its pointing at thetarget - following it along in a tailchase, for example. If he can get sothat the target is somewhere out in his forward hemisphere, out tothe left, perhaps, he can pull the nose round to briefly point hisweapons at the enemy. Briefly, but long enough to take a snapshot.In essence, the MiG-29 pilot can use his pitch authority and highalpha capability to briefly point the nose away from the direction offlight ('off boresight') and towards his enemy.

As if that's not bad enough, his primary close-in weapon has a wide angle seeker, meaningthat it doesn't actually need to be pointedright at the target, but just within about 45° ofit. To fully exploit this capability the MiG-29pilot uses a simple helmet-mounted cueingsystem, sometimes known (probablyerroneously, if you want to get picky) as ahelmet-mounted sight, to which the missileseekers could be slaved.

The difference between what the MiG-29pilots have had since that airplane enteredservice and the helmet-mounted sightingsystems now in development or enteringservice is significant. Their system simply tellsthe missile seekers where to look, by usinghead position sensors to 'tell' where the pilotis looking. There may be a simple symbologyto confirm lock-on, but that's about as far as itgoes. Whereas some of the systems beingdeveloped for the next generation of Westernfighters are very much more sophicticated

Below: Even without ahelmet-mounted sightthe MiG-29 is a superbdogfighter, thanks to thepilot's ability to pointthe nose of his aircraftaway from the directionof flight. With the newR-77 missile (availableon new-build aircraftand some MiG-29upgrades), the aircraftalso has a superb BVRcombat capability. (ArturSarkisyan, MiG-MAPO)

and complex, able to display complexsymbology and weapons aiming informationto the pilot's helmet visor, and often with lasereye protection and who-knows-what-else. Butthey will be bulky and heavy, and we're stil lwaiting for them, while the MiG-29 pilotshave had their simple, cheap, and lightweightsystem operational for years. It may beinferior, but its useful, and they've got it.

To activate the helmet sight and to slave themissile seekers, the MiG-29 pilot toggles aswitch in the cockpit labelled 'Helmet' inRussian, with Cyrill ic letters which could bepronounced as schlemm. Appropriatelyenough, 'Schlemm' means 'Grand Slam' inGerman, and naturally, the German MiG-drivers tend to call 'Schlemm' rather than 'Fox2' when simulating the launch of an 'Archer'using the helmet sight. During the

US FIGHTER PILOT'S PERSPECTIVE

engagements between our F-16s and theMiG-29s, we got to hear the radio call all-too-often, usually when the MiG-29 appearedto present no real danger, with his nosepointing nowhere near you.

There are a lot of different opinions aboutthe helmet-mounted sight, even among theguys who use them. But fighting againstsomeone wearing the helmet sight and ableto use it to its fullest advantage I wassurprised at the very large off boresight anglesat which they could shoot you. I think thatwas impressive.

What that meant in practice was that theMiG-29 pilot could be in lag, with his nosequite far away from being pointed at you, andyet he could look up (usually laterally, butalso up through the top of the canopy) andstill be able to shoot the missile. Normally

Left: The MiG-29'shelmet-mounted sightcan be attached to awide range of flyinghelmets, including theUS helmets now beingused by Luftwaffe MiG-29 pilots. This pilotwears the old-styleWarsaw Pact helmet,with external visor,which necessitates abulky mounting whichdoes not interfere withvisor operation. Thehelmet sight is actuallylittle more than a cueingdevice, using headposition sensors andpointing missile seekersin the same direction asthe pilot is looking.(Artur Sarkisyan, MiG-MAPO)

Below: The MikoyanOKB has teamed withthe MAPO productionplant and otherenterprises to form acoherent industrialgrouping which isstronger than theindividual concerns. Theorganisation haspromoted the MiG-29with vigour and energy.The latest variants of theaircraft have fullyovercome theweaknesses of thebaseline version. (ArturSarkisyan, MiG-MAPO)

US FIGHTER PILOT'S PERSPECTIVE

Above and below: Indiais a major operator ofthe first-generation MiG-29, with three frontlinesquadrons. Remarkably,the Indian Air Force hassince purchased Su-30MKIs for the groundattack role, rather thanthe probably superiorMIG-29M, which wouldhave had greatercommonality with thecountry's existingaircraft.

you're accustomed to reacting to anaeroplane that has to point at you or almostat you in order to present a threat. Normallyyour opponent has to get his nose closeenough to you to get his radar looking at you.The visual cues that you have to use in adogfight now with the MiG-29 are verydifferent. You have just got to assume that thisguy can shoot you even without pointing hisnose at you, so he appears to be able tothreaten you much more often than otheraeroplanes can. A two-circle fight was hisworst-case scenario, giving him the hardesttime trying to employ the sight, because of

the higher g and higher speed, and the higherrelative airspeeds. I was in a Lufbery with aMiG-29, a sort of two-circle vertical fight, andevery time he would bring his nose up closeto me, like 30°, I would have to be puttingout flares because of the helmet sight. It wasneat because I'm coming down hill and theguy is coming up hill to meet me, I'mpopping flares and he's calling shlemm (theircodename for a simulated AA-11 firing) onthe radio. And even though I'm going to bepassing him in just a second at high speed inthis two-circle fight, that's a real firingopportunity for him. That's a significantcapability. In a one circle fight he was muchmore able to use the helmet sight, becausewhether I was in a neutral stack with him orwhether I was reversing, we're both in thesame plane, and while he tries to get on mytail he is able to look over and let the systemsettle out, let the IRSTS and the helmet sightsettle out and then he will get a nice lock,without having to get his nose pointing at me.

Some pilots refuse to wear the helmet sightbecause they find they can lose sight of a guyeven when he's right in front of them. Theyfeel that the sight gets in their way andrestricts their visibility. In the dogfight arena,while it provides good off boresightcapability, it is a heavier, bulkier type ofsystem and so there's some complaints aboutthat. But other guys have got used to it and

US FIGHTER PILOT'S PERSPECTIVE

Above: India's MiG-29s wear much the samecamouflage as Russian aircraft, but roundels, RAF-style serials and names and ranks on canopy framesstrike a sometimes amusing contrast. India has reliedon the USSR and Russia to supply combat aircraft formany years.

like it a lot. Certainly, when used properly bya pilot whose trained with it quite a bit, it canbe a highly effective weapon.

If you know somebody's wearing thehelmet sight, which you'll never know, you'dreally want to stay further behind him thanyou would normally. But it's very difficult toactually quantify what difference the helmetsight makes. With noVTR it's hard enough toscientifically debrief a normal missile firing,to state with certainty whether it would havehit its target. We come back from a trainingmission and look at each other's tapes andcan validate shots and everything like that,but the MiG-29's pilots couldn't do any ofthat. They have even less of a clue whenthey're wearing the helmet mounted sight if ashot was going to be good or not. But it'sanother element of uncertainty to dial intoyour calculations.

And if helmet sights weren't useful, you'vegot to ask yourself if every air force in theworld is desperately hurrying to get them intoservice. It pains me to say it, but that'sanother area where the Russians led the way".

US FIGHTER PILOT'S PERSPECTIVE

BVR COMBAT"The MiG-29's BVR (Beyond Visual Range) missile, the 'Alamo' isprobably less of a threat than the 'Archer', though it is an effectiveenough weapon. The ranges of the 'Alamo' missile are impressive andwe respect it. Like any missile if you don't do anything about it,you've got a chance of getting whacked, so, naturally we train againstit. Quite honestly if the MiG-29 pilot can find you and lock you upon radar and you're in his parameters, you are in serious danger.Therefore we work hard at not being seen and if we are seen, we tryto defeat the radar and make him not see us anymore. The last partis, if he can still see us and launches against us, then obviously we'lltry to defeat the missile. But we respect it, it's a good missile.

Above: Aircraft fromIndia's No.28 Squadron,some of them withcoloured ACM tailmarkings, put up a neatformation for thecamera. India has twoMiG-29 units at Poona,with a third (No.223) atAmbala.

I can't talk too much about the systems thatwe have to counter 'Alamo', but in general itwould be fair to say that we respect the'Archer' more than the 'Alamo'. And so do thepilots who fly it. Overall, their BVR capabilityrepresents a Sparrow level of threat.

That's not necessarily the fault of the missilethough. There are other problems that theyhave to contend with. One such problem isthat the display of the MiG-29 radar contactsis not anything like what we in the west putin our cockpits for pilots. Thus they don't get

anywhere as much situational awareness,even though they've got a fairly gooddetection capability. The radar is powerfuland flexible, but they don't have the on-boardprocessing to give the pilot a decent, clearpicture with the threats analysed andprioritised, stuff that we take for granted. Thepilot has a very hard time knowing who he'slocked on to and what the situation is, so notonly do we enjoy a significant advantage withour long range Amram missile, but cruciallywe also enjoy a significant situationalawareness advantage. This means that wecould qujte often get somebody into the fightunseen, just because their system would notpermit them to see the whole engagement.That's the key reason why they are so relianton GC1 or AWACS control. The Germans canovercome the radar deficiencies by operatingmixed formations of F-4 Phantoms and MiG-29s, while other MiG-29 operators may alsohave fighters which could operate mixedfighter force tactics with their 'Fulcrums'. Anightmare scenario could be Iranian MiG-29soperating alongside Iranian F-14 Tomcats, forinstance, or Malaysian MiG-29s with F/A-18Ds or British Hawk 200s.

Even the firing procedure is much more

US FIGHTER PILOT'S PERSPECTIVE

Above: Poona is the home of No.s 28 and 47 Squadrons with theMiG-29. No.47 Squadron's aircraft wear an Archer badge, whileNo.28 wore a smaller blue oval insignia.

Above: Indian MiG-29s frequently wear coloured tails fordifferentiation during air combat training. This strikingmachine flew with No.47 Squadron 'The Archers'.

'labour-intensive' in the MiG-29 than it is inthe F-16. If we shoot a BVR missile we geteverything we need in the HUD. We canhave a line showing our radar scan limits,telling us how far we can turn away and stillprovide the missile with guidance. Thecomputer works out the time the missile willbe in flight, and a countdown clockautomatically winds down in the HUD sothat we know when we can break awaycompletely. We don't have to think about it.He doesn't have that. Well, one of the thingsthat dominates the MiG-29 panel is a clock.It's a huge instrument, but it's just a clock.When he fires a BVR missile he has to workout the missile's flight time himself - 'if themissile flies ten miles in one minute, and I'mlaunching at twelve miles, then I'll need toilluminate the target for one minute twelveseconds' and he has to hack the stopwatchbutton on the clock as he fires. He then hasto watch until the hand in the small dial getsright round and back to the twelve, ignoringthe big second hand. This is hardly high-techstuff. That same basic clock came out of theMiG-23, that same basic clock is in the MiG-21. It's an old fashioned mechanical wind-upclock (you'd better make sure that the groundcrew remembered to wind it this morning!).

Of course when they get an active-homingmissile, a genuinely fire-and-forget weapon,all of that will be history. But at the moment,when a MiG-29 pilot enters a BVRengagement he relies on the 'Alamo'. All heknows is range and he gets a little tick on hisradar scope showing that his target is withinmissile range parameters. He can then lock

Below: An interestinghead-on view of anIndian MiG-29. India'sMiG-29s were initiallyhandicapped by poorserviceability, but is nowa valued part of theinventory.

up the target and and push the consentbutton. He then waits, and as soon as theradar says OK, the missile's in consent range,it will launch. Then off the missiles goes andhe's got to support that missile until impact. Ifhe breaks lock at any time before impact, thatmissile goes stupid and misses the target".

US FIGHTER PILOT'S PERSPECTIVE

USING THE RADAR

Above: The distinctivetwist-cassegrain antennaof the MiC-29's N-019radar looks extremelystrange to Western eyes.Discovery of the factthat the N-019 had suchan antenna finallydiscredited rumours thatthe radar was simply acopy of the F/A-18'sAN/APG-65 radar. Theantenna is seen herestripped of its usualfabric cover, and foldedback from the radarLRUs. (Artur Sarkisyan,MiC-MAPO)

"I should point out that there is such a big difference in philosophythat the F-16 pilot will be bound to hate certain things about theMiG-29 for their unfamiliarity, even though they might be just aseffective, it's just that he's not conditioned (and certainly not trained)to deal with them. They can put the radar display up their in theHUD, and for guys used to dealing with that, or for guys new to thegame, that could be useful. You don't have to look down into thecockpit to look at the radar.

When the Israelis got their hands on a verylate MiG-23 they were very impressed by theability to do that - and you have to respectwhat the Israelis think about fighter airplanes!But personally, as an indoctrinated F-16 pilot Ithink that is a waste. They're not giving meanything in the HUD that's any sort ofsituational awareness news. They put theradar projection into the HUD and if thepilot's got a lock on the radar, he looks in theHUD and he sees the same thing, but he can'treally tell the position of what he's lockedonto in space. It's not like the radar display ispresented in a three dimensional way, withcontacts appearing in the bit of sky wherethey would actually appear. It's like sticking atransparent map up in front of the HUD.

But in the F-16 all the HUD gives us isupdated information of airspeed, altitude,heading and weapons status. If we get a radarlock, we have a bore site cross on the top of

the HUD, and that will give us a locator line.If I've got a guy radar locked 50° left, I lookin the HUD and the locator line will tell methat my radar lock is 50° left and that I needto go up to get to it. He doesn't really getthat, all he gets is a radar image saying you'vegot a lock here and he's got to look to thescale on the left side to say where it is. So inthe F-16, we can't see a radar picture in theHUD, but we can have the position of alocked-up target displayed to us in space, andthat's much more useful.

In addition, the MiG-29 radar can look withthe scan centred straight ahead at 12 o'clockor at 30° left or 30° right. Yet if he looks inthe HUD he can't tell if the radar's lookingstraight ahead, or 30° left or 30° right unlesshe remembers (or checks) where he set theswitch. So he might be flying along straightahead, and the radar picture shows a contactstraight ahead at 12 o'clock, but the radar's

US FIGHTER PILOT'S PERSPECTIVE

looking 30° to the right, so the target isn'tstraight ahead, it's out to the right. That's justtoo much maths to do in the cockpit. Evenflying along straight and level, at 1g, it's hardenough to understand, but manoeuvring,pulling g...

But I'm sure that if you went out andtrained and trained and trained with it, youwould get good at it - you know, it's a videogame and you would get good at playing it.But at the end of the day, all the radar andBVR stuff is a bit of a distraction anyway -that's not really what the MiG-29's about.Chances are, if we are worrying about theMiG-29 in a BVR scenario it will be operatingwith GCI or AWACS, or other fighters, and itsweaknesses will be compensated for by thoseother platforms, and by jamming, etc. TheMiG-29 will just bring more missiles to thefight. Where the MiG-29's own independentcapabilities are relevant to us is in the close-

in dogfight arena, and any BVR engagementis likely to become a close-in furball withinseconds anyway.

To paraphrase, the threat posed by the'Fulcrum' is very much a close-in BFM kindof threat and we're not that worried about itin the BVR environment. But you can'tentirely discount that aspect of the threat -you know it only takes one BVR missile toruin your day so, I wouldn't disregard it. Andat the end of the day, like me, the MiG-29pilot will want to whack his opponent in theteeth before he can be detected. The idealsituation we hope for is that you never seethe target before you destroy it, that's whywe've got these long sticks. I want to kill myenemy while he's still got his head down inthe cockpit, looking at his radar display,preferably before he even suspects I'm there.

He does also have some advantages - itwould be over-simplistic to regard him as

Above: During the ColdWar, any of the MiG-29'sweaknesses would havebeen compensated for byweight of numbers andby the co-ordinated useof ECM platforms,AWACS, other fighters,GCI and SAMs. Evenoperating outside thetraditional Soviet-styleinfrastructure, the MiG-29 should not be under-estimated. (ArturSarkisyan, MiG-MAPO)

US FIGHTER PILOT'S PERSPECTIVE

Above: A formation ofRussian MiG-29s fly pastthe setting sun for thecamera of MiG-MAPO'stalented photographer,himself a former MiG-23pilot. (Artur Sarkisyan,MiG-MAPO)

being crude and basic in all respects. EveryMiG-29 has RHAWS, every MiG-29 has a datalink, most Soviet MiG-29s had an internalbuilt-in active jammer, all MiG-29s have agenerous load of chaff/flare expendables - andafter Afghanistan, there's at least a possibilitythat their's might be better than ours.

I think its important to point out that theMiG-29 and the F-1 6 are very evenlymatched. Each has advantages anddisadvantages. In the end it comes down tothe pilot. What we say in America is that itdoesn't matter what wrapper you wrap yourhamburger in, no matter how nicely youpackage it up, the bottom line is that it's still ahamburger. So if you put a good pilot in agreat aeroplane he is going to do well, but agreat pilot in a great aeroplane is going to doextremely well. The better pilot will come outon top. I have to say that the edge I think wehave is dependant mainly on personal

training skills. The MiG-29 pilots wouldprobably admit that they are still progressing.The former East German pilots have still got along way to go from coming out of theprevious Eastern Bloc training in which thingswere more scripted and more programmed,and they're still not fully used to the free-flowing western BFM type of arena. Thewestern pilots, the former West Germanpilots, are very different. They maximise thataeroplane in kind of an eye watering way.

Straight away you tended to know who youwere fighting. That was very evident, althoughit's just a matter of differences in trainingbackground. The eastern pilots, prior to thereunification, got very very few hours actuallyflying the jet and so their whole trainingmindset was different. The outcome is thatthey're not nearly as capable as their westerncounterparts. The western pilots are moreaggressive and are used to having a whole lot

US FIGHTER PILOT'S PERSPECTIVE

more progressive thinking. For example, inthe debrief, the former eastern pilots tendedto accept whatever they were told was theoutcome of the mission and leave it at that.The western pilots liked to really get at whythey got hammered, and were genuinelyupset if it didn't go exactly right. They wantedto win the debrief, as well as the fight. Theeastern-trained guys were more phlegmatic.

Flying against the German MiG-29s (andperhaps even more so flying against theirSoviet-trained pilots) taught us quite a bitabout an old adversary. The MiG-29 is still avery valid adversary. Some guys started offthinking that had NATO ever found itself atwar with the Warsaw pact, air-to-air wewould have just kicked their asses, and someguys still think that, but all of us learned newrespect for the MiG-29, and many realise thatwhile we might have won the air war, itwould have been close."

Below: The new grey paint applied to Luftwaffe MiG-29s does notadhere well to the aircraft's radomes, which frequently look verybadly worn and weathered.

MiG-29

THE USER'SVIEWPOINTMiG-29 - AN OBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT

Every fighter pilot in the world will always put the best possiblegloss on the performance and capabilities of the aircraft he flies.Few will ever admit that their aircraft may be inferior to a similarrival fighter type, especially in the close-in arena, where machopride is at stake. The comments of USAF F-16 pilots about theMiG-29's close in dogfighting capabilities should be seen in thislight. One would normally expect MiG-29 pilots to be similarlyupbeat about their aircraft's strengths, and to be evasive ormisleading about its weaknesses.

But not so Oberstleutnant Johann Koeck, aWest German F-4 pilot with many years ofexperience flying and fighting Western typeswho has recently transferred to theLuftwaffe's new MiG-29s. As the MiG-29squadron commander he is as muchadministrator and tactician as 'line pilot' andso has a more realistic view of the MiG-29'slimitations, since these have a very directimpact on his job.

Above: A row of flyingsuit badges marking thetransition of the EastGerman MiG-29s intoLuftwaffe service. )G 3and its two constituentStaffeln were EastGerman units, thoughthe identity was brieflyretained after absorptionby the West GermanLuftwaffe. The team whoevaluated the 'Fulcrum'to decide whether itwould be retained werefrom the Luftwaffe'sETD.61 and from ]G3.

Right: When East Germanytook delivery of its MiG-29s, it was enormouslyproud of the newaircraft, which marked astep change from theMiG-21s and MiG-23sthen in use.

THE USER'S VIEWPOINT

"The East German JG3 took delivery of itsfirst MiG-29 in 1988, and by 4 October 1990had 24 on strength, equipping twosquadrons. A follow-on batch were on order,but were never delivered. With the re-unification JG3 became Evaluation Wing 29on 1 April 1991. On 25 July 1991 thedecision was taken to keep the aircraft andintegrate them into the NATO air defencestructure. JG73 was activated in June 1993,and the MiG-29s assumed a National (DayOnly) QRA(I) commitment over the formerEast Germany. The MiG-29s moved to Laagein December 1993 and on 1 February 1994the unit gained a NATO QRA(I) commitment.

The two aircraft on QRA were assigned toNATO, while the rest were assigned tonational tasking. All will be NATO assignedwhen the F-4s move to Laage to completethe wing.

"The employment of the MiG-29 suffersfrom severe inherent constraints. The mostobvious limitation is the aircraft's limitedinternal fuel capacity of 3500-kg (4400 kgwith a centreline tank). We have no air-to-airrefuelling capability, and our external tank isboth speed and manoeuvre limited. We alsohave only a limited number of tanks.

"But if we start a mission with 4400-kg offuel, start-up, taxy and take off takes 400-kg,

Above: When EastGerman MiG-29s flewfor propaganda photos,their three-digit codeswere usually quicklycamouflaged. The aircraftwere delivered in thethree-tone green/browncamouflage worn by theNVA's other combataircraft.

Below: An East GermanMiG-29 gets smartlyairborne during a visit toMarxwalde.

THE USER'S VIEWPOINT

Above: When theLuftwaffe took over theEast German MiG-29s,the only change madeinitially was to removethe national insignia andadd new codes andWester-style 'IronCrosses'.

we need to allow 1000-kg for diversion to analternate airfield 50-nm away, and 500-kg forthe engagement, including one minute inafterburner. That leaves 2500-kg. If we need15 minutes on station at 420 kts that requiresanother 1000-kg, leaving 1500-kg for transit.At FL200 (20,000 ft) that gives us a radius of1 50-nm, and at FL1 00 (10,000 ft) we have aradius of only 100-nm.

ergonomics. The radar has reliabilityproblems and lookdown/shootdownproblems. There is poor descriminationbetween targets flying in formation, and wecan't lock onto the target in trail, only ontothe lead. We have only the most limitedautonomous operating capability.

"We don't have the range to conduct HVAAattack missions - and we're effectively limitedfrom crossing the PLOT (Front Line of OwnTroops). Our limited station time and lack ofair-to-air refuelling capability effectively rulesus out of meaningful air defence missions.Nor are we suited to the sweep escort role.We have a very limited range, especially athigh speed and low altitudes, and are limitedto 540-kt with external fuel. We havenavigation problems, Bullseye control is verydifficult and we have only one radio. So if Italk, I 'trash' the package's radios!

"The only possible missions for NATO'sMiG-29s are as adversary threat aircraft for aircombat training, for point defence, and aswing (not lead!) in Mixed Fighter ForceOperations. But even then I would stillconsider the onboard systems too limited,especially the radar, the radar warningreceiver, and the navigation system as well asthe lack of fuel. These drive the problems we

Above: A range of flyingsuit badges worn byWest German MiG-29pilots, the first two bythe evaluation team, thesecond two by frontlineunit, JG 73. The 'FightingFulcrum' patchdeliberately apes thepatch worn by USAF F-16 pilots.

"Our navigation system is unreliablewithout TACAN updates and is not veryaccurate (I'd prefer to call it an estimationsystem). It relies on triangulation from threeTACAN stations, and if you lose one, youeffectively lose the system. We can only enterthree fixed waypoints, which is inadequate.We also can't display our 'Bullseye' (knownnavigation datum, selected randomly forsecurity). For communications we have onlyoneVHF/UHF radio.

"The radar is at least a generation behindthe AN/APG-65, and is not line-repairable. Ifwe have a radar problem, the aircraft goesback into the hangar. The radar has a poordisplay, giving poor situational awareness,and this is compunded by the cockpit

face in tactical scenarios. We suffer from poorpresentation of the radar information (whichleads to poor situational awareness andidentification problems), short BVR weaponsrange, a bad navigation system and short on-station times.

"But when all that is said and done, theMiG-29 is a superb fighter for close-incombat, even compared with aircraft like theF-15, F-16 and F/A-18. This is due to theaircraft's superb aerodynamics and helmetmounted sight. Inside ten nautical miles I'mhard to defeat, and with the IRST, helmetsight and 'Archer' I can't be beaten. Period.Even against the latest Block 50 F-16s theMiG-29 is virtually invulnerable in the close-in scenario. On one occasion I remember the

THE USER'S VIEWPOINT

F-16s did score some kills eventually, butonly after taking 18 'Archers'. We didn'toperate kill removal (forcing 'killed' aircraftto leave the fight) since they'd have got notraining value, we killed them too quickly.(Just as we might seldom have got close-in ifthey used their AMRAAMs BVR!) Theycouldn't believe it at the debrief, they got upand left the room!

"They might not like it, but with a 28°/secinstantaneous turn rate (compared to theBlock 50 F-16C's 26°) we can out-turn them.Our stable, manually controlled airplane canout-turn their FBW aircraft. But the real edgewe have is the 'Archer' which can reliablylock on to targets 45° off-boresight.

"I should stress that I'm talking about ourLuftwaffe MiG-29s, which are early aircraft.They also removed the Laszlo data link andthe SRO IFF before the aircraft were handedover to us, so in some respects we're lesscapable than other contemporary MiG-29s.From what we hear the latest variants arealmost a different aircraft. I'd like to see ouraircraft get some of the updates being offeredby MiG-MAPO. The more powerful engines,better radar, a new navigation system, a datalink and an inflight refuelling probe. If we gotthe new 'Alamo-C that would also be an

improvement - even a two nautical mile boostin range is still ten more seconds to shootsomeone else! We won't get many of thoseimprovements, though we are getting a newIFF, manually selectable radio channels, andimprovements to the navigation system,including the integration of GPS. Most of ouraircraft will be able to carry two underwingfuel tanks, which will also help."

Above: The MiG-29swere the only EastGerman fast jets retainedby the Luftwaffefollowing the unificationof the two Germanics.

Below: Luftwaffe MiG-29s (like this two-seater)were quickly re-painted.

MiG-29

FUTURE 'FULCRUM':DEVELOPING THE ULTIMATE MiG-29

Despite its capabilities the baseline MiG-29is not the fighter of choice for every airforce in the world. Crucial weaknesses haveprevented greater success in the marketplace, limiting the aircraft's sales mainly totraditional customers for Soviet aircraft,with a couple of notable exceptions.

Above: After the mergerof the Mikoyan DesignBureau with MAPO, thenew company beganaggressively marketing anumber of upgradedMiG-29 versions, whichtackled head-on some ofthe perceived weaknessesof the original aircraft.This aircraft appeared atFarnborough as ademonstrator for theMiG-295, and hadpreviously been the 9-14prototype.

The baseline MiG-29 (the 9-12, known toNATO as 'Fulcrum-A') suffers from having avery limited range and endurance. One of theaircraft's own designers once described it asan aircraft which was optimised for the airdefence of its own airfield - an exaggeration,but perhaps only a slight one. From 1 982,production aircraft for the Soviet air forces(but not for export) were to 9-13 ('Fulcrum-C')standards, with an enlarged and distinctively'humped' dorsal spine. This housed a smallincrease (185 litres) in fuel capacity, togetherwith a new L203BE active ECM jammer. Thiswas not enough to really address the aircraft'srange and endurance problems.

The original versions were alsohandicapped by a fire control system that was

unsuited to autonomous operations withoutfriendly GCI or AWACS support. Radarperformance was excellent (with superb rangeand target discrimination) but onboardprocessing was inadequate to give automaticthreat prioritisation, while the display was notcapable of giving a clear enough picture in amulti-bogey environment.

After the Cold War exports became a matterof free choice on the open market, and ofspending hard currency rather than involvingthe subsidised (or free) supply to politicalallies. It soon became clear that the salespotential of the MiG-29 was hindered by itsrelative inflexibility. While capable ofdropping a range of dumb-bombs, and offiring unguided rocket projectiles, the MiG-29's multi-role capability was limited by itsinability to provide target designation forlaser-, radar-, or TV-guided missiles or PGMs.Greater multi-role capability, versatility andadaptability would clearly make the aircraftmore attractive to potential customers.

It is easy to over-state the weaknesses of theoriginal MiG-29. To the Soviet Union, its lackof all-weather precision ground attackcapability was not a serious problem - sinceits air forces had plenty of dedicated attack

FUTURE 'FULCRUM

aircraft and bombers. Similarly, the type'sshort range did not significantly prevent theaircraft from carrying out its intendedbattlefield air superiority role. Finally, theshortcomings of the avionics were side-stepped through the use of AWACS and GCIradar stations. Nevertheless, Mikoyan saw theshortcomings of their aircraft and determinedto produce a MiG-29 derivative in whichthese would be remedied.

The resulting MiG-29M was developed as aprivate venture, with a redesigned airframeaccomodating increased fuel tankage (5,810litres - 1,300 litres or 3,300-lb more thaneven the 'Fulcrum-C'). This was broadlyequivalent to the fuel load of the F/A-1 8C(greater than that of the Rafale) and wasaugmented by the use of new external fueltanks. The new airframe was lighter andstronger, incorporating greater use ofadvanced materials, including aluminiumlithium alloys and composites. Heavier fueland weapon loads were compensated for byan uprated engine. Relatively minoraerodynamic improvements and a newanalogue fly by wire control system fine-tuned the aircraft's handling characteristicsand high Alpha capabilities.

The avionics system of the MiG-29M wasentirely redesigned, with a new N-010 radar,

with a 25% increase in detection range, and awider range of more flexible operatingmodes. A 400% increase in onboardprocessing capacity freed the pilot fromdependence on GCI radar for targetprioritisation and other functions. The electro-optical complex was redesigned,incorporating a laser designator and TV aswell as the original IRST and laserrangefinder. This gave the aircraftcompatability with an enormous range of newweapons. Finally the MJG-29M had a much-improved defensive EW system, and aredesigned cockpit, dominated by a pair oflarge CRT display screens.

Above: Malaysian MiG-29s partly disassembledfor transport to theirnew owners. Built toMIG-29SD standards, theaircraft are undergoing arolling upgrade inservice. (Artur Sarkisyan,MiG-MAPO)

Left: One of the mostsignificant improvementsto the MiG-29 is thisneat, bolt-on retractableinflight refuellingpackage. The Iranianscouldn't wait, anddesigned and fitted amuch cruder fixed probeto some of their MiG-29s. (Artur Sarkisyan,MiG-MAPO)

FUTURE «FULCRUM9

Above and right: RomanTaskaev (who took overas Chief Test Pilotfollowing the retirementsof Valery Menitsky andAnatoly Kvotchur) flewmost of the clearancetrials of the new inflightrefuelling probe.Essentially this involvedflying a hastily modified'Fulcrum-A' fromLukhovitskii's stockpile ina number ofconfigurations, withvarious underwing stores,refuelling from all threepoints of an 11-78 tanker.The trials aircraft wasunpainted, and may havebeen one of the newly-built MiG-29SDs forMalaysia, to whom thevariant is the MIG-29N.The trials proved to bean excellent photo-opportunity for theMAPO photographer,Artur Sarkisyan. (ArturSarkisyan, MiG-MAPO)

The M1G-29M was probably a better all-round multi-role tactical fighter than itscompetitors, cheaper and yet more versatilethan the Sukhoi Su-27M, and better suitedfor operations in the post Cold War world. Itwas certainly more attractive to potentialexport customers, including nations used toWestern fighters and the Western approachto cockpit ergonomics. The MiG-29M formedthe basis of a naval version, the carrier-capable MJG-29K. This genuinely multi-rolestrike fighter enjoyed a degree of superiorityover the rival Su-27K. As a derivative of thesecond generation M1G-29M, the MiG-29Khad an advanced radar, and enjoyed fullcompatability with radar, laser and TV-guidedair-to-surface precision guided weapons,whereas the Su-27K was no more than acarrier-capable first-generation 'Flanker'.Despite this the aircraft failed to win aproduction order.

Following the end of the Cold War, withthe unleashing of the forces of Perestroika(restructuring) and Clasnost (openness), theaircraft industry entered a period of massivechange. With the war over, the armed forcesdeclined in size and importance, andexpenditure cuts began to be imposed. Theair forces suddenly found themselves unableto fund many of their new aircraftprogrammes, and orders for existing aircrafttypes were cut back. The MJG-29K was oneof the first casualties. MiG-29K developmentwas officially terminated when it wasdecided to acquire only the single-role Su-27K for the carrier Kuznetsov. This was seenby many as the wrong choice, since the Su-27K's large size and high cost severelycurtailed the number of aircraft which couldbe shipped aboard the carrier. Again, thesuspicion was that Sukhoi's political pre-eminence had more influence on thedecision than the aircraft's capabilities andmilitary preferences. There is still a chancethat the MiG-29K will be procured for theAV-MF, and perhaps by India, Thailand, orone of the other carrier-operating nations.

President Boris Yeltsin signed aMemorandum of Understanding outlining aninitial order for 30 MiG-29Ms for the VVS,with the assumption that the original MiG-29s would eventually be replaced by MiG-29Ms on a one-for-one basis. A,similar MoUwas signed for the supply of 30 more MiG-29Ms to India on 28 January 1993. Butwhile Yeltsin occasionally supported theMiG-29M, under his regime Mikoyan's oncepre-eminent position as the main designerand builder of fighter aircraft was usurped by

FUTURE 'FULCRUM

the Sukhoi OKB. As orders declined, someof Russia's aircraft companies wereencouraged to explore conversion to civilianproduction as a political rather than aneconomic imperative. Some were pushedinto the production of unsuitable low-techconsumer goods, for which there was oftenno market. In the new environment, thoserival Russian design bureaus and factorieswhich remained in the business of producingaircraft began to compete with each otherfor orders, producing competing designs tomeet the same requirements. In thissituation, political clout became animportant factor in determining who wouldreceive orders.

Under the new post Communist regime,Mikoyan were bound to lose out. Mikoyan'ssenior figures were regarded as being old-fashioned adherents of communism, menwho had been in positions of power andinfluence as long ago as the last days of theStalinist era. By contrast, leadership of theSukhoi had passed to younger men, regardedas being economically liberal, and whosepolitical links were with men like Gorbachevand Yeltsin. Mikhail P. Simonov, GeneralDesigner at Sukhoi was a modern and highlycharismatic figure, and sat on the committeeof the Supreme Soviet which oversaw theMilitary Industrial Complex.

This put the Sukhoi OKB in an excellentposition for winning new orders andcontracts, and for testing new forms ofworking and new economic organisationwithin the Bureau, with closer links with itsassociated factories, and with greaterautonomy for conducting its own marketingoperations. As defence spending declined,Sukhoi were able to retain a higherproportion of the available funding than were

its rivals. Thus while Frontal Aviation MiG-29deliveries were cut to the bone, manyRegiments expecting to re-equip with MiG-29s found themselves receiving less-than-suitable Su-27s, and where two similaraircraft had been planned for procurement, itwas usually the Sukhoi contender whichemerged as the survivor.

Development of the advanced, longer-

Left: Roman Jaskaev easesthe trials aircraft uptowards one of the ill'scivil-registered 11-78'Midas' three-pointinflight refuelling tankers.This carries UPAZrefuelling pods under theouter wings and scabbedon to the port rearfuselage side. Inflightrefuelling has long been afeature of Soviet andRussian bomber andrecce operations, but theaddition of probes totactical aircraft is a muchmore recentphenomenon. (ArturSarkisyan, MiC-MAPO)

Below: With his probestill firmly retracted,Jaskaev approaches therefuelling basket,assessing the correct'sight picture' before thefirst 'prod'. (ArturSarkisyan, MiC-MAPO)

FUTURE 'FULCRUM*

range, multi-role M1G-29M (now known asthe MiG-33 in its export form) was halted,then re-started, and then halted again. Thereare persistent reports that development willbe completed, and even that the Russian airforce may still order the aircraft, though thereis, as yet, little sign of this happening. TheMJG-29M is the ideal post Cold War fighter,small, cheap to buy and to operate, yetversatile and extremely capable. Reports thatthe rival Su-27M has run into fundingdifficulties at one time lent credence torumours that the Russian air forces had

Above: The addition of asimple inflight refuellingprobe has done much tosolve the basic MiG-29'smost serious weakness,and should ensurefurther export sales.(Artur Sarkisyan, MiG-MAPO)

changed their minds, intending to acquire thecheaper MJG-29M, which could have wonexport orders, further reducing unit price. TheSu-27 now seems to be favourite again,however. The MiG-29M reportedly completedits initial State Acceptance Tests before themoney ran out, but a production order nevermaterialised and final certification testsremain unfulfilled. In the end, the MJG-29Mwas perceived as being cheap andlightweight, and suffered the majordisadvantage of not having been proposed bySukhoi, the government's new favourite. Thedominance of the Su-27 became self-perpetuating, as to procure any other typecame to represent a deliberate move awayfrom commonality. Yet the 'Flanker' variantswhich have supplanted the advanced MiG-29s are in many ways inferior, are morecostly, and are less well suited to the postCold War environment. Selection of theadvanced MiG-29s would have given theRussian air forces improved capability andgreater aircraft numbers, at lower cost.

The failure of the Russian government tofund the completion of development of theMiG-29M has had an immeasurable effect onMikoyan and on the MiG-29's export sales.

The company could not completedevelopment of the aircraft under its ownauspices, yet was never energetic enough inmarketing the aircraft to potential partnernations who could have provided thenecessary funding. The short-term priority wasalways to sell the stockpile of completedMiG-29s at the Lukhovitsky factory airfield.These had been built to meet Sovietrequirements, but had never been paid for.Instead of offering MiG-29Ms to India (whomight have ordered enough aircraft tocomplete development) MiG sold India morebaseline 'Fulcrum-As' from the stockpile. Thishelped shift the 'unsold stock' but did nothingto secure MiG-MAPO's long-term future.Consequently Indian interest turned to the(probably inferior) Su-30. The export MiG-29ME (or MiG-33) remains a figment of MiG-MAPOs marketing department's collectiveimagination, although MiG-29Ms havesometimes sat behind appropriate sign-boardsat various international air shows.

Even today, Mikoyan and MAPO (now partof the integrated VPK-MAPO or MiG-MAPO)have failed to grasp the nettle. Instead ofcompleting M1G-29M/ME development usingthe profits from recent sales to Malaysia,Slovakia and India, and re-tooling to put theMJG-29M into production, MiG-MAPO hascontinued to tinker with the basic 'Fulcrum-A'and 'Fulcrum-C'. The organisation has offeredupgraded and modernised export versions ofthese aircraft, which can initially be producedfrom the Lukhovitsky stockpile, and whichcan then be built without re-tooling. But suchan aircraft will never have much customerappeal, and MiG-MAPO might have beenbetter advised to produce the best possibleMiG-29 variant - which would be based onthe airframe of the MJG-29M. This might havebeen able to compete with the latest Westernfighters on equal terms. Less ambitiousupgraded MiG-29s probably cannot.

Mikoyan already claim to be working onthe 'ultimate MiG-29' in the shape of theMiG-35. Work on this version beganfollowing the effective cancellation ofMikoyan's new generation fighter, the MiG-1.42 (one or both of the prototypes of whichmay yet fly as technology demonstrators ortestbeds). The 'Modernised MiG-29' made itsfirst appearance in a 1994 brochure, whenthe configuration included notched canardforeplanes, as well as a slightly lengthenedfuselage, in which the engines were shiftedaft. This aircraft was also fitted with a wider-span wing of modified plan view, apparentlybased on that of the MiG-29K, but with an

FUTURE «FULCRUM9

inboard section whose trailing edge was ofdecreased sweep. It later transpired that theengines were moved back to provide extrainternal volume for increased fuel capacityand to further destabilise the aircraft in pitch.The new variant may use some equipmentand systems from the MiG-1.42, the OKB'sMFI (Mnogofunktsionalnii Frontovoi-Istrebeitel). By 1996, the MiG-35 featured aPhazatron RP-35 radar, based on the Zhukbut with an electronically-scanned phasedarray antenna. The aircraft will also featurethrust-vectoring engines, though the use ofcanards is no longer definitely to be included.

It now seems likely that the MiG-35 willprobably be no more than a one-off prototype(if it appears at all, or if it is not ademonstrator converted from an existingMiG-29 or MJG-29M airframe). Furtherenhancing the 'Fulcrum's already impressivelow speed agility should probably not be apriority. Potential customers would probablybe more than happy with the aircraft's currentmanoeuvrability, but its lack of range,primitive cockpit and inadequate weaponssystem are real disincentives to potentialpurchasers. There is a need for a new MiG-29export variant, but it needs a modern

western-style cockpit and modern avionicsmore than it needs thrust vectoring andaerodynamic refinements. Many doubt thatMikoyan have the vision to offer such aversion, and expect that MiG-MAPO willcontinue to watch its market share dwindle asit offers 'warmed over' derivatives of the'Fulcrum-A' and 'Fulcrum-C to potentialcustomers.

With little experience beyond the designand production of fighters, diversification isdifficult for MiG-MAPO, yet most of its keyfuture projects have been cancelled or put onhold. In today's economic climate it wasinevitable that some of the Russian air forces'future programmes would be axed, but thanksto the political influence enjoyed by rivalfighter-builder Sukhoi, VPK-MAPO has bornethe brunt of the cuts.

For the distant future, Russia's economicsituation has effectively halted advancedaircraft programmes like the MiG 1.42. Theair force does not have the resources to fundnext-generation replacement aircraft, but theless ambitious interim replacements forexisting in-service types are almost all basedon versions of the Su-27, and the future forthe MiG-29 in its own land is uncertain.

Above left: The principalaircraft used in inflightrefuelling trials wasunpainted andunmarked, and may havebeen one of thosedestined for Malaysia.

Above: Watched by thecrewofaMiG-29UB,Taskaev approaches thebasket, this time in anaircraft weighed downwith external underwingfuel tanks.

FUTURE «FULCRUM»

TODAY'S EXPORT VARIANTS

Since the end of the Cold War it has been difficult for the formerSoviet aircraft industry to compete on the international market.There was little experience of such areas as marketing, or publicrelations, while many of the industry's products had been producedto an entirely different operating philosophy to that which prevailedin the Western world. Most were, like the MiG-29, extremelyrugged, tolerant to battle damage, and were easy and quick toservice. Soviet requirements placed great emphasis on operabilityfrom austere airfields with minimal maintenance, but placed littleimportance on life cycle costs, longevity, and long TBO figures.

Above: The firstprototype MIG-29K (acarrierborne derivativeof the definitive MiG-29M) landing aboard thecarrier 'Tbilisi', later re-named 'Kuznetsov'. Avastly superior aircraft tothe rival Su-27K (Su-33)with genuine multi-rolecapability, the MIG-29Kfell victim to Sukhoi'sgreater politicalinfluence, to the evidentdisappointment of thecustomer.

The MiG-29 is typical of Soviet aircraft of itsgeneration, in that it has a relatively lowairframe life and very short intervals betweenmajor overhauls and rebuilds. The MiG-29was optimised for the requirements of war,and not for peacetime training. Fighters likethe MiG-29 were designed to be one part ofan overall air defence system, withunmatched performance, but with limitedpotential for autonomous action, and withlittle all-weather or precision attackcapability. But to win new customers theMiG-29 had to compete for orders with moreversatile western types, in areas where thestandard Soviet air defence infrastructure was

absent, and where Soviet operatingphilosophies were alien. Aircraft like theMiG-29 cannot be said to be inferior to theirWestern equivalents, but they are certainlyvery different in concept.

Winning new customers was never going tobe easy, but it was even difficult to hang onto traditional customers. Foreign recipients ofolder Russian combat aircraft began lookingelsewhere for new equipment. Russian aircraftlost their attractiveness to foreign customersas prices rose, and as subsidies disappeared.Aircraft were no longer supplied as part ofcomplex government-to-government aidpackages, and were forced to stand on theirmerits in the marketplace. Meanwhile, toprocure Western aircraft types oftenrepresented a useful political indicator ofpolitical change within former Soviet clientstates, many of whom were keen to establishcloser links with the West (and especially theUSA) and for whom turning away from Russiaas an arms supplier was a useful politicalgesture.

For both established and potential newcustomers, the MiG-29 has a number ofdrawbacks in the 1990s. Even the latest MiG-29 variants lack truly modern avionics andsensors, and so will continue to struggle on

FUTURE «FULCRUM

the export market, despite their excellenthandling and performance characteristics.Russian avionics, cockpit displays, sensors,computers and processors need to catch upwith those already in service in the West, letalone those under development, and untilthey do, the MiG-29 will continue to suffer acredibility gap which will minimise itsbroader appeal.

Steps have been taken by the industry tomeet the new situation, with a number oforganisational changes aimed at improvingcompetitiveness and winning new marketsoverseas. For most companies, the 'umbrella'organisations looking after marketing andsales have been refined and reconstructed,with Aviaexport continuing to oversee civilaircraft sales (but transferring from theMinistry of Foreign Trade to the Ministry ofthe Aviation Industry in 1988), and withmilitary sales passing from Aviaexport toOboronexport and then to Rosvoorouzhenie,the State Corporation for the Export andImport of Armaments and Military Equipment.Joint ventures with Western companies havebeen sought in a number of areas, andespecially where such operations can correctknown deficiencies. Crucially, there havebeen attempts to group the hithertoindependent design bureaus with theirprimary production plants, and with their keycomponent suppliers, and to allow some ofthese to conduct their own marketingoperations and sales negotiations.

One such combine is the Military IndustrialGroup-Moscow Aircraft ProductionOrganisation which combines the MikoyanOKB, the old GAZ-1 (Znamaya Truda) factoryand a number of associated key suppliers,including engine-makers Klimov,Chernyashev, and Soyuz, the radar companyLeninets, and equipment suppliers Ryazan(instruments and test equipment),Elektroavtomatika and Kursk, together withAviabank and MAPO Bank. MAPO andANPK MiG (the old MiG OKB) merged intothe single state company MAPO-MiG in1995, before becoming an even largercomplex as VPK-MAPO. The name MiGcontinues in the organisation's title, thoughas an English language abbreviation for VPK(Military Industrial Group). VPK MAPO tookUS $205 m of orders in 1995, representingalmost 8% of the Russian total, and signedcontracts worth more than US $1 bn in1996. The MAPO group's position wasconsiderably strengthened by theincorporation of the Kamov OKB and itsassociated Progress helicopter factory at

Arseneyev. But organisational changes didnothing to change the way the MiG-29 wasmarketed to export customers.

There is some confusion as to whetherMiG-29 production is continuing, since largenumbers of unsold aircraft (from cancelledVVS orders) are in storage at the Lukhovitskyfactory airfield. It seems that recent orders arebeing fulfilled by using these airframes,sometimes modified with new customer-specified equipment, avionics or instruments.Export versions of the MiG-29 bear abewildering assortment of designations,confusing their exact origin.

Above: Althoughdesigned as acarrierborne fighter, theMiG-29K's wing-folding,double-slotted flaps androbust undercarriage givethe aircraft capabilitiesthat are useful for land-based operations as well.Many believe that theMIC-29K is what theMiG-29 should be, andshould be the mainexport model.

Left: This plan view ofthe MIG-29K clearlyshows the increasedspan, increased areawing, with the increasedspan ailerons and theincreased chord double-slotted flaps, as well asthe wing fold, thedogtooth tailplane andthe arrester hook. Thewing of the MIG-29Kmay be used on theproposed MiG-35.

FUTURE «FULCRUM'

Above: One of the MiG-29M prototypes getssmartly airborne in frontof Farnborough's famous'Black Sheds'. Like theMiG-29K, the MIG-29Mhas full multi-rolecapability.

Below: A new Zhukradar lies at the heart ofthe MiG-29M's re-vamped weapons system.

Exports hold the key to VPK-MAPO'ssurvival, yet these are being jeopardised bythe need to sell the stock of unsold MiG-29sat Lukhovitsky. Unfortunately there is a limitto what can be done to an existing MiG-29airframe, and a new-build variant mightrepresent a better long term prospect for MiG.A number of the Lukhovitsky MiG-29s havebeen exported to a number of customersrelatively recently, including Malaysia,Slovakia and India. Complacency would bedangerous, however, since the momentum is

definitely faltering, and a number of potentialcustomers (including some existing MiG-29operators) are busy evaluating Western fightertypes.

The MiG-29 variants currently on offer arebasically modernised (or 'warmed over')'Fulcrum-As' and 'Fulcrum-Cs'. The firstupgraded MiG-29 variant was the MiG-29S(9-13S). The MiG-29S designation wasapplied to a phased multi-stage improvement,which was initially applied to some twosquadrons of Frontal Aviation 'Fulcrum-Cs',and involving little more than minor radarupdates (to N-019M standards) and provisionfor the carriage of 1150 litre underwingexternal fuel tanks. Inboard pylons wereuprated to allow the aircraft to carry amaximum warload of 4000-kg (double thepresent limit) with tandem side-by-side pairsof 500-kg bombs.

The full MiG-29S configuration included amodified flight control system with smallcomputers improving stability andcontrollability, allowing greater controlsurface deflection angles and permittinghigher g and alpha limits. The aircraft couldalso be offered with Western navigation andradio equipment, and with instruments and

FUTURE «FULCRUM*

displays calibrated in English language andImperial units and with a Western IFFtransponder. A second phase of the upgrade(originally to have been offered from 1995)included provision of a bolt-on retractableinflight refuelling probe, a ground mappingradar mode for the N-019 radar, provision forthe R-77 (AA-12 'Adder') AAM and thevarious modifications now associated with theMJG-29SM designation.

The designation MJG-29SE is applied toexport versions of the MiG-295 whichdiffered only in being fitted with thedowngraded N-019ME Topaz radar. The samepackage of improvements could be applied tothe original 'Fulcrum-A', and the designationM1G-29SD is applied to these upgraded'small-spined' MiG-29s.

The MiG-29SM prototype first flew in 1995,and represents the present upgrade'production' standard. The SM addscompatability with TV-guided air-to-groundweapons like the Kh-29T (AS-14 'Kedge')ASM and the KAB-500KR LGB. The MiG-29SM is also the first upgraded MiG-29 toactually incorporate simultaneous dual targetengagement capability against beyond visualrange airborne targets, though this capabilitywas offered as a future phase of the MiG-29S/SD/SE upgrades.

The MiG-29s delivered to Malaysia wereeffectively built to basic MiG-29SD standards,and were delivered with the promise that theywould undergo further modifications at 800flying hours (including provision for a bolt-onretractable inflight refuelling probe, a heavierweapon load, Cossor IFF, English languagecockpit placards, instruments calibrated inImperial measurements, and Western ILS,TACAN and GPS. According to some reportsthe aircraft will eventually receive furtherupdates (including compatability with TV-guided ASMs). This will bring them up to thesame standards as the MJG-29SM. TheMalaysian aircraft are known locally as MiG-29Ns (with the two-seaters using thedesignation MJG-29NUB).

All of these sub-types mark an improvementover the baseline MiG-29. but none comeclose to offering the kind of 'quantum leap'demonstrated by the MiG-29M, since noneoffer a sufficient increase in internal fuelcapacity, nor the new mult-role weaponssystem of the second generation MiG-29. Atthis year's Moscow Aeroshow, Mikoyanshowed a new MiG-29 derivative, albeitstatically and in mock-up form. The MiG-29SMT showed at Zhukhovskii was reportedlybased on the time-expired and grounded

airframe of the last pre-production MiG-29,but nevertheless reportedly represents agenuine project.

Based on the MiG-29SM, the SMTincorporates a revised spine (perhaps basedon that of the MJG-29M) and has revisedengine intakes, based on those of the MiG-29K and MiG-29M. These have anti-FODgrills in place of the solid anti-FOD doors ofthe standard MiG-29, and these allow theoverwing auxiliary intakes and their ducts tobe removed to make way for more fuel in theLERXes. The aircraft can also carry heavier1800-litre underwing fuel tanks. The MiG-29SMT appears to represent a genuineattempt to incorporate some of the features of

Above: While retainingbasic analogue flightinstruments, the MiC-29M also has twomonochrome multi-function displays in itscockpit. This represents asignificant improvementin the cockpitenvironment, giving thepilot much-improvedsituational awareness.The new MiG-29SMT haslarger, Western-sourced,colour displays.

FUTURE «FULCRUM9

Above: The MiG-29M'sairframe makes extensiveuse of composites andadvanced aluminium-lithium alloys, reducingthe number ofconventional bolts andfasteners, reducingweight, and providingincreased volume forfuel and avionics. Theaircraft also hasincreased thrust engines,which more thancompensate for theincreased weight of fueland avionics black boxes.

the M1C-29M in a new-build export versionof the basic 'Fulcrum' airframe.

All of these changes (without thelightweight MiG-29M airframe and upratedundercarriage) give the MiG-29SMT amaximum take off weight of 21000-kg(46,296-lb), a figure that is within 1000-kg ofthe MIG-29M's MTOW. This makes itessential that the MiG-21SMT be offered withan uprated engine, but since the RD-33K isinstallationally interchangeable with theoriginal engine, this should not present aninsoluble problem.

Mikoyan claim that the MiG-29SMT willhave a new multi-mode fire control radar(presumably based on the N-010 of the MiG-29M or the related Zhuk) and that the aircraft

will be fitted with a dual-redundant MIL STD1553B digital databus to give compatabilitywith the widest possible range of smartweapons. The new variant also has an entirelyredesigned cockpit, dominated by two largecolour LCD displays, with two additionalsmaller LCDs on the side consoles forweapons system andnavigation/ECM/communications systemsstatus and selection. This cockpit appears tobe more advanced than the two-CRTmonochrome cockpit of the MiG-29M.

The MiG-29SMT might have one furtheradvantage over a MiG-29M-based aircraft, inthat it would appear to be possible to convertan existing MiG-29 to the SMT configuration,whereas the MJG-29M incorporates suchmajor differences that it can only beproduced as a new-build aircraft. This wouldmake the MJG-29SMT a potentially superbupgrade/retrofit configuration for existingMiG-29 operators, and if correctly marketed(and if accompanied by improvements tosupport and after-sales infrastructure) couldbe extremely lucrative for MiG-MAPO.

There are several obstacles in the way ofthe MiG-29SMT's success, however. There is awidespread perception that Russiancompanies are unable to offer adequatespares and after-sales support for theirproducts, and that this impacts on in-serviceaircraft availability and reliability. A newlogistics support service was set up to servicethe Luftwaffe's MiG-29s, and this has provedfairly successful, but poor availabilitycontinues to be a concern expressed by someother operators.

ADVANCED MiG-29 VARIANTSThese variants (with the exception of the SMT) are based on a redesigned and re-engineeredairframe, and represent the true 'Second Generation' MiG-29.The MSG-29SMT represents asensible compromise, incorporating advanced features in the basic airframe.

FUTURE «FULCRUM

Perhaps more crucially, there is a growingperception that Russian/Soviet avionics lag farbehind those offered by leading Westerncompanies, both in terms of their capability,and in terms of their supportability. Themocked-up cockpit of the MiG-29SMT isundeniably impressively modern inappearance, and is probably a very well-thought out man-machine interface. Thedisplays are probably entirely driven byHOTAS controls, for example, like those ofthe MiG-29M. But one cannot help butwonder whether the incorporation of Westernradar, displays and Western avionics blackboxes (Terrain Reference Navigation System,GPS/INS, computers, stores managementsystem, MIL STD 1553B and -1760 databuses,etc.) would not be a powerful sales pointespecially if such items were integrated by aproven Western partner (eg Elbit or GEC-Marconi). A glance at what IAI have achievedwith F-5 and MiG-21 upgrades, or at theSouth African Mirage Ill-based Cheetah Cshows what is possible.

A MiG-29 with a similar avionics fit wouldhave enormous appeal to existing MiG-29users, offering high performance,commonality, economy and unbeatablecombat capability. Existing 'Fulcrum-A'sawaiting sale could be leased to customers asa stop-gap or sold for training use and for useby reserve units, backing up the definitiveMiG-29 export model. Without such adevelopment, the existing MiG-29s poorradar/weapons system integration andreliance on GCI will come to be seen as anincreasingly serious handicap, as will the

aircraft's lack of range and endurance, andmany potential customers will switch toaircraft like the F-16 and F/A-18.

There is plenty of life left in the 'old dog'yet, but to push the adage further, MiG-MAPO might be well advised to let a Westerncompany help integrate and market theanimal with a new, Western-made lead!

Top and above: TheMIC-29M has eightunderwing pylons, andhas been cleared to carrythe widest range ofweapons. Many regard itas the best multi-rolefighter in the world.

MiG-29

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSMy obsession with the MiG-29 dates back to the aircraft's first appearance, and is well-known, and I'd like to thank

anyone who has tolerated my often single-minded quest for information and photos. I hope that I've done the aircraftjustice, while honestly exposing its weaknesses (no military aircraft will ever be perfect).

The MiG-29's story is a fascinating one, far toolabyrinthine to be told properly in a book of this size.Perhaps one day In the meantime, I owe a debt ofgratitude to Rostislav Belyakov, the aircraft's designer, andto his deputies, Mikhail Waldenberg, Valerii Novikov, andAnatoli! Belosvet. All have been generous with their timeand reminiscences, and have answered my manyquestions, over the years, with patience, good humour andtact. I would also like to thank Roman Taskaev (MikoyanChief Test Pilot), and his predecessors Valerii Menitsky andAnatoly Kvotchur, as well as OKB test pilots Pavel Vlasovand Marat Alykov. Thanks also go to a huge number offriends at MAPO-MiG, but especially to Nikolai Buntin,FedorTimofeyev, Alexander Dmitriyev and Victor Trifonov.

I should also thank all of those who offered a lesspartisan contribution, and helped me gain a morebalanced and objective view of the aircraft. I wouldparticularly like to thank Major Bob Wade (the firstWesterner to fly the MiG-29), late of the Canadian ArmedForces, Mr John Farley, and Mr Ben Lambeth. 'Swapper'and 'Bones' cannot be thanked by name, nor can 'Harry',late of the 968th IAP. I can name Piotr Butowski, MartinBaumann, Hendrik van Broekhuizen, Tieme Festner,Marcus Fülber, Werner Greppmeier, Jan Jörgensen, FrankRozendaal, Jelle Sjoerdsma, Frank Vetter, Rene vanWoezik, and do so with grateful thanks, and admirationfor their work, which has been inspirational.

There is not room to thank all of those who helped giveme a broader understanding of the Russian forces in EastGermany, or who supplied information and photographs,but my gratitude is genuine and heartfelt. You guys knowwho you are! I can thank Russian colleagues and friendsArtur Sarkisyan, Boris Rybak, 'Sasha' Velovich, SegeiSkrynnikov, and Yefim Gordon. Penultimately I would liketo tip my hat to Dave Donald and Grant Race whoshared a Land Rover around the 16th Air Army's bases,and also shared the discomfort of having pistols thrust inour faces by the Volkspolizei. I'd also like to thank'Ozzie' (Austen J.) Brown for his noble attempt to kill meduring a long drive back from Altenburg, and to RobHewson, whose songwriting skills were conclusivelydemonstrated on the same trip.

Finally, of course, I'd like to thank my wife, Jilly, for hercontinuing support and forebearance of my obsessionand untidiness! She was also completely unruffled as wedrove into a Soviet military airfield on the very morningof the Moscow coup!

The publishers would like to thank the followingorganisations and individuals for their help insupplying photographs.

Artur Sarkisyan (MiG-MAPO)