Why the Soviet answer to the F-16 failed - MiG 29 story

[@FoundAndExplained]

We have no sponsor for this video today, but I couldn't bare leaving you without a fun little video to make your weekend a little more interesting! But as there's no sponsor, I thought i'd plug our little merch store made by me: www.foundandexplained.shop

[@clan_houltz]

This Is why your the best

[@Anteeeiiii]

Agreed

[@Roman_22]

I luv your vids they are so good quality keep posting❤!

[@aabumble9954]

Hello Found and Explained could your next video please be about the Zhuchenko vertoplan?

[@Bababoy6969]

You didint get the story right about yugoslav one it was less then 5 migs againts hundreds of f15s f16s 1 mig 29 took out 4 f16s

[@angrycolonel1957]

the airframe of the mig29 is excellent, this plane can climb extremely quickly and gain speed faster than most other fighters, its thrust to weight ratio is amazing and its maneuverability is extremely good, the only problem is that it's held back by its radar system and lack of guided weapons developed by the USSR/Russia

[@Kurio71]

It was never modernized like the Nato planes

[@angrycolonel1957]

@@Kurio71 yea, the avionics are lacking quite a lot

[@Fuzeha]

Yeah it's a common theme with Russian aircraft, superior performance/manoeuvrability, but let down by avionics/weaponry. I love Russian planes, In my eyes they're the better fighters but the nature of air combat means they aren't.

[@davidlium9338]

Someone in the West said modern, more advanced engines could be installed as well as new avionics . Wow.

[@njgrplr2007]

The MIG-29 never had superior performance over the F-16. It can't turn or climb with the F-16. Its only advantage lies in engagements less than 200 knots, which is akin to saying it fights awesome when there's a blue moon.

[@RookFox]

Not the most capable plane, but one of the most beautiful in my opinion.

[@krzysztofdeoniziak5618]

agree, btw, imo this is the first Soviet design that is iconic in its appearance, two, it simply has a beautiful line. All of the earlier ones were either heavily inspired or simply ugly, such as the mig 21. It also seems that the Russians have taken a liking to this shape as well, as the su 27, su 33, su 35, su 37 are heavily inspired by this look.

[@spykezspykez7001]

Agreed. There are some jets that just look perfect. This one in my aesthetics books is S-tier. I also like the lines of the MiG-23. I know that may be a polarising statement. But sure, it’s aesthetics!

[@Gigachadent]

Aesthetically, Soviet aircraft can't be beat. Far as practicality it's a 50/50 split because both countries produce highly capable planes.

[@Optimusprime56241]

It’s pretty but it’s garbage capability wise

[@Chimpunk729]

Agree, until i found out the legend Su 27 family 😁

[@NestorKYAT]

I had no idea the Soviets had introduced off boresight missiles so early. Pretty interesting

[@hphp31416]

they killed dogfights and then decided to focus on supermaneuverability

[@FloridaManMatty]

One thing the Soviets did well from the start was missile tech. A2A and SAMs were always very formidable. Once they were able to get their hands on some foreign designs, they were able to make some pretty impressive leaps. They were punching well above their weight for quite a while there.

[@vangard9725]

​​@@FloridaManMatty? they didn't have a A2A IR missile until they were able to get their hands on an a stolen AIM sidewinder

[@weasle2904]

@FloridaManMatty Yeah they were able to put up a fight AFTER copying American weapons. The Soviet engineers in a documentary were literally like "The radar-guided gunsight we took from an F-86 was amazing and we are very thankful to the US haha." An AIM-9 sidewinder failed to detonate and got stuck in a North Korean fighter in the Vietnam War. It was promptly sent to Russia to reverse engineer and finally get a working IR missile... The first Soviet nuclear bomb was a direct copy of the Fatman with technical documentation supplied by espionage scientists in the Manhatten project. The TU-144 was heavily based on stolen technical documentation of the Concorde regarding the general airframe and aerodynamics.

[@phunkracy]

Copying good enemy design is smart, so dont see the issue there. USA copied Germany's entire rocket program and used nazi scientists to reach the moon.

[@quakethedoombringer]

I think the issue is that unlike the Mig 29, the F 16 doesn't have its host nation completely dissolve and money has to be prioritized for its more capable cousin, the Su 27. So while the Su 27 has received a bunch of modern upgrades that rival its counterparts (Su 30, Su 35), the Mig is the overshadowed, semi-neglected child that got like some minor upgrades to avoid making it too obsolete. Most countries that wish to buy Russian hardware are more willing to fork out more for the Su since the Su is just more capable around; the only exception being the Naval version with the case of India since the Su family is way too unwieldy for aircraft operation (see the Su 33)

[@AaronShenghao]

Sukhoi spent lots of their own money to keep the Su-27 program alive. Mostly through foreign sales and even production licenses to China (J-10). Chinese isn't interested with MiG-29 had a bad taste from the failed MiG-21 production attempt ending up have to reverse engineering most of it (although it was actually the Soviet government's handiwork, especially when the Chinese started to open up to the west). Later they made their own single engine light fighters based on J-8, making them even less interested with MiG-29 variants and MiG-33

[@christianvalentin5344]

The Su-33 is too big to be carried in sufficient numbers on the carriers India operates. On larger carriers like what the Chinese are operating and building its fine.

[@vineetkaddu1214]

​@@christianvalentin5344As I recall the Su 33 had issues with taking off with a full load. Was that issue fixed with the j -15? More powerful engines?

[@yxmichaelxyyxmichaelxy3074]

​ No, it did not. The Chinese had a version of the SU-33 engine in one of their J-15s. Took off with a full load with ease. The Russians, pissed at China trying to steal their engines made them impossible to reverse-engineer. So, the Chinese built a home-grown version of the best they could reverse-engineer the SU-33 engine. THAT is the engine the Chinese cannot take off with a full load. Russian planes have NEVER had any such difficulties. Quit lying.

[@mattm7798]

I'd say yes and no. The Su 27 got all those upgrades because it better fit the current landscape of air warfare. Longer range, better radar, etc. The Mig 29 is my favorite airplane of all time, but by the time it entered service, it's role as a short range, dogfighting ace was increasingly becoming obsolete. I don't think it had much to do with the SU collapsing as the Mig 29 was excellent at what is was designed to do, and when not facing off against top tier western radars and missiles, it's a very capable aircraft.

[@osobad1127]

Mig-29, SU-27, F-14 tomcat will always be the three most beautiful airplanes ever

[@dun0790]

Id add the phantom and harrier aswell but i agree those late era soviet jets look beautiful

[@AsusMemopad-us5lk]

F-15 is pretty good looking, but I would say Gripen tops the lot.

[@Rationalific]

F-5 for me.

[@hl954]

F23.

[@formbi]

SR-71

[@APerson-fj6yx]

We gotta agree the MiG-29 looks menacing, right?

[@IezekiLLL]

He dont looks. He IS.

[@APerson-fj6yx]

@user-wx4nq6ge7e You got a point there

[@nathanskupowski4726]

Absolutely, gorgeous and aggressive plane, I love the mig29

[@TheFlyMan]

Yes it looks good but a double seater su27 is unbeatable. That imo is the best looking Russian plane

[@nathanskupowski4726]

@@TheFlyMan that’s fair, I think Russian military aircraft look amazing as it it

[@johnschmitt5259]

The Mig29 is an absolutely beautiful warbird and it's maneuvering capabilities are nothing short of amazing. I'll never forget the first time I saw 2 perform at and airshow. I stood there in complete awe thinking to myself "how the hell did that just do that without stalling and falling out of the sky?" I can still picture it like it was yesterday.

[@necsoiub]

Its control surfaces are HUGE!

[@molnibalage83]

@@necsoiub Which has nothing to do its performance because the wings and the whole airframe generate the lift. Fighter evolution series. kzbin.info/www/bejne/h5CznqWshZusiKM

[@floriankiss-andok2300]

@@molnibalage83 you need elevators to pitch up tho???????????????????????????????

[@molnibalage83]

Here you can learn a lot more about this and more topic. kzbin.info/www/bejne/g3m7opufZsaqmMk

[@ThatGuyWayOverThere]

F-16 could turn tighter.

[@M167A1]

Don't think it failed and did exactly what it was supposed to do and remains formidable, imagine if it had been the subject of as much investment in development as the F-16 has.

[@Audfile]

Then this video wouldn't exist, hence, it's real.

[@guaporeturns9472]

@@Audfilenot true… the existence of this video doesn’t prove or disprove anything. Need a hug?

[@guaporeturns9472]

Exactly.. wasn’t a failure

[@angryhedgehog4266]

​@Audfile You know flat earth theory videos exist right?

[@SoloRenegade]

@@guaporeturns9472 How many nations are still operating Mig29? When did the last foreign country buy a brand new Mig29 from russia? How many F-16 are still being sold? How many nations are still operating the F-16? If it was designed to counter the F-16, then it failed.

[@anityasrivastava7931]

The reason why India is able to use the Mig 29 so well is because they are majorly used in mountain regions. Its high speed and maneuverability have played a key role in maintaining control of J&K, or what's left of it.

[@JeffreyWilliams-dr7qe]

Indian flyers are better. At least better trained and motivated.

[@barrag3463]

The bigger reason it probably employed there is that the Fulcrum was intended to be able to take off from shorter and less ideal runways, which is important in places like mountainous regions.

[@JeffreyWilliams-dr7qe]

I should know much more about the Indian military overall. Empire operations as Cold war, Non aligned status as well. Their troops were underappreciad in Ww2.

[@fanaticcoder3320]

@@JeffreyWilliams-dr7qe LMFAO, IAF has the highest record of aircraft crashes.

[@I_am_Indian11]

​@@fanaticcoder3320That's not because of the pilots, its due to not upgrading the jets and using old generation aircrafts, also Russian jets are not easy maintain

[@todo9633]

To be clear the Mig 21 performed well in *early* Vietnam, later on the F-4 was the obviously superior fighter once sidewinder issues were ironed out, and most losses were to SAMs, while conversely most Mig 21 losses were to aircraft.

[@secundus6457]

Nikolai Sutyagin - deal with it

[@laernulienlaernulienlaernu8953]

It is definitely an iconic plane, whatever your feelings towards Russia or the planes technical capabilities.

[@BigSmartArmed]

lol main point here is in fact - feelings. West cope is the hardest cope

[@adam145]

This is basically every story of a soviet/russian airplane: -does it look cool? -yep -does it look menacing? -yes it does -is it actually menacing? -not really

[@BigSmartArmed]

@@adam145 lol you're thinking of Hollywood pedos, not the people that killed 8 out 10 of ALL Axis solders in WWII.

[@piotrmalewski8178]

This jet has proven effective when numerically outmatched and is designed to operate from bombed airstrips. None of that was ever done by F-16. When F-16s first arrived in Poland it turned out we couldn't use them because the landing gear would collapse when using airstrips normally used by MiG-29s, and engine would suffer damage from taking dirt from it. The idea that any frontline country that could have their airstrips literred and damaged by bombing, should use F-16 is absurd.

[@BigSmartArmed]

@@piotrmalewski8178Facts. F-16 is not a front line fighter, it was not designed to operate from forward air bases.

[@IllustriousUnknown416]

The MiG-29 (9.13) is not the same as the MiG-29S. The MiG-29 (9.13) is from 1986, while the MiG-29S, a modernization of 9.12 and 9.13 airframes, is an early 1990s program to make the older Fulcrums able to carry the new R-77 longe range missiles, while factory-new aircraft of this new model were to be called MiG-29SM, but USSR collapsed in 1991 and all of the new projects ended up being canceled with only a handful of MiG-29 (9.13) being converted to the MiG-29S standard

[@termitreter6545]

R-77 are short range missiles, they got less range than soviet semi active R-27Rs, and much less than Aim-120s, let alone Aim-54s. How would you ever come to call those long range missiles? The soviets never even adopted the R-77, likely because it was that bad. Only Russia did it later.

[@IllustriousUnknown416]

@@termitreter6545 the R-77 is a short range missile? 100km (claimed range) does not sound like short to me. It’s on par with the American AIM-120 of the same era and much more than a R-27R. The Russians did not adopted the R-77 in the 90s because of the economic issues and due to them not having a proper plataform to launch them (as I said, most projects were canceled after the Soviet Union dissolution and only a handful MiG-29S were converted to carry them. With the Su-27M, Su-30, Su-35 and the Su-37 projects not receiving the necessary money to go further). The R-77 (aswell as some of these aircrafts, like the Su-30 and the MiG-29K) would be extensively exported to other countries (India and China for example). In another words, Russia sold most of its good tech for export but did not adopt them for domestic use because of the lack of money. They only resumed many of these 1990’s projects for domestic use after 2006/2008, with the R-77-1, Su-30SM, Su-35S, Su-34, Ka-52, Mi-28N (all projects started back there in the 90s) * although in the early 2000s Russia updated many of their 1980s Su-27S to the Su-27SM standard, capable of using the R-77 if needed

[@molnibalage83]

@@termitreter6545 Nope, the R-77 family never was short range. Fighter evolution series. kzbin.info/www/bejne/h5CznqWshZusiKM

[@jasperzanjani]

Thank you, Captain Wikipedia

[@jordancourse5102]

@@termitreter6545the R77 is a fox3 missile designed as a potential counter to the NATO AMRAAM. Current r77M has claims to have the capability the same as as a Aim-120C but the earlier variant of the 120C

[@Idk-cz9ms]

The MiG 29 is still probably my favorite looking jet to this day

[@guaporeturns9472]

She’s a beauty.

[@larryc1616]

F-22 for me

[@NotConfuzed]

YF 23 is best looking

[@sadmanontherun]

Eurofighter for me

[@MoskusMoskiferus1611]

MiG-23 for Me, They don't produce any single engined Jet after

[@volodymyrsukhyna5932]

Correction: there's only one MiG-29MU2 built so far, most Ukrainian MiG-29s are MiG-29MU1 or 9-13s, with the additions of planes donated by Poland and Slovakia.

[@itsilussion5402]

Indian Air Force was the fist customer of Mig-29 when they were exported. Currently the Mig 29's in service with the IAF are heavily upgraded and are performing extremly well against the PLA Airforce in the Himalayan region. The Naval version of the Mig 29 is not performing well as the spares supply got hindered. But still has been performing well in high seas.

[@augustuslunasol10thapostle]

Yall need to replace those you need better missiles and bvr capabilities

[@johnnyenglish583]

India wasn't the first customer. It was the first customer outside of Warsaw Pact. That's a big difference.

[@marijandumancic4259]

@@johnnyenglish583 Not quite sure here, which country got them before India?

[@johnnyenglish583]

@@marijandumancic4259 I'm pretty sure one of the Warsaw Pact countries got it first. I think it was East Germany. It would be logical: you share your latest technology with your allies first, before exporting it. That was normal policy in the USSR, and I don't think it's surprising.

[@marijandumancic4259]

@@johnnyenglish583 ok, so you don't KNOW, just guesstimating.

[@Maple_Cadian]

This video title is bad. The Mig-29 was an export success and introduced High off bore sight missiles and Helmet Mounted Displays way before they became commonplace in western aircraft.

[@Avtomat4774]

100% It's a very, very capable aircraft. The only true drawback is it's very limited range.

[@oddursigurdsson9637]

​@@Avtomat4774it also has limited radar and bvr capability which is what true 4th gen fighters have. The design philosophy is just wrong for the mig29. What good is it to have a well designed fast fighter if it's just going to get shot down before it gets into range? Compared to other jets it just doesn't have a role to fill in a modern war

[@RighteousFallen-III]

After the fall of Berlin wall, Germans for some reason kept their "Failed" mig-29, upgraded to nato standards and absolutely wiped the floor with f-16 in training. Yeah, definitely a failure.

[@newenglandexpansionistsoci2613]

Attempt # 17 The Bugatti 100P ( it’s a plane) I feel like it really deserves more love than it gets.

[@FoundAndExplained]

Hahaha you have asked so many times… I really should make it just for you. It’s so obscure

[@alimohammadi4795]

@@FoundAndExplained can you also make a video about the f20 tiger shark?

[@__.111.]

@@FoundAndExplainedon’t know if there is enough info but I just figured out there was a plan for a St-21 if h could make a video on it

[@andrewyork3869]

​@FoundAndExplained yeah it's definitely off the beaten path first time I saw a model I thought it was fake.

[@guaporeturns9472]

@@FoundAndExplainedI think what he really wants is just a hug.

[@olex2999]

Ukraine uses MiG 29: stunning and brave Russia uses MiG 29: "Why the Soviet answer to the F-16 failed - MiG 29 story"

[@nattygsbord]

russias economy is 9 times larger than that of ukraine so it should have more options. ukraine are stuck with their own planes they have. but despite having more modern planes do russia fail to take ukraine

[@hopeyouhavinganiceday]

​@@nattygsbord NAZI RUSSIAN INVASION OF UKRAINE

[@agl1138]

The engine layout was also intended to simplify airflow. It increases RCS a lot

[@ashcarrier6606]

4th Gen airframe, 3rd Gen avionics, engines that leave a trail of black smoke visible for miles. I admit, the look and shoot helmet HUD display was innovative.

[@darthtytherous2107]

As a self proclaimed ace myself I always knew people were wrong and I wasn’t coping. Thanks DCS for teaching me well.

[@SuperUndercover1234]

Feel that the Su-27 stepped up to answer the F-16 over the MiG-29.

[@Re.Configured]

Su-27 family is more comparable to the F-15 family with regards to being the heavy fighter (or the "high" in the high-low air superiority mix)

[@mr.abrams8112]

@@Re.Configured F15 still rekts su27

[@woutergrob8587]

​@@mr.abrams8112An answer to a question no one asked... We know.

[@mr.abrams8112]

@@woutergrob8587 look at the comments, "we" is not a lot of people.

[@spongememefunnypants9101]

@@mr.abrams8112 the number of likes says otherwise..

[@aishepelev]

To start with, the MiG-29 was never meant to be an answer to the F-16. There was no high-low mix concept on the Soviet side at all. The Mig-29 was created as the part of a competive program that involved also the Sukhoi Su-27 'heavy' fighter. Sukhoi won the competition, yet the MiG has been procured, too, just to support the MiG company. That was a usual Soviet practice, and this is the true reason of the MiG-29's lackluster career -- it was born second-rate. Although not a bad fighter by itself, as a matter of fact.

[@Shimo_28]

What is the song's name at 5:40?

[@robertkerr4199]

That was a good intro. It's a pleasant way of saying, "it's not that it sucked, it just sucked for the time." Still one of, if not the most beautiful fighter ever built.

[@robertsaberniak007]

The mig 29 is badass.... I'm a USA fan but I love some of the Soviet era aircraft

[@miquelescribanoivars5049]

2:29 I'm afraid this would be incorrect, Mikoyan had already passed away and Guverich retired a few years earlier (and passed on 1976).

[@walkerharris2662]

I am not one to preach the capabilities of the Russian military, but the mig-29 is one of the coolest 4th gen fighters, looks awesome, is the most maneuverable fighter, and sticks to the energy maneuverability doctrine of dog fighting, it sucks it isn’t as useful as it should be, but it is easily the coolest fighter to see at an air show

[@Shubhamkumar-fr9hl]

Mig 29 is known as silent saviour in india,due to their BVR capability Pakistani Airforce F16s denied to fought against them in 1999 indo pak war.

[@Avtomat4774]

Anyone who thinks the MiG-29 is a failure is smoking crack or watching too much Ryan MacBeth level propaganda.

[@jayyydizzzle]

The CG on this channel has gotten so good

[@zefdin101]

The Mig 29 is such a beautiful aircraft.. the way it stands so tall in front and the lines swoop up and to the back. It’s like a steel ballerina. The F22 is a cool looking plane and may perform light years better, but the Mig29 may be the most beautiful fighter ever built.

[@robertfarmer6316]

I agree x10000

[@sukritbera5244]

This is a really good video, and yes, I'd love to see one on the MiG-35 as well!

[@shubhajeetdas6820]

5:40 Name of the background music please👌👌

[@legobenjo3253]

What's the background music name at 0:00-0:29

[@keripalajanata]

YES! Do make a part 2 video to this, and call it "The last fulcrum" as you stated.

[@KK-gr9df]

The US had the first IR search and track sensors. The first use of an IRST system appears to be the F-101 Voodoo, F-102 Delta Dagger and F-106 Delta Dart interceptors. The F-106 had an early IRST mounting replaced in 1963 with a production retractable mount.[2] The IRST was also incorporated into the Vought F-8 Crusader (F-8E variant) which allowed passive tracking of heat emissions and was similar to the later Texas Instruments AAA-4 installed on early F-4 Phantoms.[3] The F-14 had an IR search and track sensor under the nose before the Mig 29 was built.

[@bradleyanderson4315]

And why did it disappear ?

[@KK-gr9df]

@@bradleyanderson4315 It is on the F 35. It never disappeared. It’s still here.

[@Th3Orange]

If the Mig 29A was fully modernized it would have been a very competitive jet. But they cut corners and had a LOT of old cockpit amenities. Once the west saw inside they weren't worried.

[@ianmedford4855]

The MiG-29 is probably the sexiest plane ever built. *Except possibly the F-4 Phantom... That thing is a hot rod.

[@DanTheTan]

@@ianmedford4855 Agreed, F4 looks really good to me despite its less impressive performance

[@KesavanNamboodiri-e9y]

You're animations are getting better and better. Very well done. I would like to suggest to you to make a video on the french rafale or indian tejas jet

[@knowntalmbout]

One of my favorite channels on KZbin right now. As an aviation fan and info/doc binger this is right up my alley.

[@frankwarden5146]

At 1:14 you mentioned the “great performance’ of the MIG21 v. the F4. I would assign most of this great performance to the poor use of the United States’ military assets. Its politicians tied the hands of the pilots and the planners to the point they were sitting ducks. The MIG21’s performance can be attributed to Johnson and McNamara.

[@guaporeturns9472]

Total BS. The MiGs gave the Phantoms a hard time , it’s that simple. The fragile American ego is a source for great entertainment for me and the rest of the world 😂😂 Cope bud

[@FactCheckerGuy]

The Mig 21's performance in Vietnam wasn't "great" but "capable." The NV Air Force had some very substantial advantages: ground control radar, SAMs to deter many flight paths, and the ability to pick and choose when and where to fight. And the Americans made serious mistakes, such as overreliance on BVR and WVR missiles, lack of training in basic ACM, and overly predictable bombing patterns. Despite these advantages, the best the NV Air Force could do was 1:1 kill ratios over some periods. Overall, the kill ratios favored the Americans, although not as much as they had in Korea.

[@shawnmiller4781]

I wouldn’t put the blame on Johnson and McNamara both have their own crimes against the US military. But I will say what caused problems was the US fixation on interceptors in the 1950’s. The F-102, F-104, F-106 and arguably the F-4 all were designed to get to a point fast and shoot at a bomber. They weren’t designed to turn. A Mig 21 was designed to turn. I would say that only turning dogfighter to come out of that period of time was the F-8 crusader

[@CloakerV8]

@@guaporeturns9472’s not total BS since many F-4 Phantom pilots weren’t trained in dogfighting because it was first thought by the Air Force that BVR was going to be the main method of air combat so the F-4 Phantom was designed to be a heavy fighter that can carry heavy loads of long range missiles like the AIM-7 Sparrow and also carry unguided bombs with little in the way for maneuverability and it didn’t help that the early F-4 Phantom’s specially the B and C variants didn’t have an internal gun but he isn’t wrong about the F-4’s performance being attributed to poor use

[@guaporeturns9472]

@@CloakerV8 😂Keep making excuses .. bottom line is cheap Soviet crap kicked the shit outta high dollar American tech and all the fragile American egos just can’t come to grips with that. So funny 😆

[@TrolerWT]

when the mig 29 was introduced, even the pentagon made a *now* unclassified report on how the mig 29 was superior to the early block 10 f16 and the f15 A an B in terms of capabilities

[@goingfubar7182]

Usually, when showing the MIG-29 at the airshow, didn't one of them crashed. The pilot did survive, which was a miracle because of the time he ejected. He was very low to the ground. I believe that this happened at the airshow that you mentioned in the first part of the video. It was a bit of egg on the face of the soviets. However, when they introduced the SU-27 that made up for their earlier embarrassment. For many years the SU-27 was a top of the line fighter.

[@GorgeDawes]

If my memory serves me correctly that happened the following year at the Paris Air Show. The MiG29 suffered an engine stall during the high-alpha fly past (possibly as a result of a birdstrike). The ejection seats fitted to the later Soviet fighters are incredibly capable (if a lot heavier than Western models) and can launch the pilot safely skywards at almost any ejection angle.

[@renaudcharlet]

At le Bourget Air Show, I think the Tu-144 "Concordski", the Mig29 and the Su27 crashed... Great but dangerous Air Show!

[@RACECAR]

@@renaudcharlet While all those crashes did happen at that very air show, they occurred at very different years. The very famous Tu-144 crash happened in 1973 (A result of the plane flying with its limiters turned off that would expose some very fatal flaws in the design causing it to stall in the air and come down, coming apart in the process) while the Mig 29 crash happened in 1989 due to an engine stall. The Su-27, Though technically it was the Su-30 variant by that time, had its crash happen a full 10 years later in 1999 after a tail strike the pilot couldn't climb and recover from following a botched maneuver.

[@cherniqhs]

Not miracle but by design. The ejection seat in those planes is set to operate in All of the flight range, this include catapulting from the ground. Given Solviet Union is famous with not giving that much attention to the crew but that is actually the exact opposite

[@slivkask8329]

Thanks for the video! 👍 It is a very beautiful airplane and I like it a lot together with Su-27. You forgot to mentioned, that Mig-29 is able to land almost every where, including non-paved fields. For this reason, it has two intakes for each engine. One is in front of the engine gondola and the other is on the upper surface of the wing. The lower one is closed during takeoff or landing on a dirty field to keep the engines from sucking in debris, and the engines "breathe" through the upper one, which is open.

[@Tsotha]

Boy howdy is that a lot of technical information about the MiG-29 that I had never encountered before now. Had no clue about all the technical problems that plagued the MiG-29 when it first entered service, let alone the air superiority fighter paradigm becoming obsolete after the end of the Cold War. That does however explain why the modern Russian and Chinese airforces both make MUCH more frequent use of the Sukhoi Flanker family...

[@boocomban]

Because Mig29 designed does not fit with the modern battle concept. Remember that Mig-29 designed it as a frontline interceptor. It has a short range and can operate on a temporary runway. It is suitable for Soviet because it has many satelite states that doesn't need a long range fighter as these satelite states was small. After Soviet fall, Russia doesn't need short range frontline fighter but a long range multiroles that can stay on air for a long time and carry more payload for multiple missions. And since Su-27/30 offer more than Mig 29, its make sense to go with it, rather than a small short range interceptor like Mig-29.

[@Tsotha]

@@boocombanIt is for sure interesting to learn about how much military tactics have evolved since the Cold War. I have figured out for a long time, that things are going to change when you no longer have geopolitics polarised between 2 evenly matched super-powers, but a lot of the specific details I am still in the process of learning about.

[@boocomban]

@@Tsotha yes, while people like to compares things online, many forget or don't know that all of military hardwares are built based on it military doctrine and requirements. Mig-29 was never meant to be used to counter F-16 or copy the concept of F-16. Look at the Mig family, it was designed to fulfil the requirement of the Soviet Union, and in this case, it was created based on the requirement of a frontline interceptor like Mig-21. Basically Mig-29 is the 4th gen era jet of Mig-21 that the Soviet wants to develop and use. Both were designed as frontline interceptors with short range, light payload to provide air defense on the frontline. Its radar is also designed for this role as the pilot was guided by ground radar to locate enemies air target and only use its radar for firing the missile. Hence it didn't need long range powerful radar, nor did it need extreme long range BVR missiles, as it wasn't designed for it. Since the Soviet collapse, Mig tried to update and changed the role of the Mig-29 into a multirole medium-light fighter. But you can only upgrade so much before it reaches the limitation of the design as the airplane was never meant to be a multi role. And since the Russian economy didn't have the capability, nor did the military need a short range interceptor as it no longer bears the weight of the Soviet Union that carries multiple small satellite states as Russia now is only 1 huge state with its territory run through multiple timezones, it favour heavy interceptor and multirole. Hence Mig 31 and Su-27/30 got chosen to be the back bone of Russia fighter jet for long range interceptor and multirole. So if people want to look at Mig-29, they would need go look at its precessor, Mig-21, as the Mig-29 was designed to be successor of Mig-21, not a counter or copy concept of F-16.

[@Tsotha]

@@boocomban I do know already that during the early stages of the Cold War, NATO and Warsaw Pact fighter aircraft were designed according to completely different philosophies. NATO's according to maximising speed and firepower, and the Warsaw Pact's for maximising manoeuvrability. Likewise the Warsaw Pact had much more specialised long range high altitude interceptor aircraft, the closest NATO equivalent to those I can think of being the SR-71 Blackbird's interceptor version YF-12 that never entered mass production.

[@jimmiller5600]

Aircraft (civil or military) development is a game of chess (or chicken). You goad your opponent to "go first", letting you look over the specs and then develop a "better" version, giving you an edge for decades. The wildcard is how fast your opponent can then upgrade. With the F-16 and MiG-29 story the F-16 won based on constant upgrades of the engine, weapons, structure, avionics and even radar signature reduction. That's why the F-16 is still in production today to customers around the world.

[@UncleManuel]

Holy crap, the main gear flex on that carrier landing at the end was REAL! 😮😮😮😮

[@starfighter1043]

Could you imagine going to off bore shots like training a pilot who has already been trained to fire within certain parameters and now telling them to let it go whenever 😂

[@jah886]

I think the author was a little crazy. The MiG 29 is not an answer to the F 16, it was created as a front-line fighter and not as a conqueror of air superiority

[@glenn_r_frank_author]

Another great video. Comment about your Merch store: I think more items using some of the great 3d rendered images of aircraft you have made would likely sell more than just items with your logotype on them. I know I would be interested in items like that!

[@FoundAndExplained]

That's a great idea! I’ll start doing it next week after holiday

[@toothpik00]

The MiG-29 is one of the most beautiful looking aircraft to ever grace the sky and one of my favourite fighters. I'd love to see a video about the MiG-35.

[@i-use-4rch-btw]

Did he just call Mikoyan Gurevich as “Mikoyan Gulevich”?

[@mikexf1647]

He did. He is also trashing the Mig as if the F-16 is a perfect Plane with no faults. Laughable. To be fair; the rest of the content is of better quality.

[@judyhopps9380]

to his friends he was known as "Mikky G"

[@99bimmer]

There's a good book out there called "Fulcrum", written by Alexander Zuyev, a MiG 29 pilot that defected to the U.S.

[@NecromancerTO]

10:51 - my heart skipped a beat since I knew India would be mentioned. Please make a full dedicated video on The Last Fulcrum and how effective it is against F16’s

[@netsimam]

Not really, Paķistan killed 20 soviet aircraft.

[@whysoserious7553]

​@@netsimamlol madrasas graduate

[@netsimam]

@@whysoserious7553 Bro can’t even read 💀

[@netsimam]

@@whysoserious7553 Bro has joker as his PFP cuz he a 🤡

[@whysoserious7553]

@@netsimam OK madrasas chap

[@EL20078]

8:58, very general statement. The MiG-29s of the Yugoslav air force were in a pitiful condition and the radars were barely working.

[@EL20078]

@mitchellcouchman6589 Yes, the aircraft were barely flying, the pilots were good. If you want a comparison, the aircraft has to at least fly sir, those were barely working. Read "Gallant Knights", it's an article in the airforces monthly magazine.

[@rajatthakur7312]

Surprising that you have not mentioned Indian Air Force Mig 29s vs PAF. Or for that matter vs “Western air forces” in exercises. Mistake or deliberate?

[@virgilles]

That's funny to notice that Ukraine will probably use the MiG 29 AND the F-16 at the same time

[@Avtomat4774]

And the MiG-29's will put in way, way more flight hours for way, way less maintenance requirements. Russian doctrine is based on reality in wartime conditions. NATO doctrine is based on unlimited funds, full AWACS coverage, and nobody raining cruise missiles on your airfields and supply lines. To be fair, the NATO approach seems to be superior thus far, but I definitely wouldn't want to bet on it indefinitely. If the wheels fall off, they'll fall off fast and hard

[@singlendhot8628]

Definitely keen to know more about India's MIG29 Fulcrum version!

[@tombeer9]

What are the aircraft parking in the background at 10:34?

[@turbopower7308]

"Reality is often disappointing" - mig 29

[@MoskusMoskiferus1611]

~Su-57 & MiG-23

[@jaws666]

I once heard the Mig-29 is a fighter designed to defend its own airbase and no more

[@necsoiub]

It's a mid-range multirole fighter. You heard wrong.

[@karantikoo9302]

its not 1930s anymore soviets had the best AA systems

[@JamesOMalley-hb4tf]

@@necsoiub wrong it's a short range oint defense fighter meant to defend it's local area. You are a 🤡🤡 newer versions are longer ranged now but it's still a short range combat aircraft...

[@Simp_Recov]

Short answer: it was buit by the soviets

[@HomersIlliad]

8:16 Off-topic, but props to that one guy pulling the protester out of harm's way.

[@erikdam8850]

nevermind the jet, PhazoTron has to be the coolest company name ever!

[@Dembilaja]

I'm not well informed to speak about Iraqi MiG-29s, but Yugoslav MiGs not only that they were in bad condition, due to years of sanctions, but airspace over Serbia and Montenegro was highly contested, that most of them couldn't even get into air, and were shot on ground. And yes, please make a video about MiG-35

[@termitreter6545]

The Mig-29s were introduced in 1985, Iraq got it close to 1990, so those thing were super new in Iran/Iraq war, Desert Storm, etc. Thats just usualy excuses. Those Mig-29s are just low standard planes, built to be cheap and easy to build, even compared to normal soviet standards. Considering even Su-27s, the "best the soviets could build" ended up being like 20 years behind american planes in terms of avionics, of course theyre outdated and limited. And each of those planes had less flight hour capable as than western planes, so they werent even "rugged".

[@Dembilaja]

@@termitreter6545 super new in Iraq Iran war, but that doesn't matter because none of them used it at the time. Yugoslavia could have F-14D or F-16s at the time, if they were not maintained for twelve years due to sanctions and embargoes, and then faced with enemy that had absurd superiority when it comes to numbers, plus better armament, jamming capabilities etc. Outcome would be the same.

[@yxmichaelxyyxmichaelxy3074]

Why would sanctions affect the Soviet Union? They were entirely self-sufficient.

[@yxmichaelxyyxmichaelxy3074]

​ Never heard of Soviet 'monkey-models' as in export variants? They are stripped-down versions meant to be sold abroad devoid of certain Soviet technogies for obvious reasons. I repeat, the West have NEVER faced Soviet equipment in battle. Ever.

[@Dembilaja]

@@yxmichaelxyyxmichaelxy3074 Yugoslavia was under sanctions

[@petrairene]

Pilots in the German airforce who flew the Mig29s report that it had/has an incredibly short range.

[@molnibalage83]

The F-16C has about 30% longer range just as the MIG-23MF or ML. The combat radius of the MiG-29 9.12 /9.13 is closer to a MiG-21BIS than 23s. Fighter evolution series. kzbin.info/www/bejne/h5CznqWshZusiKM

[@LRRPFco52]

​@@molnibalage83F-16C has 300% longer range, not 30%.

[@molnibalage83]

@@LRRPFco52 Just because the 29 has shorter range such insanely stupid comments are not needed. Just open their FM and do the same calculation what I and many other ppl. did.

[@LRRPFco52]

@@molnibalage83 We did technical analysis of the MiG-29 back in the 1990s right after we were on the F-16 program, then on the F-15 Combined Test Force at the time. Russians brought MiG-29s to Edwards as part of a base exchange program through Nunn-Lugar. Very rarely will you ever have the chance to converse with someone who has "under-the-hood” experience with both fighter designs.

[@molnibalage83]

@@LRRPFco52 The FMs are the foundations of the operation. Period. I do not care about BSing. The consumption data comes from the FM not from "under the hood" experience.

[@stevescruby1343]

A very handsome machine in spite of its shortcomings.

[@littlebabycarrotful]

There's a character in a Clancy book who says, 'say what you want about Russians jets, they do build them pretty', and I have to agree with that. I always thought the US Air Force probably should make appearance a factor in picking new jets. The YF-23 should have been built. And equally the x-32 should not have been built- that huge air intake looked so strange. Not just strange but you wonder how something like that allows the jet to fly at all, let alone change directions while flying

[@Shadow_eye-il5lw]

Mig-29 is still formidable Cold War jet in Morden day it just needs to heavily upgraded like f-15 and it could fend off more better

[@Typexviiib]

I mean, any plane could be successful if you stuff an f15s avionics in it.

[@majorborngusfluunduch8694]

If it needs to be heavily upgraded, then its not really formidable.

[@JamesOMalley-hb4tf]

@@majorborngusfluunduch8694 so the heavily upgraded f 15s aren't any good then? Or the upgraded f 16s?? 🤣 🤡

[@majorborngusfluunduch8694]

@@JamesOMalley-hb4tf I hope you aren't being dumb on purpose. The F-15 and F-16 are great because they've been upgraded, obviously. The Fulcrums in frontline service haven't kept up and have largely stayed the same as they were in the 80s and 90s.

[@JamesOMalley-hb4tf]

@@majorborngusfluunduch8694 apparently you are being dumb, because Russia has constantly upgraded it's mig 29 fleet, they are modern and extremely well maintained, Russia has invested billions into it's air fleets no different than the USA. They even developed a newer more advanced version of mig 29 called mig 35 just like the USA did with the f 18 hornets and supper hornets. Why would you come on here and make statements like that of you don't actually know what you are talking about?? 🤡

[@KF99]

It should be a single engine design from the start. They had a brilliant Ye-8 design (MiG-21 derivative) back in the 1960s, but since MiG-23 they had really gone the wrong way.

[@Cheka__]

The MiG 28 was much better.

[@StefO145]

No one has seen those up close though.

[@raoulberret3024]

The most important feature about the MiG-29, you left out. The key characteristic about the MiG 29, as explained by its Chief Engineer, was its wind. They pushed the Design to the absolute max, then strap the rest upon it.

[@harshtrivedi700]

Soundtrack at 5:40??

[@teknetinium]

Would not say it failed, Soviets had different doctrine where Mig-29s would be supported by Long range SAMs as S-300 and AWACS in defensive role. For that purpose the MIG-29 was doing very good. I would agree that engines had way to low lifetime but MIg-29 was designed to be flown from grass fields if needed :)

[@molnibalage83]

Nope. The army never had S-300PS or PT and they were no long range SAMs they were still medium by the classification. Here you can learn a lot about SAMs. www.youtube.com/@militavia-air-defense-aircraft/videos

[@singular9]

Failed is a bit of a stretch don't you think? It became one of the cheapest, most ubiquitous and capable fighters of all time simply because it was: 1) Way ahead of its time using technology the US could only dream of (and it actually worked) 2) Had amazing thrust to weight and handling equivalent if not better than an F16 3) Was very easy to fly and easy to learn to fly in comparison (like most soviet jets which were designed for quick learning) Considering it is still in service to this day, and ukraine is using it well, and the fact that Russia has modernized the platform several times to accept even better weapons and systems, as well as the complete overhaul with the Mig-35...its easy to see why this bird is one of the most legendary cold war air craft. The question becomes, How did this jet fail? Even today, it can be produced en masse and deliver great performance in most localized conflicts and short range intercepts. Its super fast, light, small, and upgraded. Seems like a no brainer to me if you can't afford high tech western jets.

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

1. It wasn't that cheap. 2. Focusing on handling this late in the Cold War is nonsense. 3. I disagree because the F-16 has a computer with flight director, the MiG-29 requires constant re-trimming because speeding up and slowing down causes lift characteristics to change.

[@JamesOMalley-hb4tf]

@@ChucksSEADnDEAD wrong on everything you said.... 🤡 It's definitely cheap too....can you be any more wrong? 🤣

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

@@JamesOMalley-hb4tf It's not cheap. There's a reason the Su-27 dominated. The MiG-29 wasn't cheap enough to justify the purchase.

[@JamesOMalley-hb4tf]

@@ChucksSEADnDEAD it's definitely cheap, you can buy three migs for the price of one f 16. 🤣 And Russia chose su 27 for it's long range and weapons load for the vast Russian territory. mig 29 is the most successful export fighter ever.... because it's cheap.

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

@@JamesOMalley-hb4tf But 4,600 F-16s were built compared to 1,600 MiG-29s. It's not cheap. It's not even successful. The F-16 outsold it by over 3x.

[@andrijasaviccsavic1124]

Fate of plane can litteraly be described in one sentence:" at the wrong place in wrong time".

[@LooseDeuce]

yup, just ask Lockheed about the L1011.

[@mannysamson4091]

@ 10:10. Why do people always have to hint at Ukraine needing F16’s? We need peace not war. And no, F16 won’t help much anyway.

[@prokremelskidezolati1426]

tell it to putler

[@mannysamson4091]

@@prokremelskidezolati1426 That F16 won’t have a chance against Russian missile defence systems due to a terrible radar signature??? I’m so confused.

[@untrust2033]

4:39 why is it on fire tho

[@adamcheklat7387]

There’s a KZbinr called Paper Skies who made a video on the Soviet Top Gun. His dad was even in it!

[@singular9]

"Proving the aircraft is obsolete" Why? Because a russian jet can't use US missiles? That has ALWAYS been the case, so does that mean EVERY russian made fighter was obsolete from day one? Russia isn't obligated to sell anyone its latest missiles which as YOU said is very effective. So why with this constant generalizing and propogandizing of facts?

[@ferstig235]

Certain snail game would make you believe the R27 is a weapon of god.

[@jakemerchant950]

I'm surprised you didn't mention its ABYSMAL range, especially the earlier variants: according to an account by my father, an ex-USAF F-16 pilot, during exercises with allied Fulcrums, they'd have, quote, "barely gotten into the air" before having to go back and refuel. Honestly, there's really no point to this fighter; anything it can do, the Flanker can do better.

[@khairulhelmihashim2510]

it was initially conceived as a point defense/frontline fighter, with air superiority role taken by Flanker. Therefore, range was a low priority, over dogfighting ability/frontline serviceability.

[@daxabe3261]

soviet strategy : win in little place without considering any cost Cost : i am going to come after you.

[@gurpreetraj6761]

Mig-29 may lack modern radar avionics and electronic warfare suits but its not a failure at all. Beautifully designed fighter with unique capabilities of its own, may prove lethal to modern jets too if operated by skilled hands👍🏼

[@PeterMuskrat6968]

I see your “Ace Pilot” and raise you one AMRAAM. No amount of Skill on the MiG’s end will save them if they have to use a completely obsolete airframe without many modern components. The Adversary pilot would have to be 1945 Japan Naval Aviation level of untrained for the MiG to really stand much of a chance.

[@DjDolHaus86]

Modern dogfighting has nothing to do with manoeuvrability or speed where the Mig 29 does well, it's all about who can spot who first and that's where it fails badly. Put it up against an F35 or an F22 and the old Mig will be dumping flares and taking evasive action against incoming missiles from jets they didn't even realise they were sharing the skies with.

[@Migthunder]

​@@DjDolHaus86comparing the mig29 to a fucking f22 your smart aren't you

[@juanchelini5937]

This video is very malicious, belittling the early versions of the MiG-29A. Remember that the F-16 Block 1 wasn't anything special either. Furthermore, the MiG-29 never intended to compete against the F-16. They are completely different concepts. The F-16 can perform a little bit of all missions but doesn't carry the payload of an A-10 or have the range of an F-15, etc. It's like saying a Swiss army knife can do the same as the tools it tries to emulate. The MiG-29 is an aircraft that doesn't require extensive maintenance, it's powerful, fast, and has attack capability, although it's not its primary role. For that, there are the Su-25, Su-24, etc. It's also more affordable. In the case of Iraq, Yugoslavia, Ukraine, it's as if they had F-16 Block 1 against Su-30, Su-33, they would be torn to pieces. It's always the West bashing Russian products. In Iraq and Yugoslavia, the MiG-29 faced the NATO forces... just think about the numerical difference. I'd like to see 20 F-16As face 200 Su-27s and 300 MiG-29s... they would be boasting in vain. In Germany and Poland, studies were conducted on the MiG-29, comparing it to the F-16, and it was by no means a failure.

[@mgthihaaung1058]

Na Mig 29 is not a failure Jet. Better than F 16 in Avionics and Maneuver plays. U only point out weapons systems ,Rader and Missile failure.These things can be change and upgrade any times .And can't equip with the Nato weapon is not a failure because its built different. Above all Mig 29 is not a failure at all

[@Train2noplace-v7n]

06:58 Adolf Tolkachev gave the U.S. classified documents on principle. His wife’s family had been persecuted under Joseph Stalin’s regime, and that appears to have been one of his motives. Tolkachev did accept medical aid, as well as gift items that would aid his son, but he refused cash payment, refused resettlement, and instead requested a cyanide pill for use in case of capture. There is plenty of corroborating biographical material about him, including books and a movie. What’s here is from his Wikipedia entry.

[@GeneralJackRipper]

It's amazing how a failure just keeps on flying, eh?

[@River-c5x]

are we gonna talk about the "air to grounf" typo in the blueprint?

[@bubbles8491]

Calling an airplane a failure due to its missiles is like calling an AK a bad gun just because you are using shitty ammo.

[@durandil]

About the losses in Yugoslavia and Iraq, don't forget they were fighting 1 vs 20 or something like that. When a Mig-29 takes off, an AWACS will detect him and 10 F-15 or F-16 will come to shoot him.

[@zeljkomikulicic4378]

Yugoslavia have obout 14 mig-29. They are from 1989. Problem was that soviets sold that airplanes with old radars and old rockets. They promise that they fixed it. But never did. Soviet Union collapsed and also Yugoslavia. Sanction from 1992-1995, economc crisis stop any investment in airforce. In 1999 when nato atack only 4-5 airplane could actually fly. With old and broke radars and crappy rockets they become easy target for US f-16. How strong was yugoslav airforce show information that backbone of aviation was mig-21 produced in 1960-70.

[@MilanVVVVV]

Most of them were destroyed on the ground. But yeah, malfunctioning radars, shitty missiles and next to no ground radar support, they were sitting ducks. They should've never even been ordered to take off honestly, just a potential waste of pilots' lives.

[@alexprost7505]

Мне тоже интересно почему и с чего это он вдруг провалился по сравнению с позорным ф16, особенно с ф16 тех лет

[@IezekiLLL]

да все просто же - сначала страну развалили, а потом в кб миг пришли непонятные люди, в прошлом работавшие в кб сухого, и начали валить кб, плюс отсутствие госзаказа на миг-29

[@dungeondeezdragons]

4:41 infrared guided missiles? Heat seekers? Those were obsolete for a while at that point.

[@jamieflounders3970]

The Tornado was never shot down by a MIG. It was taken out by a SAM on a completely different day and area of the country than that claimed by the pilot.

[@BrySkye]

Yeah, it's fair enough to say that Iraq *claims* one of their MiG-29's shot down a RAF Tornado, but it is contested. Not just how the aircraft was lost, but when and where, so the claim should be treated cautiously and not as definitive fact.

[@Scott11078]

We had the AIM-95 Agile in the early 1970's and developed a few versions of VTAS which was the first helmet mounted cuing system. We foolishly canceled the agile but did end up fielding the VTAS system with several F-4S squadrons. But without the missile it was fairly neutered. So once again we did it first and decades before.

[@abhijeetkundu7123]

Failed!! LOL!! During Kargil war, Pakistan refused to deploy F16 because of Indian MIG29. After that, 16 countries ordered MIG29.

[@Illopportunity248]

Your mom failed

[@abhijeetkundu5453]

🤣🤣🤣

[@jaysonpida5379]

Great jet.......first models suffered from sucky/smoky engines, tiny fuel supply and low-grade avionics....BUT THE POTENTIAL FOR UPGRADES WAS ALMOST UNLIMITED. It could've >easily< been the Soviet match for the 16. But the ussr collapsed and no doubt all those 'upgrade' plans were trashed and by the time 'russia' climbed back out of the 'collapse' fighter tech had jumped ahead and all their resources went into the Flanker and its follow-on derivatives.

[@khymia27]

First time watcher - subscribed!! Looking forwarded to more content

[@fam.hunger5244]

Sorry, but all I can say is - bullshit! Apart from the radar system, the MIG29 is superior to the F16 in every respect. I'm from Germany and after reunion with West Germany we took over some MIG29s from the East German air force. When we flew them, it was incredible what maneuvers you could perform with this aircraft. No Chance to do these maneuvers with a F16! Climb performance and maneuverability (especially the later) were much better than any NATO aircraft! So it is completely wrong to say that the MIG29 was a failed answer to the F16. If an adequate radar system were installed in this aircraft, the 16 would have no chance whatsoever against the MIG29!