Balancing the skies, the Fulcrum - A misunderstood fighter

 

MiG 29 flying along a F-16

The Cold War, a tense geopolitical standoff that reshaped global politics, was not a conventional war with weapons but a subtle clash of political ideologies waged through covert maneuvers. Amidst this delicate dance between superpowers, the true victor emerged—the military-industrial complexes. Fueled by an insatiable drive for technological superiority and military dominance, this era became a crucible of innovation on multiple fronts.

Yet, akin to the misconceptions surrounding Severus Snape in popular culture, the MiG-29, codenamed Fulcrum by NATO, stands as an iconic but misunderstood relic of that era. Rediscovered during the recent Russian invasion of Ukraine, the MiG-29 has been unfairly labeled as inferior to its Western counterparts, perpetuated by biased narratives. This article aims to cast a different light on the MiG-29, examining its historical significance and dispelling the misconceptions that have clouded its true capabilities. By doing so, we uncover why underestimating the MiG-29 is a misjudgment shaped by Western propaganda.

Putting the past behind

After a disastrous MiG 23 project. The Mikoyan Gurevich bureau went back to the drawing board to design an aircraft that could fulfill both offensive and defensive roles. While the Sukhoi bureau's Su-27 (codenamed Flanker) was the de-facto long range Air Superiority fighter of the Soviet Union, the MiG 29 (a response to MiG 23) was going to be the multirole fighter at short to mid ranged engagements that would rival the likes of American F-16. Early versions of Su-27 lacked canards making it much less agile than the MiG 29 and thus MiG 29 could fulfill the role of close engagements much better. The task was to make a fighter that could out maneuver and excel in dogfights in such short to mid ranged engagements. Additionally, the aircraft needed to be effective during the day or night regardless of the weather. Lastly, it had to be effective against armored vehicles, both moving and stationary.

The cockpit had conventional control systems which was supposed to make it easy to master for experienced pilots. The canopy also had a frameless windscreen (which was attached to the fuselage) unlike its predecessors, which allowed pilots to get a good view from the cockpit. This does not mean that it had better view than the F-16, whose bubble canopy provided a much better field of vision. The two engines could be started jointly or independently as the main oxygen supply chamber is fitted independently to each engine which are located right under the main load bearings of the fuselage. This made the engine easier to repair and replace by the ground crew. When the MiG 29 was introduced the task of replacing the engine could be done between 8-10 hours while for many other fighters it could take 12-16 hours if not more. For the MiG 29, the location of the engine was also relatively lower. This was actually a design choice because during the run and takeoff, the upper air vents would be open and the lower vents are closed.

 

Fig 1: Upper vents of the MiG 29

This was done to prevent the debris from going into the vents and causing issues in the engines. Once the fighter was in the air, the lower vents would be open.

Fig 2: Lower vents of MiG 29

These design choices provided the MiG 29 with the ruggedness required to be able to takeoff from airstrips that aren't completely clean. In comparison, the F-16 requires a clean runway without debris to takeoff. 

The earlier versions of MiG 29 came with N-019 and N-019M Topaz radars. These were older pulse-doppler radars that allowed look-down/shoot-down capabilities which allowed the MiG 29 to attack targets even when flying at lower altitudes. However they had short range and tracking abilities and were vulnerable to electronic countermeasures. Eventually the MiG 29 was upgraded with Zhuk-M and Zhuk-MS PESA (passive electronically scanned array) radars. The PESA radars use a passive array of antennas to direct the radar beam. It has not moving parts as the beam is steered electronically, and the individual elements of the array are not actively transmitting any radiofrequency signals. All these signals are sent by a single transmitter and the beam steering is done passively (the array cannot just change its configuration during operation). Finally, in the end, MiG 29 was upgraded with the AESA (active electronically scanned array) radars in the UPG variant that is used by India. This was a significant milestone because AESA radars use active modules for each individual element in the antenna array. This means that each module can independently transmit and receive signals, making it more versatile as it can dynamically control the radar beam. Basically in simple terms, AESA radars are more accurate, are faster to detect, provide more situational awareness and are more resistant to radar jammers when compared to PESA radars. 

Klimov RD-33 engine of the MiG 29

The engines used in the MiG 29 were Klimov RD-33. The engines were not efficient as black soot could be easily seen while the aircraft was flying. However the RD-33 engines eventually went through many upgrades to improve its efficiency, compression (to increase thrust), reliability and durability. This was one of the weakest points of the MiG 29 when compared to its rival. The engine life was also much shorter at approximately 4000 hours as compared to the rival Pratt and Whitney F-100 engine's 8000 hours.  

The black soot and smoke coming from Polish MiG 29s

So why was MiG 29 a failure? 

But was it really a failure? The MiG 29 was not an inferior aircraft. It did what it sought to do very well. It's only failure was Russia's inability to sell the aircraft. The more you sell, the more you earn and the easier it is to upgrade the platform because you can see how it performs. So while 4500 F-16s were sold to 26 countries, the MiG 29 was sold in limited quantities to countries. The lack of sales for the MiG was deemed a failure. Many in the west thought that MiG was not being bought due to subpar performance. However, this was not true. The reason why MiG 29 was not as popular as the F-16 was because Soviet Union had collapsed. This meant that due to insufficient funding a lot of the upgraded platforms required financial contributions from their buyers (besides buying the aircraft itself). The Soviets had placed their bets on an incorrect ideology of combat. Rather than beyond visual range engagements with great situational awareness, MiG 29 was designed to be a dogfighter, relying on information being fed from a ground based crew. This meant that extensive expensive upgrades were required to keep it on par with western platforms. Due to lack of effective avionics in earlier models, the abilities of MiG 29 were not utilized to its potential. It required very experienced pilots with extensive training to actually master the MiG 29 which most countries (including Russian ones) were not able to do.

As mentioned earlier, the collapse of Soviet Union meant that the funding of such upgrades were in jeopardy. Russia had scientists to upgrade the platform, but unlike the United States, it now lacked the funds to do so alone. On the other hand the west was booming. It had not reached the Afghanistan swamp and had the funds to quickly provide upgrades in a timely manner. Additionally, since multiple countries had the F-16 platform, the process of upgrading eventually became cheaper as multiple countries financially contributed to the project (by buying it in larger quantity).  Because the MiG 29 was created with an outdated strategy in mind, it required significant upgrades to come to par with newer F-16s which proved to be costly for almost all operators. As such, barring India and Russia, most countries continued to operate the outdated MiG 29.

Additionally, since MiG 29 was sold in such limited quantity to operators that were unable to upgrade their MiGs due to financial constraints (Yugoslavia dissolved, East Germany merged with West Germany and acquired Eurofighter Typhoon, Iraq got invaded by United States; Libya, Syria and Sudan were marred by civil wars that led to collapse of their country), most engagements with its rivals came at a significant disadvantage. During the Gulf war, the Iraqi MiG 29s were one of the first to see engagements against the American F-15s. They lost badly, which probably prompted the Russians to upgrade the avionics in their fighters. In the showdown with western platforms during the 1991 Gulf war, an Iraqi MiG 29 was able to shoot down a British RAF Tornado GR1. However, overall the Iraqi MiG 29 engagements with the advanced American F-15s were losses due to inferior avionics. Again, this was not because of the inferiority of the MiG 29 platform itself. It was due to the technological gap since Iraqi MiG 29s were outdated. Had the F-15 faced off with advanced MiG 29 of the time (MiG 29M, also known as MiG 33) the results would have been vastly different, and perhaps we would be having a different conversation today. The MiG 29M had upgraded engines and weapon carrying capacity and like the F-15C's AN/APG-70 PESA radar, it used the Zhuk-ME PESA radar. 

Indian Air Force MiG 29 UPG

 The MiG 29 shined in its role during Kargil conflict where, during Operation Safed Sagar (white sea), the MiG 29s (at a very high altitude) deterred PAF from engaging on the advancing Indian troops. The success of MiG 29 for IAF prompted IAF to order additional MiG 29s and upgrade them to UPG standard, while Russia was able to create a new MiG 35 (which is basically a MiG 29 with upgrades). In contrast the F-16 has seen multiple upgrades at regular intervals and at its current block 70/72 version (ironically, originally made for India), its perhaps reached a level beyond what General Dynamics even imagined. In the end the F-16 was seen as a poster child of aeronautical success, while the MiG ended up being a victim of Russia's political downfall.

 

Conclusion

 While the MiG 29 might initially appear inferior due to its primitive avionics, recent upgrades have transformed it into a formidable opponent in capable hands. A compelling testament to the MiG 29s capabilities is evident in the United States' decision to acquire the MiG 29 for training purposes from Moldova. Using private military contractor Ravn Aerosoace, the USAF was able to put their pilots and their platforms to the test by pitting them against the MiG 29 in a controlled environment. The expenditure of taxpayer dollars in addition to added complexity of acquiring the aircraft indicates a recognition of the platform's value. Criticisms from Ukrainian pilots operating older MiG 29s, while valid, highlight the challenges faced by MiG 29 operators when upgrading the platform rather than the inherent weakness of the platform itself. In certain circles, relying on western generosity and military aid rather than investing in the defense capabilities has become a norm which plagues many nations operating the MiG 29 platform (particularly those who are now aligned with the west). The MiG 29's perceived downfall is not rooted in technical inferiority but rather in diplomatic dynamics, where the United States successfully promoted and sold the F-16 while Russia navigated losses and relied on limited sales and small orders from developing nations that couldn't afford or weren't eligible for the F-16 platform.