What was best Mig fighter used by the Romania?, What was best Mig used by the Romania?

certainly it is not the latest. but if you look at the topic of the thread you created, it was about the best MiG used by Romania. Which would be the MiG-29B i was talking about.
nowadays the "west" would bring modernized versions too.

in a BVR engagement NATO pilots rated the MiG-29/AA-10 "a sparrow level of threat". AMRAAM became available in the early 90ies, from then it's game over. therefore, if you rate the Alamo better than the Sparrow (i have no idea if the F-16 and the F-18 could carry the Phoenix), then the MiG-29 enjoyed a window of advantage of around 5 years.

Once again when the Mig-29 was designed the best BVR AAM that NATO had was the sparrow family, the AA-10 was at least as good! The ARAAM did enter service until the early 90's at which point the Russians had AA-12, is equal or better then the ARAAM! So Mig-29 had advantage of more them a decade, and as I stated was superior when it was designed! And by the Mig-29 could have and should upgraded to fire either AA-12's or ARAAM's! and the RADAR could have also been updated/improved! Finally from the dawn of air to air until the current the vast majority of air to air combats have been close range! So BVR combats is mostly theorical!

Not sure what you mean by "up to the moment", but MiG-23 MF was also BVR capable, with R-23R and R-23T.

Regarding the types in the poll, we never had any MiG-17A, just F and PF (12 each); and no MiG-19S, just P and PM. And by the way, the correct spelling of the type is MiG (Mikoyan i Gurievich), not Mig.

Comparing fighters from diferent generations is just plain useless
At the time of introduction into service with RoAF, each type brought some capability which was not available before, but that does not mean it was better than the previos models in all aspects.

No I disagree, for example late model Mig-21's have often out lived their intended replacements the Mig-23 and Mig-29!

They are all in open storage at constanta! What a waste of Romania's only 4th generation fighters! They should have been upgraded!

on thing is "desgined for" another thing is what came out. the Alamo (as the Sparrow) needed radar guidance from the aircraft that launched the missile.
with the radar present in the early MiG-29 versions, the range advantage over the Sparrow was all but gone.
that and the bigger tracking range for the AN/APG-66 in the early F-16s didn't make the MiG-29/Alamo package in BVR look all that impressing to the western pilots, where the comment "Sparrow level of threat" stems from.

i am not commenting on the seeker or the ECM resistence, as i know no relevant technical details (given that they're military secrets)

since when do BVR capable missiles exist? late 50ies?
given the massive number of aircraft involved in ww2, obviously that is where the most A-A engagements took place. and since the main weapon was the MG and the cannon, the engagements were obviously "close range".

with evolving technology, the BVR missiles however started to become usable.
the so far only MiG-29 kill by a (dutch) F-16 was by a BVR missile (AMRAAM)
for example, the USAF F-15s have so far, 8 Sidewinder kills, 25 Sparrow and 4 AMRAAM kills.

This post has been edited by dead-cat on September 24, 2009 04:59 pm

since when do BVR capable missiles exist? late 50ies?
given the massive number of aircraft involved in ww2, obviously that is where the most A-A engagements took place. and since the main weapon was the MG and the cannon, the engagements were obviously "close range".

with evolving technology, the BVR missiles however started to become usable.
the so far only MiG-29 kill by a (dutch) F-16 was by a BVR missile (AMRAAM)
for example, the USAF F-15s have so far, 8 Sidewinder kills, 25 Sparrow and 4 AMRAAM kills.

F-16's use APG-65 radar, the APG-66 is down rated version for BAE Hawk Mk.200, and Argentina's updated A-4's. The F-16 does not have a longer range RADAR then the Mig-29 or Mig-23MF/ML, this according to the Isreali Air Force who tested captured Migs against their F-16's. The opinion of NATO pilots is just an opinion and one that is perhaps tainted, why don't you ask Russian pilots how they feel?

It true that kills have been made ARAAMs and sparrows, as well other bvr aams such as AA-10, AA-23 tec...
however few of those kills have been from BVR! AS for F-15 in operation desert storm accoding to the Iraqi Air Forces records, kill claims are greatly overclaimed! by least 50%

This post has been edited by Stephen Dabapuscu on September 24, 2009 06:53 pm

from what i read, the APG-65 is mounted by the F/A-18
here they say the early F-16 had the APG-66
http://www.avitop.com/interact/radar.htm
whose range is up to 150km.
the early MiG-29 mounted the RLPK-29 with a range up to about 140km.
late upgrades incereased the respective ranges of course.

i didn't ask NATO pilots either. i read some books where people, who flew both aircraft (and some dedicated east german pilots who flew MiG-29s) in test scenarios were quoted.
i have no books where russian pilots who flew both aircraft would be quoted.
having not flown any of the above aircrafts in "real life" and i suppose F4AF doesn't count, i can only offer 3rd party opinions. just like most of us.

i didn't ask NATO pilots either. i read some books where people, who flew both aircraft (and some dedicated east german pilots who flew MiG-29s) in test scenarios were quoted.
i have no books where russian pilots who flew both aircraft would be quoted.
having not flown any of the above aircrafts in "real life" and i suppose F4AF doesn't count, i can only offer 3rd party opinions. just like most of us.

Your right the the f-16 does use the APG-66, however 150 km is not the range of the early versions, as you point out the Russian updates have greater ranges so the advantage is always mig-29. Even todays 150km is not against fighters its more like 70-80km; The 150km range is only under optimal conditions and against something huge like a boeing 747! Also the Mig-29 has the a Infer-Red Search and Track system, which the F-16 does not! Advantage the Mig-29 does not need radar to engage in air to air combat and the IRST can't be jammed! However if the F-16's radar is turned off or jammed it is blind!

Well in1994 an Israeli instructor (who couldn't be named) with exp. in both types-
Had this to say" The Mig-29 is the most dangrous adversary that the IAF faces today! Compared to the F-16A it is has better acceleration, is superior in both the veritical and horizontal planes, has an IRST and an excellent array of AAM's AA-8, AA-11, AA-10. Our only advantages are in ECM, AWACS and Elint support,
and most importantly pilot training."

This post has been edited by Stephen Dabapuscu on September 24, 2009 08:59 pm

Another MiG-29 was shot down by a USAF F-16 during Allied Force

Stephen, what about correcting the types in the poll? That would surely be more productive than the endless F-16 vs. MiG-29 debate...

This post has been edited by Vici on September 25, 2009 08:06 am

that kill is disputed. serbs say it was friendly fire.

Another MiG-29 was shot down by a USAF F-16 during Allied Force

Stephen, what about correcting the types in the poll? That would surely be more productive than the endless F-16 vs. MiG-29 debate...

I will decide whats most productive for me to do! However if you can provide with sources which that some of the subtypes listed are wrong, then I will consider making corrections! fair enough?

This post has been edited by Stephen Dabapuscu on September 29, 2009 10:28 pm

As I said on the other page, we did not have MiG-17 A, but F and PF, and no MiG-19S, but P and PM.

Check the book "Aviaţia de luptă reactivă în România 1951-2001" by Paul Sandachi, Editura Regina din Arcadia 2001

or go to the Aviation Museum and see the MiG-17 PF and MiG-19 P/PM yourself. The employees there will be able to confirm that we didn't have 17A and 19S.

If you don't have the posibility to visit the museum, check the list of airframes displayed:
http://www.aviationmuseum.eu/World/Europe/...ul_Aviatiei.htm

You can also look on airliners.net, jetphotos.net and similar aviation photography sites, see what MiG-17 and 19 versions we have in the museum.

I'm curious (seriously) from where did you have the info that we got Mig-17A and 19S, I haven't seen such a mistaake anywhere, even on the most wrong internet articles about the RoAF.

I think the best fighter for his time in ROAF was MiG-15. This aircraft proved his value against all his opponents during Korea conflict.

I think the best Mig used by Romanian Air Force is Mig-21 Lancer. Its upgrade made him compatibile with NATO air force, and, most important, its performances are regognized by NATO comand. Two exemples:
At NATO Summit in Bucarest, April 2008, Romanian Air Force protected alone Romanian Air space. Six years ago, in 2002, at NATO Summit in Prague, Checz asked for suport at NATO for air protection. Romania didn't need this.
Second, in 2008 I think, Romanian Mig's 21 Lancer were six months on duty to protect air space of Baltic States. They did their duty oK, NATO Command was satisfied.

That's not what I remember, so after a brief google search this is what I found:

http://www.mediafax.ro/externe/exclusiv-f-...mitului-2492647

OK, we talk here about backing, not protecting. This is diferent. We can protect ourselfs, but someone must backing us. It is a major diference, Checz needed protection, we acepted backup. And what about the second part, protection of Baltic States?