Tornado F3 vs Hungarian MiG-29 | Tim "Nugget" Golden (Teaser) 

Bad example. The MIG-29 9.12 could achieve much better service rate... just the Hungarian government essentially spent 0 resources on the planes. In somewhere around 2005 the (on paper) 14 remaining MiGs operated from about 9M USD during a whole year. Essentially only the kerosene and the bare minimum was spent on planes. The average MiG-29 airframe flew less then 60 hours/year. The Indian MiG-29KUB are trash because the CV variant of the plane was new, the MiG simply lacked the experience to create something usable.

Quite a few by the sounds of it!

Tornado usually killed the Mig before the Merge!!! Don't believe everything you read in the Aviation press and on the Internet.

That all depends on proximity. If the Mig 29 got close it's all over. First you have to get close and a fully equipped Tornado F3 was not going to let that happen and would engage at long distance, then run. Now who is in trouble ? It's not as simple as you make out.

In BVR in fact the Tornado F.3 had advantage. The air combat is not only about merge + dogfigth.

@@Militavia There is a very good book about the Phantom in RAF service called "Phantom in the Cold War" by David Gledhill, a former RAF Phantom and Tornado F3 navigator. It's on Special offer on Kindle at the minute (Mid July 2024). One of the chapters covers the ACM trials done between the Phantom FGR2 and Mig 29's operated by the Luftwaffe just before the Phantom was phased out of service. In that book is covers the limitations of the Mig 29 in detail (it was actually a point defence interceptor which required close GCI control and a datalink to the ground to be really effective. Lose the GCI and the capabilities of the radar in the Mig 29 compared to the radar in the Phantom or Tornado were very limited and the aircraft could only really be used as a daylight fair weather fighter. The book also covers a visit by Luftwaffe Mig 29's to RAF Valley to fire Russian AAM's on the Aberporth missile range. The books says it happened in 1992, but that text is wrong!! it was July 1993. How do I know this?? I was based on Anglesey at the time on the Air Defence Radar based there and got to look around the Mig's and actually sit in the cockpit of one at the Strike Command Air to Air Missile Establishment at RAF Valley. During the time that the Mig's were at RAF Valley. 5 intercept trials were done between a Tornado F3 of the Strike Command Operational Evaluation Unit at Boscombe Down and one of the Mig's based at Valley. The pilot that flew the Mig did an Aircrew Interview a while back and he said he operated the aircraft to the instructions he was given, which was basically fly the aircraft as it would be flown by a Soviet trained pilot. GCI control for both aircraft were supplied by the Radar that I worked on. I sat in the control cabin for the first sortie as the duty engineer (There to control the various modes of radar operation and reset the radar if anything tripped during the sortie). and saw the whole engagement on one of the Radar scopes. If memory serves, 40 NM spilt, the fight happened at around 23,000 feet. The Mig was to the west close to the UK / Irish airspace boundary and the Tornado was over Snowdonia. Mig was doing 600 knots and when he pulled a 180 degree turn in 12 seconds and got radar lock on the Tornado as he came out of the turn, the chin's of all of the Fighter Controllers in the cabin hit the floor. The Tornado didn't get radar lock on the Mig at anything close to the range that the Mig got on the F3, but as soon as the F3 pilot called Judy, it was immediately followed by a Fox 1 call and the Tornado made a course change of quite a large angle. The Controller of the Tornado, exclaiming "Jesus, that F3 is pulling a serious Offset". The Mig pilot then calls up requesting intercept vectors!! After a short while, the Tornado turned in so it was nose on to the Mig, Called Fox 2 and after a short delay, turned south, lit the burners and ran away. Like the Mig pilot, our controllers were told to follow the script and at the end of the engagement, We all left the cabin (bar the guy doing the airspace surveillance job) as it was tea break time. We had no idea what the results of the trial were. When I got to look around the Mig's I got talking to our escort and told him about what I had seen. He tells me, The Tornado won all of those fights!! When I asked How?? his reply, Sky Flash missile had much longer legs than the AA-10!!! Of course what I was not aware of was the Super TEMP mods done on the missile in the late 1980's or the fact that certain manoeuvres could break radar lock on the Mig's Radar (that is covered in the Gledhill book).

You could turn that around and say that's a good example of why Russia has not been able to effectively employ their hundreds of fighters and bombers to achieve air superiority. Having a flashy, maneuverable jet isn't much use if you don't know how to fully use it. No way an F3 should have been able to hold its own in a turning fight with a -29! In that light, arguably one of the best thing NATO may be giving Ukraine isn't F-16s, but the advanced training that goes along with them.

​@@davidsmith8997 Because of the threat of the area denial SAMs... No matter the training every non stealth airplane can fly only in terrain following manner. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-0CJOPFen4Us.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-xzXwRaDmxG0.html

There is a whole lot more involved in using the F16 to its capabilities. It takes 6 months to train a good but basic ground wingman in the tactics in the US. I can’t imagine learning how to fly , navigate and keep a fluid navigation SA while thinking out changes in tactics in combat would take in terms of training. Stuff gets mind boggling quick

@@sfertonoc ​ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-0CJOPFen4Us.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-xzXwRaDmxG0.html

Yeah and now have the F.3 go up against a mig 21 in bvr with asraams and amraams and see what happens

@@RB25528 in early 90s..they didnt had those. F3 is a brick to fly.

@@zepter00 still had the Foxhunter radar and super temp plus the 9 Mike which was far superior than anything a mig 21 could carry so it doesn't matter the f3 wins before they even get close enough to merge

@@RB25528 lol. it is shit in looking down and by fluing smart you can close in and soon fuck it up faster than can count to the 20. I write to you about real training fights not guesing.

In an unscripted fight an f3 pilot would make sure he never got into a visual range fight with either of those aircraft. Many training exercises are set up to provide a certain learning experience for one party or another. One force will intentionally use a potential enemies tactics so their ally can learn to counter them. The outcome is not a reflection of how an actual war would be fought ie using tactics that favour their own specific strengths.

Ask yourself why the Russians didn't even manage to establish air superiority vs. a country that barely has an aviation.

@@neutronalchemist3241 "Ask yourself why the Russians didn't even manage to establish air superiority vs. a country that barely has an aviation." When we are talking about capable ground based air defense, then why bother to compare airframes ?... Russia doesn't have an air superiority doctrine, relevant strike missions are flown when needed, regardless of exchanging an aircraft for it - otherwise the war is conducted by directed long range artillery, loitering drones, guided ballistic missiles and front line aviation. But of course, daily reports of precision guided FAB strikes can be ignored, right ?...

@@christophmahler Yeah, yeah, "they don't want". Their doctrine is to leave the Ukrainian aircrafts that launch the Scalp missiles fly, and the Russian deposits, ships and command posts blow up, isn't it? Who wrote their doctrine? Mr. Bean? Other excuses?

I'm pretty sure some same level arguments are on a daily basis even within the Russian air force. Their air force can't prevail for sure,csn be many reasons at once. Bad structure, wrong concepts.​@@christophmahler

@@lefty59th18 "Their air force can't prevail for sure (...)" You will see, how they'll prevail after Kiev - backed by the US intelligence deep state - lacks the ability to spoof Western media. Apart from a different force structure and doctrine in which air superiority is meaningless, the only common factor in principle is recruitment. Whatever the West fields in the next 20 years, it will never be enough to maintain global influence - and even if there ever will be highly autonomous aircraft, we Eurasians will always have more, along the resources, manpower and technology. Not because we are genetically superior, but because decline has set upon Transatlantic 'Wild West' power.