Eee nH BY YEFIM GORDON & PETER DAVISON © Structural, Mechanical, & © Covers All MiG-29 Variants Cockpit Diagrams ° Air-to-Air & Air-to-Surface Weapons © Comparisons with the F-16C _* Global Operations (oO EL e © Comprehensive Development HistoryORE TITLES AVAILABLE FROM SPECIALTY PRESS AirlinerTech Series rie A340 ~ Volume 8 lem # SPCO2 Douglas D6 and OC-7 Volume & lle # $2017 Lockheed 1-188 Electra Volume & lta # SPO25 Boeing 747-100/200/300/SP ~ Volume 6 tem # SPO2E De Havilland Comet ~ Volume 7 tem # SPO35 Lookheed L-1011 Tristar ~ Volume 8 fem # S037 ing 377 Stratcraiser — Volume 9 ham # SPO47 747-400 sumo det — Volume 10 liam # SPO55 Vickers Viscount ~ Volume 11 itm # SPOBS Conv Twins ~ Volume 42 am # SPO73 (EETECH| «|| | LIRVERTECH =| mcr cme | | vrens a) JBOEING 747-400) VISCOUNT RaceplaneTech Series Gritfon-Powered Mustangs — Volume 1 tem # SPO34 Racing Bearcats and Corsairs ~ Volume 2 item # $PO35 [RACERLATE TECH 4 exes orney vans] SRR MSTA PRUNE CHUTES TrainTech Series Burlington Zephyrs item # S?082 EMD F-Unit Locomotives item # S083 Vea The sed LLL) Ld Ae Midland Publishing 4 Watling Dri hitp: Constellation & Super Constellation - Volume 4 ir # $000, WarbirdTech Series Consolidated 8-24 Liberator ~ Volume 1 tern # SP464 Vought FaU Corsa Volume 4 em # SP67 Messerschmit! Me 262 Sturmvogel ~ Volume 6 iam $ $2462 Boeing 8-17 Flying Fartess ~ Volume 7 itm # SP47 'N-D F-4 Gun-Nosed Phantoms ~ Volume & em # SP471 [McDonnell Dougis F-15 Eagle ~ Volume 9 fem # SP472 Lockheed Blackbirds — Volume 10 liam # SP475 North American NA-ABIAT-/SN4 — Volume 11 tam # SPa7 North Amorcan 8-25 Mitchell - Volume 12 Kom # SPA77 Douglas: Volume 13 kum # $P473 Boeing 8-28 Superorress ~ Volume 14 lem 3 SP479 Northrop P-61 Black Widow - Volume 18 tem # SP480 Lockheed U-2 Dragon lume 16 in # SPOS Bell P-39)P-63 Airect Valume 17 tam # SPOTO Fepublc F105 Thunderchiet ~ Volume 18 item # SPOT1 public A/OA-10 Warthog — Volume 20 lt # SPOS Bosing/BAe Haver - Volume 21 tem # SPOT4 Douglas A26 Invader ~ Volume 22 iam # SPONG Republic 47 Thunderbolt ~ Vatume 23 ham # SPO1e ‘Loekheed Martin F117 Nighthawk ~ Volume 25 fem # SPO20 ‘Avro Vulean~ Volume 26 tin ¢ SPO2S Lockheed AH-S6A Cheyenne ~ Volume 27 lem ¥ SPO27 English Electric Lightning ~ Volume 28 lem # SPO28 Martin 8-26 Marauder ~ Volume 28 om # S?028 Boeing F/A-18 Homet~ Volume 31 fer # SPost ior-Powered Spires ~ Volume 82 tem # SPOSS Grumman 8-6 Inruser- Volume 33 Kem # SPOS0 North American X8-70A Valkyrie ~ Volume 34 am # SPOS6 Merlin-Powered Spires ~ Volume 35 tem # SPOS7 Lockheed 5 Galaxy ~ Volume 26 lim # SPOS! awe Sea Fury ~ Volume 37 lem # SPOS3 Volume 38 Ii # SPOS ume 39 Nem 2 SPO8D '5 Fagot ~ Volume 40 tam # SP061 "Mikoyan Gurevich MiG-28Fulerum ~ Volume 41 lem ¢ SPOB5 a EAR Pola ord Tea ataWARBIRDTECH <=" MIKOYAN GUREVICE MiG-29 FULCRUM YEFIM GORDON AND PETER DAVISON SPEGIaIGY 3"TABLE OF CONTENTS MIKOYAN GuRi ee Ue tied ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ....... 0000202 c eee ee 4 INTRODUCTION .. 2.66.62 eee eee ee 5 CHAPTER 1 THE @ONGEPT «22. noes oie ci eee ie ete 7 CHAPTER 2 DEVELOPMENT © 2622 22 et suiesimeeeeee eee 13 CHAPTER 3 MIG-29 VARIANTS: 5550250202: s ns see eaee 21 CHarter 4 THE UPGRADE .. 0... eee eee eee 34 CHAPTER 5 CARRIER TRIALS «2... ee eee 40 CHAPTER 6 INTO SERVICE. «12.00. s cece ete eeeeeeees 50 CHAPTER 7 OVERSEAS SALES... 0.00 tee eee eee eeee 58 COLOR SECTION/DRAWINGS «6.0.00. 000000 65 CHAPTER 8 THE MIG-29 COMPARED. .........0000 0005 78 CHAPTER 9 THE MIG-29 IN DETAIL 0... 0.0202 e eee eee 84 CHAPTER 10 ‘THE FUTURE «222i sie eeiwes sews seams 99 APPENDIX A HIEWTAH OUI wig 29 FULCRUMACKNOWLEDGMENTS apne Mud mied hte aan Mikhail R. Val‘denberg, former MiG-29 chief project engineer; Valeriy V. Novikov, current MiG-29 chief project engineer, Vano A. Mikoyan, deputy MiG-29 chief project engineer; Lev B. Bol’shakoy, a leading ANPK MiG officer; Sepgey P. Belyasnik, a leading engineer at ANPK MiG; Valentin S. Vetlitskiy, artist; Andrey Vurgenson, drafisman; Andrey V, Fomin at GosNIAS; Anatoliy A. Komarov, VPK-MAPO; Viktor Drooshlyakow, aviation writer and photographer; Vladimir Petrov at Lit; Mikhail Ye. Yewdokimoy, my son, for his computer skills and supports Dmiuy $. Komissarov - the book could not have been accomplished without his excellent translation. 4 WARBIRDTECHINTRODUCTION y the end of the 1960s, most air Be= had a well-developed air craft industry using second-gen- eration jet fighters ~ the MiG-21 Fishbed, the F-4 Phantom I, the F-5 Freedom Fighter, and the Mirage IIL ‘These fighters were high performance (a top speed of Mach 2.0 or better and 4 19,000- to 20,000 m/62,335 to 65,616 ft service ceiling), carried guid- ed air-to-air missile (AAM) armament, and fire-control radar enabling day- and-night, all-weather operations Simultaneously, third-generation fight- cers were emerging, such as the MiG-23 Hlogger, the Mirage Fl, and the SAAB JA/AI-37 Viggen in Sweden. No quan: tum leap in performance was needed at this stage. The main requirements were longer range, better maneuverability and versatility, with the ability to oper ate from semi-prepared airstrips, ‘These were to enter service in the early 1970s, along with upgraded versions of the MiG-21 and F-4. By then, however, work had started on fourth-generation aircraft that would form the backbone of NATO and ‘Warsaw Pact air forces in the next decade. The USA announced the FX (Fighter Experimental) program in March 1966. Boeing, Lockheed, North American, and later Republic entered the competition, Originally, the single-seat twin- engine FX was to have a 27-ton (59,523-1b) gross weight and a top speed of Mach 3. The new general operational requirement (GOR) called for a lightweight fighter armed with only an internal gun and short- range AAMs. Later, the USAF revised the GOR to include fire-control radar and medium-range AAMs. Gross weight was set in the 20-ton (44,091 Ib) class with a top speed at Mach 2.5. US aircraft manufacturers began design work in 1969; McDonnell Douglas won the FX contest with the F-15 Eagle, securing a contract in December. The prototype YE-15A took off on July 27, 1972, and deliveries of production F-15As commenced in November 1974, In the early 1970s it was decided to complement the F-15 with a much lighter and cheaper air craft grossing at 9 to 10 tons (19,841 to 22,045 Ibs). It would have simpler avionics and a limited weapons range (internal gun and short-range AAMs only), but high maneuverability. The IWF (Light Weight Fighter) program ‘was announced in January 1972, with the MiG-21 as a reference point. In February 1972 General Dynamics, Northrop, Boeing, LTV- ‘This MIG-17PPU fighter-interceptor isa true 1950s fighter interceptor. The PFU version was armed with four AAMs that had the conventional gun removed. More than 5,000 MiG-17 Frescos were built worldwide. (RSK MiG archive. OETA GTRRFICE MiG-29 FULCRUMEastern Block Air Forces, many "Farmers Gordon archive) ‘A MiG-19PM fighter-interceptor with four RS-2-US AMS. Asn the MiG-17, the ‘guns were replaced by a missile capability. Although retired from the Soviet and il serve in China and Pakistan. (Yefim Aerospace, and Lockheed submit- ted their proposals for the LWF contest. GD’s Model 401 and Northrop’s P.600 were selected for full-scale development. In April, GD and Northrop were awarded contracts for the completion and testing of two fighter prototypes as the YE-16 and YF-17, respectively. The YF-16 won in January 1975. The USAF requested that the air- craft be given strike capability under the ACF (Air Combat Fight- ex) program. The F-16A Fighting Falcon made its first flight on December 8, 1976, and entered production in August 1978. ‘A MIG-21SM Fishbed frontline fighter with four FAB-100 bombs and two R-3S AAMs on the strip. This family of aircraft, developed in numerous versions, was by far the most widely used combat aircraft in the world in the 1970s, (RSK MIG Archive) ‘This Polish AF MiG-23MF frontline fighter is seen carrying two R-24R and four R-6OM AAMs at Slupsk in northern Poland. Produced in large numbers since 1970, this third-generation interceptor has only recently been withdrawn from regular service. (Waclaw Hols) WARBIRDTECHTHE CONCEPT ‘The FFI/PLMI programs ‘was also working on the fourth- generation fighter concept. The Soviet aerospace industry began con- sidering enhancing combat capabili ties with new AAMs and a sophisticat- ed weapons control system. All three of the Soviet Union’s leading fighter [ the late 1960s the Soviet Union makers joined the effort. These were Mikoyan, aka OKB-155 or MMZ “Zenit; Sukhoi, aka MZ “Koolon” (Coulomb); and Yakovlev, aka OKB- 115 or MMZ “Skorost” (Speed), In 1971 the Soviet Ministry of Defence issued the first GOR for a fourth-generation fighter tentatively designated PEI (perspekrivnyy fron- tovoy istrebeetel’ - advanced tactical Tuo views of this movtel depict the MIG-29 at an early development stage. The aircraft is « mix of the M 5 and the future Mi masking the twin exhausts of the aft-mounted engines. (Yefim Gi 9. Note the familiar twin fins don) fighter). The primary roles included close-in fighter combat with short- range AAMs and an internal gun, and intercepting aerial targets at long range with medium-range AAMs, Other roles included. provid: ing top cover and defense of impor- tant targets, destroying enemy vehi- cles, escorting heavy aircraft, per- forming tactical reconnaissance, and destroying small ground targets in daytime with bombs, unguided rockets, and gunfire, ‘The aircraft had to possess "look: down/shoot-down” capability and operate in any weather conditions, day and night, in an active and passive electronic countermeasures (ECM) environment. The F-15, Northrop 530, and YF-17 were regarded as the PRI's principal adversaries. Typical aer ial targets in the interceptor or “hunter-killer” role included the F-4E, GD F-111A, Tomado, and Jaguar. High maneuverability was attained by improving the lift/érag ratio and installing lightweight, pow. erful, and fuel-efficient engines to achieve a thrust-to-weight ratio high cer than one. The integrated weapons control system (WCS) featured digi tal computers, and an infrared search and wack (IRST) unit to complement the customary radar. The armament comprises a fast-firing gun and new short- and medium-range AAMSs. ‘The Mikoyan OKE started work in 1970 on the MiG-29 program under Gleb Ye. Lozino-Lozinskiy, chief pro- ject engineer for the MiG-25MP heavy imterceptor (the future MiG-31). The actual work on the fighter’s general arrangement, however, was directed by preliminary design (PD) section chief ‘A. A, Choomachenko, a prominent SMIEOTAR COMEFICH MiG-29 FULCRUMaerodynamicist. Two major research bodies were actively involved in the program, The Central Aerodynamics & Hydrodynamics Institute worked on general arrangement, while the State Research Institute of Aircraft Systems (GosNIIAS) worked on the avionics. The engineers considered both conven- tional arrangements and the so-called integral layout with wings and fuselage blended into a single lifting body. Much thought was given to the powerplant, Building on operational experience with the best third-genera- tion fighters, Mikoyan opted for a twin-engine aircraft with two lateral intakes. This improved survivability in combat and reduced attrition in peacetime. An early configuration of the MiG-29 had shoulder-mounted trapezoidal wings, a low-mounted horizontal tail and a single fin and rudder. The wings featured leading- edge root extensions (LERXes) and full-span leading-edge slats, The sharply raked two-dimensional air intakes with horizontal airflow con- trol-ramps were strongly reminiscent of the MiG-25 Foxbat interceptor or the F-15. It featured six underwing hardpoints. Another was a crossbreed of the MiG-29 and the MiG-31 with boxy Foxbat-style air intakes. The nose-gear unit had twin wheels while the main units featured tandem twi wheel bogies A third study used the integral layout with the fuselage, wings, and engine nacelles all blended together. ‘This was a light fighter with a normal gross weight of some 13.5 tons (29,761 Ibs). Thus it was not only lighter than other Mikoyan projects, but also lighter than Sukhoi's entry for the PFI competition, which was the T-10 (the future Su-27) with a normal TOW of 21 tons (46,296 Ibs). Another advantage of the integral lay- out of the prominent LERXes was an internal gun location. The aircraft Here are two views of a MiG-29A display madel on General Designer Rostislav A. Belyakov’ desk. Belyakou succeeded Artyom Mikoyan, founder of the famous manu- facturer. Note how the paperwork very fitingly dominates the plane. (stts from a Mikoyan video). ‘was shorter than the actual MiG-29 and had a wing area of only 25 m° (268.8 sq. {0 In 1971 research institutes decid- ed that the Air Force should have sev. eral kinds of fighters with weapons systems optimized for the various mission types. An interceptor needed good acceleration and rate of climb, heavy armament, and capable avion. ics giving it “Iook-cownshoot-down" capability. An escont fighter needs to have sufficient range to operate 250- 300 km (138-166 nm) beyond the frontlines. High maneuverability, a high thrust-to-weight ratio, a wide speed range, and special short-range missiles were a must for close-in com- bat. The solution was to build two basic types that complemented each other: An advanced tactical fighter (PFI) and an advanced light fighter (PLM, later LFl) optimized for opera- tions above friendly territory and the tactical battle area ~ that is, 100-150 km (55-83 nm) beyond the frontline. ‘The PFI had a sizeable internal fuel and ordnance load and a com- WARBIRDTECHprehensive navigation, communica- tions, electronic support measures (ESM) suite, and a specially config ured avionics and weapons fit. Con- versely, the PLMI was as easy 10 build and maintain as possible, using semi-prepared airstrips and operated by average-skill pilots and ground personnel, Its armament was limited to two medium-range AAMs and short-range weapons, The PFI and PLMI would account for 30- 35% and 65-70% of the fighter force, countering the F-16 and the F. 15, respectively. In 1972 the WS issued a revised request for proposals. The Mikoyan OKB submitted two versions of the MiG-29 project; Yakovlev entered the Yak-45M light fighter and the Yak-47 heavy fighter, while Sukhoi’s eniries were the T10-1 and T10-2. After evaluating the projects, the Ait Force tasked the Sukhoi and Mikoy- an with building the heavy PPI and LFI, respectively; Yakovlev walked away empty-handed, ‘MiG-29 (izdeliye 9.11) and MiG-294 (izdeliye 9.11A) Light Tactical Fighter (Advanced Development Projects) In 1973 the fighter force re- equipment research was largely com- plete, with TsNIL-30 issued SORs for the two types with revisions based on research results, The most stringent demands applied to the avionics, pri- marily the WCS. The fire-control radar was to work in multiple wave- bands and be capable of detecting and tracking multiple targets. The air craft were equipped with an optoelec- tronic targeting systems compri an infared search and track (IRS! unit and a laser rangefinder. The cockpit was to feature a head-up dis- play (HUD) and a cathode-tay tube (CRI) indicator. The intended S-29 radar was sub: stituted by the production “Sapfeer- 23ML” (Sapphire) radar, which was fitted to the MiG-23ML Flogger-G. The original MiG-29 version equipped with the S-29 radar, bore the manufacturer's designation iadeliye 9.11, while the “stopgap” ver- sion with MiG-23 avionics and arma- ment was designated 9.11A. Quite simply, “9” stood for [MiG-2]9 while 11 was probably an allusion to some obscure reason for the manufacturer's designation of the “true” Flogger pro- totypes (isdeliye 23-11). Production costs of the MiG-29 would be little ‘more than half those of the T-10. Work on the MiG-29A project proceeded, and on July 15, 1974, the General Designer formally approved 1/20-scale drawings of the MiG-29A. 29 and MIG-29A models show the raised cockpit, for good all-round visibility and many features ‘common to fourth-genevation fighters of today. (Yefim Gorton) (WTA eURBTICR MiG-29 FULCRUMOriginally, Western analysts erroneously believed the MiG-29 to have variable geometry. With the F-1i1 and Tornado high on ‘The smoothly blended wings and fuselage minimized drag and maxi- mized lift throughout the speed range, while providing ample internal space for fuel and avionics. The wings featured prominent LERKes for beuer lift at high alpha and powerful high- lift devices (automatic leading-edge flaps, trailing-edge flaps, and flaper- ons). The stabilators were deflected differentially for roll control, aug- menting the ailerons and enabling the aircraft to maneuver vigorously throughout its flight envelope. The axes of the stabilator hinges were inclined slightly downwards to increase momentum, To maintain a 90° angle between the vertical and horizontal tails, the fins were canted slightly outwards. This made the air- craft statically stable (unlike the T-10, which was statically unstable), ‘The advantages of the twin- engine layout could be fully utilized by fitting advanced jet engines with low specific fuel consumptions (SFC) ‘Western shopping lists, this was to be expected. (artist's impression from a Western magazine) and high specific thrusts. Soviet engine designers started working on such engines in the late 1960s, The MIG-29 required an afterburning wr- bofan in the 7,500-8,500 kgp (16,534-18,738 Ib st) thrust class, The Izotov OKB offered such an engine - the RD-33 rated at 8,300 gp (18,298 Ib st). Before long, how- ever, competition showed up in the form of the Tumanskiy OKB with the 67-300 afterbuming turbofan rated at 7,500 kgp, and an unofficial con- test began, Tumanskiy regarded his engine's lower dry weight as a strong point however, Mikoyan engineers were skeptical about this. The point was that the R67-300 was a three-shaft turbofan, while the RD-33 was a two-shaft turbofan, By 1974 the powerplant had been finalized. The RD-33 (aka. icdeliye 88) had a speci fied thrust of 5,040 kgp (11,111 1b st) dry/8,300 kgp (18,298 Ib st) reheat and a bypass ratio of 0.475. Using lzotov's accessory gearbox-drive gave an overall weight saving of about 250 kg (551 Ibs) The in-spaced nacelles and the low-slung intakes made the MiG-29 engines vulnerable to foreign object damage (FOD). On the ground the main air intakes were blanked-off completely by perforated panels (FOD protection doors) hinged at the top. The engines breathed through a series of spring-loaded blow-in doors on the upper sides of the LERXes. During rotation, the FOD protection doors swung up into a horizontal position, triggered by weight off the nose gear, allow. ing the engines to operate normally. The dorsal blow-in doors closed automatically. ‘The integrated weapons control system (WCS) developed by NILAS ‘was one of the most important sys- tems. The MiG-29 is the world's first fighter to have three targeting sys- tems ~ a pulse-Doppler fire-control 10 WARBIRDTECHradar with “look-down/shoot- down” capability, an IRST, and a helmet-mounted sight (HMS). The IRST was located in a transparent “ball” offset to starboard, ahead of the windscreen. After considering a fly-by-wire {FBW) control system, the engineers decided to play it safe and opted for a conventional system with mechan- ical linkages. This featured irre- versible hydraulic actuators in all three circuits, and an antificial-feel unit (© facilitate flying and reduce pilot fatigue during prolonged high- G maneuvers. On June 26, 1974, development of the MiG-29 light tactical fighter ‘was approved. The development pro- gram proceeded in two parallel lines. The “pure” version featured advanced mission avionics and weapons, while the downgraded MiG-29A had sim- plified radar and weapons based on current production models. ‘The idea of a “cheap” light tactical fighter was actively supported by the MoD, while the MiG-29 with new radar and mis- siles still had to be accepted. Both versions had identical air- frames, powerplants, and systems, The MiG-29A featured the SUV- 23ML-2 (SUV-29A) WCS. It included the Phazotron “Yantar” (Amber) fire- control radar with associated analog computer and target illumination channel for missiles with semi-active radar homing (SARH), the OEPtNK- 29A optoelectronic targeting/naviga. tion suite, and data transfer equip- ment for feeding target data to the missiles’ guidance units, ete. The OEP:NK-29A was comprised of the OEPS-29A optoelectronic targeting system, an HUD, a direct-vision CRT display, an "Orbita-20" digital com- puter, and an SN-29A navigation sys- tem. The MiG-29A was armed with an AO-17A twin-barrel 30-mm gun with 150 rounds. The “proper” MiG-29 differed from the “entry-level” MiG-29A mainly in having an SUV-29 (S-29) WCS comprising the RLPK-29 and the OEPrNK-29 (5-31) optoelectronic targeting/navigation suite. The latter was almost identical to that of the MiG-29A but featured a helmet- ‘mounted sight. The gun and air-to- ground weapons were identical in both versions, but the missile arma. ment was totally new. In standard configuration, the MiG-29 carried ‘two K-27 medium-range AAMs and four K-14 or K-73 short-range AAMs, Alternatively, six K-14, K-13M1, K- 60M, or K-73 missiles could be car- tied, In the strike/CAS role, the MiG 294's combat efficiency was two to four times that of the MiG-21PFM Fishbed-F On January 19, 1976, the Gen- tral Commitee of the Communist Party and the Council of Ministers issued a new directive by ordering the development of two fighters - the light MiG-29 and the heavy Su- 27. Both types were to pass their ‘This MiG-29 full-scale mackup in the Mikoyan experimental factory's assembly shop is still supported om floor jacks, passibly for undercarriage demonstrations. (Mikoyan OKB archive) ‘MORNTAN GURERICH MiG-29 FULCRUM WwState acceptance trials in 1977. T ‘was the official go-ahead - at long last. The two aircraft featured advanced WCSs and highly effective new-generation weapons matching or surpassing those of the F-15 and F.16. That took care of the “two ver- sions issue"; the cheap MiG-29A was cancelled, and the OKB concen- trated wholly on the MiG-29 as originally proposed ‘An R&D program code-named “Soyuz” aided a lot in the develop- ment of radars for the new-genera- tion fighters. The main contractor under the Soyuz program was NPO "Istok,” which designed and built three prototypes of a fire-control radar also known as "Soyuz." It was a pulse-Doppler radar broadly similar to the Hughes Electronics AN/APG: 65 fitted to the F/A-18. MiG-29E Experimental Fighter Project ‘The Su-27 and MiG-29 were the first Soviet fighters with digital avion- ics, The Mikoyan OKB had to under- take a special RAD program named “Feniks” (Phoenix) to tackle the pro- cessing problems. Under this, the BISK-29 digital avionics suite would be developed and tested on the purpose- built MiG-29E experimental fighter. ‘The BISK-29 avionics suite and the MiG-29E never got beyond the PD stage. The results of the research effort were later put to good use, however. The institute built a special -2900 simulation complex jointly with the Mikoyan OKB. Data obtained on the KPM- 2300 combat simulator enabled the engineers to estimate how the MiG-29 would fare against the F- 15 and F-16 in combat. ‘MiG-29 (izdeliye 9.12) and MiG-294 (izdeliye 9.124) Light Tactical Fighter (Definitive Projects) The MiG-29 project was finally frozen in 1977, even though prepara- tion of drawings and project docu- ‘ments had gone on steadily for four years. When the 1/20-scale drawings of the MiG-29A were approved, Gen- eral Designer Rostislav A. Belyakov had deemed it necessary to increase wing area from 34 m2 (365.6 sq, ft) to 38 m2 (408.6 sq. ft). The re- ‘winged fighter received a new manu- facturer’s designation 9.12; the “entry- level” version with MiG-23 avionics and armament became 9.12A. ‘The integral layout provided a good lifi/drag ratio and ample struc- tural strength reserves, enabling the aircraft to pull high G loads and maneuver at high AOAs. Wing lift was increased by means of camber, programmable automatic leading- edge flaps, trailing-edge laps, and flaperons. The LERXes increased wing lift at high alpha, reducing the risk of stalling and/or spinning. The multi-mode air intakes were highly efficient at high alpha, rendering the aircraft safe and easy to fly. ‘The MiG-29 made use of com- posites and aluminum-lithium alloys to cut airframe weight. The elevated position of the cockpit and the bub- ble canopy with one-piece wind- sereen offered excellent all-round vis- ibility for the pilot. This was further helped by the triple rear-view mirrors on the windscreen frame. The pilot sat on a "Zvezda" (Star) K-36DM zer0-zer0 ejection seat The definitive MiG-29 had a length of 15.0 m (49 ft 2.55 in.) less pitot boom, a wingspan of 10.8 m (35 ft 5.19 in.), a wing area of 38.0 m? (408.6 sq. ft), and a height on ground of 4.56 m (14 ft 11.52 in). Empty weight was 9,670 kg (21,318 Ibs) and normal takeoff weight with a 3,650-kg (8,046-Ib) internal fuel load was 13,570 kg (29,916 Ibs) ‘Takeoff thrust-to-weight ratio was 1.23, and specific wing loading was 350 ke/m* (1,706 Ib/sq. fo). Unlike the Su-27, the MiG-29 operated mostly over friendly territory, venturing only some 100 km (55 nm) beyond the frontlines. The highly effee- tive K-27, K-73, and K-14 new-genera- tion AAMs and twin-barrel 30-mm gun enabled the MiG-29 to destroy highly maneuverable targets within a broad speed and altitude range. ‘The SOR stated the MiG-29's pri- ‘mary roles as counter-air and top cover for ground troops. The CAS/strike role was viewed as secondary, which Mikoyan admitted was a big mistake ‘The aircraft was required to have a top speed of 2,500 km/h (1,388 kts) at high altitude, 1,500 km/h (833 kts) at sea level. It was to go from 600 to 1,100 km/h (333 to 611 kts) in 13 sec: fonds, and from 1,100 to 1,300 km/h (722 kts) in 7 seconds. Service ceiling swith 50% fuel was 19,500 m (63,976 fi); maximum rate of climb at 1,000 m (3,280 ft) was 325 m/sec (1,066 fijsec). Range was 800 km (444 nm) at Sf and 2,750 km (1,527 nm) at high altitude with a single 1,500-Iit. (33 Imp. gal.) drop-tank on the fuselage centerline. The aircraft was stressed for nine Gs. Combined with the high alpha limit, broad speed and altitude range, high thrust-o-weight ratio, and carefully designed aerodynamics- enhanced flight safety, this allowed prolonged violent maneuvering in combat, The definitive version of the MiG-29 advanced development pro- ject was examined and approved when the first prototype was actual- ly flying. 12 VARBIRDTECHDEVELOPMENT MiG-29 Prototypes and Pre-production Aircraft (901 to 904, 908 and 917 to 925) iginally, the Mikoyan OKB Cptirsisinia ning prototypes and a number of static test airframes. The unusually large number of development aircraft was due to the extreme complexity of the flight-test program; performance and handling, avionics, armament trials, etc., had to be assigned to dif- ferent aircraft, For the first time Mikoyan's design practice, a full-scale aircraft would be tested in the TsAGI wind tunnel and special airframes built for avionics trials and avionics compatibility testing. In keeping with the original two- stage development, the development aircraft was earmarked for comple- tion to MiG-29A standards with the SUV-23ML-2 WCS. It soon turned ‘out, however, that the radar set of the Yantar (Sapfeer-23ML-2) radar did not fit the MiG-29 airframe, Making the LERXes slightly thicker cured the problem by providing more room in the avionics bay, As a result of the 1976 cancella- tion, the MiG-29A airframes (aircraft 905 through 907 and 909 through 916) were never built, The code number “908,” originally allocated Aircraft 901 was the first MiG-29 flying prototype. The nose gear is well forward and was later moved (0 reduce intake FOD ingestion. (RSK MiG archive) ‘MINOT GURETICH MiG-29 FULCRUM Another view of the Aircraft 901. Note the landing lights that fold out ofthe main gear wheel wells. (RSK MiG archive) 135 — , ‘A front view of the first prototype. Given the change in wing leading-edge outside the root extensions, itis easy to see where the ing-wing impression originated. (RSK MiG archive) Aircraft 901 shows the large FOD stabilators. (RSK MiG archive) to a MiG-29A, was later reused for a powerplant development aircraft built to replace the third prototype, which crashed during trials. Thus only 14 flight-test aircraft were actu- ally built, In 1977 the first prototype rolled out and ground systems tests menced, Mikoyan engineers incorpo rated excessive structural strength in 9, making the aircraft over- guard on the nosewheel, the familiar side profile, and the all-moving ‘weight. For the first time in Soviet fighter design practice, a service life limit had been set. As a result, mea sures were taken to reduce stress buildup in the fighter’s structural el ments. Both VIAM and TsAGI expressly recommended the use of composites, and Mikoyan had high hopes, expecting to save some 400 kg (881 Ibs) of airframe weight by using them. The real weight saving, howev- WARBIRDTECH er, was only about 200 kg (440 Ibs) Asa result, the first prototype’s TOW was 700 kg (1,543 Ibs) above the specified limit, (On October 6, 1977, the Mit became airborne for the first time with Mikoyan chief test pilot Ale sandr V. Fedotov at the controls. The three prototypes followed the trials program until spring 1981. The first prototype was used to evaluate perStarting a four-year flight trials program, the MiG: off on is first flight on October 6, 1977, with Aleksander Y. Fedotov at the controls, (still from a Mikoyan video) formance and handling as well as measure airframe loads. Fedotov began low-speed handling and stalling/spinning trials as early as 1978. Ventral fins were added to all prototypes to improve directional sta- bility at high alpha and to facilitate spin recovery. Early test flights revealed the location of the nose-gear unit was such that any debris flung up by the nosewheels flew into the air intakes. Since the MiG-29 had the “patent- ed” FOD protection doors, this did- n't seem to matter much, and the nose-gear unit was left as it was. The first prototype was retired in Zhukovskiy after making 230 flights. Years later it was donated to the VVS Museum in Monino south- east of Moscow. Construction of the second and third prototypes (902 and 903) started simultaneously, but the latter aircraft ‘was actually completed first. Initially, aireraft 902 was identical to the first prototype, but before it was completed the nose-gear unit was shortened slightly and moved aft 1.5 m (4 ft 11 in.) to further reduce the risk of for- ign object ingestion. The second pro- totype (902) ~ which was actually the third flight-test article - entered flight tests in November 1979, making seven flights before year-end; three more by 9) takes This is the only known photo of the second prototype, Aircraft 902. The first to have integral wing fuel tanks, it was the nat- ural choice for explosive tests under fire after 229 test flights. (iefim Gordon archive) March 15, 1980, It had no radar and ‘was therefore used to verify the opto- electronic targeting/navigation system. This aircraft was also the first to have integral wing fuel tanks. It was soon discovered that the aircraft's AOA limit was 5° lower than specified, as violent vibration ‘was encountered at high alpha. The cause of the trouble was traced to sections of the leading-edge flaps: this gave a weight saving of 15 kg (33 Ibs) but created turbulence, After making 229 test flights, the air- craft was relegated to the aircraft sys- tems test facility in Faustovo near Moscow. There it was first used to test the fire suppression system, and later fired upon to check if the fuel tanks would explode. ‘The third prototype (903) was rolled out ahead of the second one and made its first fight in June 1978. Serving for engine testing, its career proved to be extremely short. On June 15 the aircraft crashed on its ninth flight when one of the engines suffered an uncontained compressor failure and fragments severed the control runs. ‘The fourth prototype (904) was intended mainly for dynamic load measurement and equipped with numerous stress sensors. It took to the air on May 15, 1979. After mak- ing 40 flights within the manufactur- er’ flight-test program in July 1981, the aircraft was handed over to LIL LIL representatives, however, tell a different story, claiming that it made only 11 flights with Mikoyan before being transferred to Lil and making another 148 flights there Engine testing continued with the fifth prototype (908), which made its first flight on April 5, 1979, ‘This aircraft fared little better than its predecessor, however. It was lost on its 48th flight on October 31, 1980, when a combustion chamber failed; the resulting fire burned through control runs and the aircraft dived into the ground. Aircraft 901, 903, and 908 took part only in manufacturer's trials; the other prototypes were used in the state acceptance trials. In the course of the tests, the fighter was modified to incorporate the GSh-301 single- barrel 30-mm gun. ‘The sixth prototype, aircraft 917, was the standard-setter for the pro- duction MiG-29 and incorporated various improvements. This aircraft later became the first MiG-29 to fea- ture the extended-chord rudders protruding beyond the fin trailing edge, a characteristic of late-produc- tion MiG-29 aireraft. It was first flown in December 1979, and was MADRE GOR TICH MiG-29 FULCRUM 15used in the aerodynamics research trials and tested for performance and handling, making a total of 369 test flights. ‘The seventh development aircraft (918) was the first MiG-29 prototype to have a fire-control radar but no optoelectronic targeting system. It first flew on May 22, 1980, and made 265 flights (including 163 flights within the WCS test program), gain- ing the distinction of the type's first air-to-air “kill” with a K-27R IR-hom- ing missile. In 1982 aircraft 918 was modified under the MiG-29K ship- board fighter program with an arrestor hook added under the aft fuselage and was unofficially desig nated MiG-29KVP (as described in detail later). Under the state acceptance trials program, the prototypes made 331 test flights between them by the end of 1980. The intensity of the trials increased when four more single. seaters (919, 920, 921, and 923) and the prototype of the MiG-29UB train. The fourth prototype was used to look into the possibilty of using the MiG-29 as a fighter-bomber and is shown here with weapons installed. The gap between the parallel engines is readily apparent. (Yefim Gordon archive) The fourth prototype, Aircrafé 904, was mainly for dynamic load measurement; therefore it was fitted with mumerous stress sen- sors. It was withdrawn from the program in 1991 before preservation in Moscow. (Yefim Gordon archive) 16 WARBIRDTECHAircraft 917, the 17th fiight-test aircraf, is seen here after modification with extended-chord rudders to improve the MiG-29's directional control; these were a late addition during flight tests. The dorsal strakes on the upper wing surfaces incorporated the IRCM flare dispensers, but were deleted in the later models. (RSK MiG archive) ee HIERN GOETH MiG-29 FULCRUM ver (951) joined the program in 1981 By the end of the year, the total num- ber of test flights had increased to 700 (647 for the singles and 53 for the two-seat) Aircraft 919, which first flew on July 30, 1981, was another radar test vehicle, Unlike 918, it featured the new Ts100 digital computer, replac- ing the "Orbita-20° analog comput er. In July 1985, after making 266 flights with Mikoyan, it was wans- ferred to LII, which investigated the effect of vibration and high tempera- tures on the aircraft systems. It was also used to examine the effect of G loads on gun and missile firing, It was retired in 1991 after 364 flights. The ninth aircraft (920), used for avionics compatibility testing, was the first to feature a complete set of mission avionics. t entered fight test on March 6, 1981. Afier making 373 flights it went to the nuclear test range on the Novaya Zemlya archi- pelago in the Barents Sea (probably to test its tactical nuclear weapons delivery capability) Engine testing was finally com- pleted on the tenth aircraft (921) that first flew on August 21, 1981; this included investigating the effect of gun firing and missile launches on engine operation. After making 376 fights under the MiG-2's flight-test program, it found further use as a testbed for the uprated RD-33K engine developed for the vastly ‘upgraded MiG-29M version. The air- Aircraft 919 is on display in the city park in Zhukowskiy on Aviation Day (August 16, 1988). This is traditionally the third Sunday in August. Both 918 and 919 were radar test vehicles, 919 having the new T3100 digital computer. (Yefim Gordon) 18 TAIGIUTECHcraft survives at Mikoyan's test facility at LIl, Zhukovskiy. Aircraft 922 joined the test pro- gram on May 20, 1982, but it was withdrawn from use after four flights, including three for WCS test ing. It was then handed over to ‘TSAGI for wind tunnel tests. The next development aircraft (923) made its first flight in ‘Zhukovskiy on November 4, 1981. It was soon ferried to NIT VVS in Akhtoobinsk for testing of the opto- electronic targeting/navigation sys tem and internal gun, Aircraft 924 was rolled out on September 30, 1981, but it did not ‘make its first flight until September 9, 1983. On December 29, 1983, after 22 flights, it was transferred to LIL. The stitute used it for dynamic load measurement and Later for evaluating modified engine nozzles and air intakes. On August 18, 1991 ~ one day before the notorious military coup dé- tat that brought an end to the exis tence of the Soviet Union - the aircraft was placed in the Aviation Day static display in front of TSAGI’s administra tive building at Zhukovskiy. ‘The fourteenth and final devel opment aircraft (925) was the defini tive standard-setter for full-scale pro: duction, incorporating all changes. It flew for the first time on December 30, 1982, making 235 test flights before it was withdrawn from use at LI. It was used, among other things, to check the interaction between the fire-control radar and the IRST. The next year the MiG-29 entered pro- duction at MMZ No. 30 under the in-house designation 9.12. Improvements started coming as soon as the first fighters rolled off the production line at Khodyn- ka. Operational experience in Afghanistan, where the Mujahideen s a guerrillas were widely using Aircraft 922 gets tested in the TRAGI E101 wind tunnel in Zhukovskiy, This spectac- portable IR-homing surface-to-air ular wind tunnel is a major design tool at the Central Aevodyanics & Hytrody- namics Institute. (Yefim Gordon archive) missiles such as Stinger and Redeye, MEDIAS SUERTICH MiG-29 FULCRUM »forced the engineers to devise counter- measures. Thus the MiG-29 received infrared countermeasures (IRCM) flare dispensers, initially located on the wings ahead of the fin fillets. The arrangement was tested on the sixth prototype. Dorsal strakes of varying length incorporating the chaffflare dispensers were tested during the long program. Eventually, the dispensers ‘were fitted flush with the rear fuselage skin on the MiG-29K and MiG-29M, The final pre-production aircraft also participated in IRCM testing Fedotov investigated the MiG-25's spinning characteristics. It transpired that if you really wanted the MiG-29 to spin you had to forcibly keep it in that position - the aircraft simply would not spin of its own accord! ‘When the pilot let go of the controls after initiating a spin, the fighter recovered automatically. On the minus side, high-alpha handling posed some problems. The MiG-29 was found to have reverse roll reac- tion to rudder input at high AOAs ~ that is, if the pilot applied right rud- der, the aircraft rolled to the left instead of to the right, Conversely, the fighter behaved nommally if bank was countered by rudder input. This “quirk” initially caused the AOA to be limited to 20°, AOA was later increased to 22°, then 24°, etc., a8 tests progressed. ‘The West got news of the MiG- 29's existence in the spring of 1979 when a US surveillance satellite pho- tographed a prototype on Li's airfield in Zhukowkiy. The manufacturer was unknown at the time, so the aircraft received the provisional reporting name Rant-L, because at that time Zhukovskiy was erroneously referred to as Ramenskoye. By 1982, when the ‘rue designation became known, the MiG-29 was allocated the ASCC reporting name Fulcrum, Provisional three-view drawings published in 1982 were wildly inaccurate, The rear portion of Aircraft 924 was used t0 west modified engine intakes and nozzles. The so-called “turkey feathers” of unequal length ate easily seen. (Aleksey Mikheyev) This is the first photograph of the MiG-29 from space, made by the Pentagon in 1979. The name “Fulcrum” was allocated after this event, but inaccurate drawings were stil circulating ir 1982. (Flight International) This is a photo of the K-77 (RVV-AE) air-to-air medium-range missile tests from Aircraft 919. The same aircraft had achieved its first kill on a remote-controlled ‘MiG-21 target drone with a K-73. (Yefim Gordon archive) 20 WARBIRDTECHMIG-29 VARIANTS Fulcrum-A, MiG-29 Tactical Fighter (izdeliye 9.12) any entexrises in the aero Mes clecronics, defense, and other industries sap: plied components for the MiG-29. ‘The production run was spl batches of atleast fifteen aircraft. Like the prototypes, the first 70 aircraft had ventral fins outboard of the engine nacelles. By 1984, however, the automatic bank corrector in the rudder control circuit passed its tials and was introduced on productio: aircraft, rendering these fins unneces- sary, Most early production aircraft removed them in service. The AOA limit set by the manufacturer was 26°. However, in service the VS imposed a 24° Limit just to be safe. Soon after production entry, the ‘The MiG-29 production line at Loakthavitsy. Note the aircraft are on their undercar= riages at an early tage and are loose weight, easily movable assembly gancries. ‘positioned on the shop floor with fairly ight- MiG-29 was equipped with BYP-30 26M chafifflare dispensers ahead of the fins, with thirty 26-mm (1.02- in.) infared countermeasures (IRCM) flares each. A vortex genera tor was added to the pitot boom, similar to the final version of the MIG-23MLD Flogger-K. Many composite structures were built into the early airframes, but riveting problems and structural fail- ures plagued the system. In the end only the composite fins and access panels were retained. The MiG-29 (9.12) had an internal fuel capacity of 4,300 lit. (946 Imp. gal.); the fuel was carried in four fuselage integral tanks and two wing tanks. A 1,520-lit. (334.4 Imp. gal.) drop-tank could be car- ried on the centerline. Unlike most Soviet fighters, the Fulcrum’s was semi-conformal. The bulky drop- tank obstructed the APU exhaust, which was located between the engine nacelles. To correct this, Mikoyan incorporated a unique fea lure ~ the tank had a straight- through vertical duct or “pipe” at the rear enabling the APU to exhaust right through it! Fulcrum-B, MiG-29UB Conversion Trainer (izdeliye 9.51 or izdeliye 30) ‘The Mikoyan OKB developed a combat-capable trainer version of the fighter designated MiG-29UB. A tandem cockpit enclosed by a com: mon, aft-hinged canopy gave shorter ejection time in emergencies. To avoid a major redesign and ensure maximum commonality with the single-seat, the fire-control radar was ‘HIDUTAN CURETICE, MiG-29 FULCRUM 21deleted, leaving only the IRST and HMS; thus the R-27R medium-range AAM with SARIT was excluded from the MiG-29LIB's weapons range. Despite the lack of radar, the MiG-29UB retained dogfighting and strike capability, as the IRST could engage targets at 25-30 km (13-16 nm) range. Special emulators were fit- ted to allow pilots to train in on inter- cept techniques, using the radar, firing SARH missiles, and dealing with sys- Newly completed MiG-29s sit in the final assembly shop of the Lookhovitsy Mechanical Plant, Many built airframes were stored here after orders were reduced in the 1990s. (Yefim Gordon) ‘engines. (RSK MiG archive) An early production MIG-29. Note the centerline fuel tank mounted between the This early MiG-29 had the ventral fins characteristic of the initial production ver- sion, (Viktor Drushlyakov) tems failures. The aircraft featured data recorders for mission analysis. It was designed to operate in visual and instrumental meteorological condi- tions, day and night, enabling rapid transition to the single-seat MiG-29. ‘The MiG-29UB prototype first flew on April 29, 1981. It made 53 flights that year. The second proto- type was used in the state acceptance trials program. The third stayed with Mikoyan for demonstrations. After successfully passing the manufactur. er’ flight tests and state acceptance trials, the MiG-29UB entered produc- tion at the Gor'kiy aircraft factory No. 21, “Assembly” would be more accu- rate, since the main airframe compo- nents were manufactured in Moscow and shipped in for final assembly and equipment installation. In VS documents, the MiG 29UB was referred to as icdetiye 30. ‘The trainer's NATO code name was Fulcrum-B, the single-seater (9.12) becoming the Fulcrum-A. Fulcrum-A, MiG-29, Export Version A (izdeliye 9.12A) Soon after the initial production version became operational with the WS, the factory began manufacturing a slightly downgraded export version intended for the Warsaw Pact coun- tries. Known as 9.12A, “export ver- jon A” stayed in production from 1988 to 1991 and was supplied to Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Ger- many, Poland, and Romania, Fulcrum-A, MiG-29, Export Version B (izdeliye 9.12B) ‘An even more downgraded export version designated 9.12B was devel- oped for “friendly” states outside the Warsaw Pact. This aircraft entered pro- duction in 1986 and was supplied to Hungary, India, Iraq, Syria, and some other states. 22 TROTECHFulcrum-C, MiG-29 Tactical Fighter (izdeliye 9.13) One of the biggest problems fac- ing the designers of Soviet fourth generation fighters was meeting the specified range requirements. The advanced development project spec: ified a range of 800 km (444 nm) at SfL and 2,750 km (1,527 nm) at high altitude with one centerline rop-tank, In reality, i¢ was 700 km (388 nm) and 2,100 km (1,166 ‘nmn), respectively, for the production MiG-29, Only the No. 1 fuselage tank in the spine could be readily enlarged, increasing capacity by 240 lit, (52.8 Imp. gal.) and giving it an internal fuel volume of 4,540 lit. (998.8 Imp. gal.). As the next-best solution, the engineers introduced “wet” wing pylons, permitting the carriage of ‘two 1,150-lit. (253 Imp. gal.) drop- tanks. Fitting three drop-tanks increased the total fuel volume to 8,340 lit, (1,834.8 Imp. gal.), pro- viding a fetry range of 3,000 km (1,666 nm), ‘The ECM suite also took longer to develop than anticipated; late MiG-29s were to feature an 1-203B jammer in the avionies bay aft of the cockpit, Along with the enlarged No. 1 fuel tank, this required a change in the fuselage spine shape. The upper fuselage contour became convex instead of concave, giving the fighter a distinctive appearance and earning, it the nickname “gorbahtyy” ~ “hunchback.” The ECM aerials were located under four prominent dielec- tric panels at the wingtips to give 360° coverage. In 1983 the Mikoyan OKB con- verted three standard Batch 4 air- craft into prototypes of the new ver- sion, Trials began in April 1984, with the three prototypes making more than 400 flights between them, Production lasted from 1986 ‘Three initial-production MiG-29s take fight from the Kubinka AFB regiment. Kubin ka is the premier Russian military base, similar in status 1o Nellis AFB, Nevada. (efim Gordon archive) Mikoyan retained MIG-29 (izdeliye 9.12) numbered 10 Blue for demonstration and taining purposes. This probably explains the immaculate paint scheme. (RSK MiG archive) 10 Blue is training here over what might be termed a fair-weather landscape for central Russia. This aircraft crashed at Le Bourget at the 1989 Paris Air Show: (RSK MiG archive) to 1991. Fulcrum-A production continued in parallel on a small scale, mainly for export. The first production 9.13 was the standard- setter for the production Fulerum- C, incorporating all the refine- ments. This aircraft made more than 500 test flights at GLITs until the program was completed in November 1988. It was donated to the Great Patriotic War Museum in Moscow. ‘The first production “fatbacks” were deployed in East Germany. The new version promptly attracted the atiention of Western military intelli- gence and received the reporting name Fulcrum-C. HISOTAR GUBETICH MiG-29 FULCRUM 23‘Two views of a standard production MiG-29 Fulerum-A (izdeliye 9.12) demon- strate that the straight leading edges on the stabilators and the genuine dorsal intake louvers are clearly visible in the plan view. (Yefim Gordon archive) Fulcrum-C, MiG-29 Experi- mental Fighter (izdeliye 9.14) In 1984 the Mikoyan OKB devel- oped a version of the MiG-29 with an ‘enhanced WCS including a “Ryabina” low-light level TV/laser designator pod ‘The weapons range was expanded to include Zvezda Kh-25M (AS-10 Karen) and Spetstekhnika Kh-29 (AS-14 Kedge) TV-guided or laser-guided air- to-ground missiles and KAB-500 “smart bombs.” The maximum bomb load was 4,500 kg (9,920 Ibs) with ‘eight bombs on MERs under the wings and one on the fuselage centerline. ‘The prototype was a converted Fulcrum-A. It first flew on February 13, 1985. The Ryabina LLLTV/laser designator system was still under development, so the aircraft served to test the augmented bomb armament and examine the possibility of opera- tions from dirt strips. Later it was used in the MiG-29S upgrade pro- gram. It participated in several inter- national air shows in 1991-92, However, 9.14 never entered pro- duction because in the mid 1980s the Mikoyan OKB began working on a major upgrade of the Fulcrum, the MiG-29M, which also had pinpoint strike capability, The prototype remained a one-off and is still opera- tional at GLITs in Akhtoobinsk, with more than 800 flights to its credit. Testbeds and Research Aircraft 4a) “Aircraft 970" and “Airoraft 971” Weapons Testbeds ‘These two production Fulerum- As had a modified WCS, serving as ‘weapons with the “Vympel” weapons design bureau. They were used to test medium-range AAMs. The first air- craft took off in May 1985 and the second in January 1986. The program finished in August 1989 and induded missile separation safety trials in all ai TARBIRDTECHclearly visible, (Yefim Gordon archive) Blue 51, the first prototype MiG-29UB combat trainer, flies overhead during flight ests. Note the photo-theodolite markings are This MiG-29UB prototype sits in the shop of Mikoyan design bureau, 1980. Only the fire-control radar was deleted in the trainer version, thereby retaining most of the combat capability. (RSK MiG archive) Aight modes, verification of changes to the N019 radar, and live firing tr als against La-17M, M-21, and Tu. 16M Badger target drones, b) MiG-29 Stealth Technology Testbed To investigate ways of reducing the aircraft's radar signature, a stan- dard-production MiG-29 was coated experimentally with a radar-absorbent material (RAM). Trials showed that the RAM significantly reduced the fighter’s radar cross-section (RCS). ©) Uprated RD-33 (izeeliye 21) Engine Testbed After completing its State accep- tance trials program, the tenth MiG-29 prototype was converted into a testbed for a version of the RD-33K engine ‘uprated to 8,800 kgp (19.400 Ib st) in full afterburner, This was developed for the upgraded MiG-29M. The pro- torype engine was installed in only the fighters port nacelle. ‘The air intakes were converted to MiG-29M stan- dards, with downward-hinging FOD protection grilles downstream instead of solid doors at the mouth and no auxiliary dorsal intakes. @) MiG-29KVP In 1982, when the N-019 radar had passed its trials, the eighth proto- type was converted under the MiG 29K program. The objective was to test the type’s compatibility with a conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) aireraft cartier and perfect car- rier operations techniques. Unneces- sary equipment was removed, result ing in a gross weight of only 12 tons (26,455 Ibs). An arrestor hook was fit ted under the aft fuselage and the air: frame was reinforced. The aircraft was unofficially designated MiG-29KVP, Carrier operations trials pro- ceeded at Novofyodorovka airbase near the city of Saki in the Crimea, home to the AV-MF Flight ‘Test Cen- ue. A special “unsinkable carrier” had been built there, featuring a ski jump and an arrestor system, On August 21, 1982, Aviard G. Fastovets made the first takeoff from the pro- visional 1-1 ski jump (T = tramplin) ‘The aircraft became airborne at 240 km/h (133 kts) after a 250 m (820 ft) takeoff run. Between October 1 and October 25, 1984, the MiG-29KVP ET ‘DEWAN GUREWICH MiG-29 FULCRUM 25‘The first prototype MiG-29UB stil survives at Mikayan's flight-est facility in Zhakouskiy, albeit sans engines. The family resemblances tothe Flogger and Faxhound are noticeable in the kacteground. (Yefim Caron) 26 WARBIRDTECHSide view of a standard-production MiG-29UB Fulcrum-B (izdeliye 9.51). The common canopy speeds up the ejection process for both pilots in case of an emergency. (Yefime Gordon archive) we + MIG-29 No971 westbed was used for RVV-AE missiles tials. Note the leading-edge slats deployed in this photo. (RSK MiG archive) made a number of takeoffs from the restyled T-2 ski jump, Later the aircraft was briefly used as an instructional airframe by the Moscow Energy Institute before being donated to the VVS Museum in Monino ) “Aircraft 211" (izdeliye 9.21) In the late 1970s and early 1980s, GosNIIAS began examining the pos- sibilities of integrating digital avion- ies into the MiG-29. The BIsK-29 dig- ital avionics suite enabled multiplex data exchange, thus significantly enhancing combat potential. To this end an early production MiG-29 was converted into an avionics testbed in late 1987. Flight tests began in April 1988 but were soon suspended. (efi Gorton) 4) Equipment Reliability Research Aircraft Afier completing an equipment reliability test program on "919," Lil began further research in order to deal with the MiG-29's teething trou- bles. The research aircraft was a stan- dard-production Fulcrum-A bor- rowed from the Air Force combat taining centre in Lipetsk. This air- craft later became Mikoyan’s demon strator workhorse, eventually crash- ing at the 1989 Paris air show. 8) N-010 Radar Testbed (izdeliye 9.16) A production “fatback” MIG.29 ‘was converted into an avionics test- bed for the Phazotron N-010 *Zhuk” radar developed for the MiG-29M. It made the first post-conversion flight This production MiG-29 (11 Blue, “Aircraft 211") was used by Mikoyan for research. Note the additional pitot heads on the forward fuselage. (Viktor Drushlyakou) MiG-29 Fulcrum-A weapons: B-8M1 rocket pods, KMGU packs, fuel drop-tanks, 250-kg and 500-kg boribs, R-27R, R-73, ‘and R-60 AAMs. The curved wing profile is readily apparent. on January 12, 1987, but trials had to be suspended after radar failure When it was repaired, the aircraft went to Akhtoobinsk and remained operational there until 1990, MiG-29S Tactical Fighter (izdeliye 9.138), Fulcrum-C In the late 1980s, Mikoyan con- ducted additional research in onder to adapt the new R.77 active radar hom- ing missile to the Fulcrum. The result ‘was an upgraded version of the Ful- ‘crum-G, designated MiG-29S. It could guide missiles to two targets at a time and operated in concert with R-27RE and R-77 AAMSs, Modifications to the control sys- tem increased the fighter’s maximum Se EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEE ‘GOTH CTRETICH MiG-29 FULCRUM 7‘These two views are of a standard production MiG-29 Fulcrum-C (izdeliye 9.13). ‘The need for increased range meant increasing the size of the maint dorsal fuel tank, creating the concave “fatback” profile common to and further enlarged in subsequent models. (Yefim Gordon archive) AOA to 28°. The airframe was rein forced, permitting an increase in MTOW to 20,000 kg (44,091 Ibs). The ordnance load in the strike role was increased to 4,000 kg (8,818 Ibs) of bombs on four MERs under the wings (two 500-Kg/1,102-Ib bombs per sta- tion). Like the standard Fulerum-C, the MiG-29S had provisions for three drop-tanks. By Mikoyan estimates, the new missiles increased the fighter’s combat efficiency 2.5 to 3 times, In a long. range “missile duel,” the MiG-29S had 10% better chances than the F-16C and Rafale, and 25% better chances than the Gripen and Mirage 2000.5. ‘Three Fulcrum-C prototypes were ‘modified in 1988 and 1989, respec- tively, to integrate the R-77 AM with the new radar. The first “real” proto- type entered flight test on December 23, 1990. When the trials program was completed, WS aircraft overhaul plant at Kubinka AB began upgrading early-production Fulcrum-A/Cs to MiG-29S standard. Fulcrum-A, MiG-298 Tactical Fighter (izdeliye 9.128) A similar upgrade of the original production version, Fulcrum-A, quite logically bore the same service desig nation, MiG-29S; however, the manu- facturer’s designation was different ~ 9.128. Outwardly, the aircraft differed from the version described above in having the original concave fuselage 28 WARBIRDTECHspine. Thus, it had Jess internal fuel and lacked the 12038 jammer. Four were retained by MAPO-MiG for air show demonstration purposes and painted in a metallic green/blue/sil- ver camouflage. Fulcrum-A, MiG-29SD Export Version (izdeliye 9.12SD) Predictably, an export version of the “skinny” MiG-29S (9.128) appeared before long under the designation MiG-29SD (“D" stands for dozaprahuka — refueling). It fea- tured an RLPK-29ME (export) radar targeting system (N-O19ME radar) and an OEPrNK-29-1E optoelec- tronic targeting/navigation system offering a major improvement in combat capabilities over the stan. dard export Fulcrum, Western avionics were optional, Malaysia was the launch cus- tomer, and the aircraft entered. pro- duction in 1995, sometimes identi- fied as MiG-29N. These have Western tactical navigation equipment (TACAN), VORYILS, IFF and ATC transponders, additional HF and UHE radios, and other avionics. The flight instruments are marked in feet and knots ‘The upgtaded WCS enabled the MiG-29SD to engage two aerial tar- gets at one time, firing two missiles consecutively or simultaneously; tar- get lock-on occurred manually or automatically. A hose-and-drogue aerial refueling system with a strap- on refueling probe was developed for the MiG-29SD to be fitted at cus- tomer request; this was tested on Ful- crum-A 357 Blue. Fulcrum.C, MiG-29SE Export Version (izdeliye 9.13SE) A similar export version of the “fatback” MiG-295 was designated MiG-29SE ("E” for export). It differed ‘These three views show a production MIG-29 Fulcrum-C with four R-73 short-range AAMs. Wet-wing pylons were also added to allow a carriage of two 1,150-liter arop-tanks. (Yefim Gordon) 357 Blue, the MiG-29 refueling system demonstrator, sits prowaly on display at the ILA airshow in Berlin, (Yefim Gordon) ‘IEOEAR SOMEFICE MiG-29 FULCRUM »Non-flying Aircraft 925 was converted to represent the original version of the MIG-29SMT project, seen here at LI in December 1997. (Yefim Gordon) ‘The second prototype MiG-29SMT, during trials, shows the new dorsal profile caused by additional fuel tanks. (Yefim Gordon) The second prototype MiG-29SMT, 917 Blue, és pictured here with two Kh-31P anti-radiation missiles, The maximum ordnance load of the SMT is 4,000 kg, (Vefim Gordon) from the MiG-29SD only in having a bigger internal fuel capacity MiG-29SM Multi-Role Fighter To enhance the Fulerum’s strike capability, the MiG-29S was developed into the MiG-29SM (modemizeerovan- yy ~ upgraded). It could carry Kh-29T ‘TV-guided AGMs and KAB-50OKR TV- guided bombs. The weapon projected “bombs eye view" to a display in the cockpit, enabling the pilot to hit tar gets with pinpoint accuracy. The ord- nance load was 4,000 kg (8,818 Ibs). In production form the MiG-29SM had flight refueling capability with a fully retractable L-shaped probe Mikoyan estimated the modification would triple the combat potential compared to 9.12 MiG-29 Refueling System Testbed ‘The Malaysian contract signed on June 7, 1994 stated that 14 out of 16 Fulcrums ordered by TUDM (ie, all of the single-seat MiG-29SDs) were to be retrofitted with refueling probes upon completion of deliveries. To this end a standard-production MiG- 29 (9.12) was converted into a test bed for the optional refueling probe developed for the MiG-29SD/SE/SM. MiG-29SMT Multi-Role Fight- er (izdeliye 9.17) Operational experience with the MiG-29 proved that it had better maneuverability, speed, and service ceiling than the best Western fight- ers in its class. Range, on the other hand, was inadequate. This led MAPO-MiG to begin a radical upgrade in 1997 Designated 9.17, the new version was based on the “fatback” MiG-29S, In its original form, the air intakes were borrowed straight from the 30 WARBIRDTECHMiG-29M, with FOD protection grilles replacing the earlier solid doors. The upper auxiliary intakes were deleted, making room for 930 lit, (204.6 Imp. gal.) extra fuel in the LERXes. The forward fuselage was identical to the MiG-29M's, featuring a raised cockpit and options for a refueling probe. ‘The spine was even fatter than on the Fulcrum-C, increasing avion. ies bay volume by 500 lit. (110 Imp. gal.). It incorporated two strap-on fuel tanks, a MiG-29M-style dorsal airbrake, and a MiG-29M-style boat- tail fairing between the engine no. zles. The wings were modified to incorporate four hardpoints each and hold 390 lit. (85.8 Imp. gal.) ‘extra fuel, The fighter had increased- area stabilators with dogtooth and broader-chord fin root sections, again from the MiG-29M. The main gear units were beefed up. Fuselage integral tank No. 3 was also rein- forced and enlarged by 200 lit. (44 Imp. gal.); additionally, the aircraft could carry enlarged drop-tanks under the wings and had provisions for a fully retractable MiG-29K style refueling probe. Aircraft 9.17 received the official designation MiG-29SMT, the “T denoting toplivo (fuel) and referring to the increased fuel load. In late 1997, however, the engineers changed the project considerably ~ not least because MAPO objected to such drastic structural changes. The main problem was that the compli- cated redesign of the air intakes was not worth the effort, giving only a slight increase in fuel capacity. In autumn 1997, one of GLITS’ former Fulcrum-Cs was modified by Mikoyan and put through tials under the MiG-29SMT program. The conversion concemed only the cock- pit equipped with an EFIS to MiG- 29SMT standard to improve flight and target data presentation, ‘The cockpit of the MiG-29SMT-I shows the two large color-sereen displays. (¥efim Gorton) On April 22, 1998, the MiG- 29SMT was again unveiled to avia. tion dignitaries and the aviation press at Mikoyan’s flight-test facility in Zhukovskiy. This time, however, it was the real thing, and it was far dif- ferent from the November 1997 mockup. Since then, the aircraft had been extensively modified to bring it, The cockpit of the upgraded MiG-29SMT-II features the new navigation suite with ring laser gyros, on board INS, and satelite link. (Yefim Gordon) externally at least, (0 MIG-295MT standards with a more convex upper fuselage, extended MiG-29M-style “beaver tail,” and one-piece dorsal airbrake, The MiG-29SMT made its firs Might that day. The second prototype, a convert- ed late-production Fulcrum-C, entered fight test on November 28, rr (MIKO TRETICH MiG-29 FULCRUM 311997. In March 1998 the aircraft was turned over to Mikoyan’s experimen- tal shop for complete conversion to MiG-29SMT standards, becoming the first “true” MiG-29SMT. On Decem- ber 29, 1998, the first “production” MiG-29SMT was delivered to Zhukovskiy. As mentioned earlier, the MiG-29SMT can fill the strike, Interceptor, tactical reconnaissance, and tactical airborne command-post roles. Experts claim the fighter’s com- bat potential is eight times that of the baseline MiG-29 Fulerum-A, while direct operating costs are 35- 40% lower. New avionics enable the MiG- 29SMT Stage I to carry all kinds of a craft weapons, including Westen mis- siles. Each of the fighter’s seven com- puters equals ten computers fitted to 1982 standard-production MiG-29s, Using modem electronic components produced a weight saving of some 600 kg (1,322 Ibs). MiG-29UBT Combat Trainer In the summer of 1998, Mikoy- an's experimental shop began con- verting a MiG-29UB Fulerum-B com- bat wainer into the prototype MiG- 29UBT. The MiG-29UB featured increased fuel capacity in a bulged fuselage spine a ia MiG-29SMT and updated avionics, including “glass cockpits.” The *fatback" trainer entered flight test on August 25, 1998, MiG-29MF Multi-Role Fighter (Proposal) In 1997 Russia began negotiations with the Philippines, offering the MiG-29 to the Philippine Air Force ‘This version is called MiG-29MF by Mikoyan, ‘These three views of the MiG-29SMT 01 Blue (c/n 2960720165), completed in the last days of 1998, came as a welcome gift to the Russian AE The volume of the additional dors fuel-tanks enables « major range improvement without compromising the streamlining. (Yefim Gordon) 32 TAGRUTECHUnlike the basic MiG-29UB, the MIG-29UBT had full com- The second prototype of the MiG-29UBT, 52 Blue, was the bat capability with three sereens in the rear glas-cockpit, and fist two-seat aircraft to feature a flight refueling capability aan upgraded WCS. (Yefint Gordon) (Yefiim Gordon) The MiG-29SMT 01 Blue rests with the second prototype of the MiG-29UBT at Zhukovskiy. (Yefim Gordon) This MEG-29 Fulorwm-C test aircraft has special anti-radar coating. This stealth technology testbed confirmed that the RAM coating significantly reduced the RCS, Similar experiments were tried witi S the Su-25 Frogfoot (Yefim Gordon) MIEOTAN GUREVICH MiG-29 FULCRUM 33THE UPGRADE MiG-29M Multi-Role Fighter (izdeliye 9.15) far back as the late 1970s, Ae started looking for sways to enhance the MiG-29's combat potential. Thus began a new development stage that resulted in what could be called the second-gen- eration Fulcrum ~ the MiG-29M (modernizeeravanmyy ~ upgraded). ‘The main objectives were versa- tility, longer range, and reduced losses in action. While primarily similar to the basic MiG-29, the MiG-29M featured aerodynamic refinements, improved handling, stability, and technological changes, ‘making it easier to build, ‘The result was, in effect, a new aircraft so dif- ferent from the basic MiG-29 that it ‘was to be placed in a new category ~ the so-called “generation 4+” multi role fighters. To power the MiG-29M, the Klimov OKB developed a “landlub- ber” version of the RD-33K engine (icdeliye 21) designed for the MiG- 29K shipboard fighter (see next chap. ter). The new engine had a duplex full-authority digital engine-control (FADEC) system, a duplex automatic fuel flow management system, and a new accessory gearbox. Besides hav- ing greater reliability, the FADEG pro- duced increased acceleration, ‘The MiG-29M featured redesigned air intakes. The solid FOD protection doors and dorsal auxiliary intakes of the Fulcrum-A/B/C were removed and replaced by downward-hinging grids further downstream. The walls of the main wheel wells were perforated to admit additional air when the grids ‘were up. The intakes had a lower lip that could be deflected 20° down to improve engine operation at high alpha; the FADEG controlled these and the intake ramps. Major changes were made to the airframe. Most of it, especially the forward fuselage, was made of 01420 aluminum-lithium (Al-Li) alloy. Unlike production Fulcrums, the structure was welded, not riveted is saved weight because there was rno need to seal rivet joints, and the new alloy had a lower specific gravi- ty. The composite share was increased; besides the fins and vari- ous dielectric and access panels, composites were used for the air- brake, and inlet ducts, The use of ‘The first prototype MiG-29M, 151 Blue (the code-denoting item 15 No. 1), soars overhead during tests in Zhuleovskiy The stripe on the tiffin is part of the photo-theodolite target for attitude tracking. (Vikior Drushlyakov) TARSIRDTECH 34RAM reduced the aircrafi’s RCS by a factor of ten! The pilot's seat was raised to improve visibility; this necessitated a canopy that was more convex than the Fulcrum-A/G's. The LERXes teceived a sharper leading edge to generate more powerful vortices at high alpha; this and the increased- span ailerons substantially improved the aircraf’s low-speed handling. The stabilator area was increased by ‘extending the leading edge and creat ing the characteristic dogtooth. Fin chord was increased below the rud- ders, The upper fuselage’s contour ‘was reshaped into a straight line. The APU air intake was relocated to star- board. The split airbrake of the stan- dard MiG-29 was replaced by an Su- 27 style, one-piece dorsal airbrake further forward. The landing gear was strengthened to absorb the higher gross weight. ‘The N-010 pulse-Doppler radar could track ten aerial targets while guiding AAMs to four priority threats. It was 6096 lighter than the N-019. Outwardly, it could be recog- nized by a reprofiled radome with simple curvature. The helmet- mounted sight supplied target data to other targeting systems and IR- homing missiles. The aircraft could be fitted with a laser designator combined with a low-light-level TV or thermal imaging system. It had a completely new “glass cockpit” (EEIS) with an improved HUD, and two multi-function monochrome CRT displays for flight and target/weapons data; color CRTs could be integrated later on. The ESM suite included a "Gar- deniya-1FU" (12038) active jammer and two BVP-60-26 chafffflare dis- pensers with sixty 26-mm rounds each ~ twice the capacity of the Fulerum-A. The dispensers were buried in the aft fuselage. The ECM aerials were ideally positioned at the wingtips under dielectric panels fore and aft, giving complete 360° coverage. Six flying prototypes and a static test airframe were built. The first took to the air on April 25, 1986; it sported prominent T-shaped black- and-white phototheodolite calibra- tion markings on the tail, It was powered by standard RD-33s because the uprated RD-33K had not yet completed its trials program. The second prototype was retrofitted with RD-33Ks in 1989. It was also the first to be fitted with the N-010 radar, a collimator HUD, and two CRT displays, thus becoming the first MiG-29M in representative pro- duction configuration. The aircraft ‘was used for FBW testing, radar tri- als, handling, performance and field performance testing with and with- out external stores, and powerplant and fuel system testing, ‘The third aircraft was demon- strated at Kubinka AB on June 23, 1989. This, and the fourth and fifth prototypes, were used for engine, avionics, and systems testing, live air-to-air and air-to-ground firing u als, and cockpit ergonomics trials ‘The fourth aircraft in particular was used to verify the new IRSI/LR, and the fifth prototype was for perfor- mance testing. ‘These port and starboard views of the fifth prototype, 155 Blue, were photographed in Akhtoobinsk, The recontoured fuselage spine and extended fin trailing edges are cleariy visible. This aircraft was used primarily for performance testing. (Yefim Gor- don archive) EEE EVEN eURETICA MiG-29 FULCRUM 35‘The final prototype was built by MAPO in the early 1990s. The fifth and sixth aircraft were used for avion- ies trials (including electromagnetic compatibility trials) and. live lite imagery. (Yefim Gordon archive) ‘weapons firing trials against both aer- ial and ground targets, featuring a complete avionics suite with modifi- cations introduced after the third prototype’ tests ‘The top view illustrates the changes to the rear fuselage and the dogtooth on the sta~ bilator leading edges characteristic of the MiG-29M. Note the false dorsal intake louvers, similar to production Fulcrums, added to confuse Westerners studying satel- Early test flights showed a marked improvement in maneuverability. The fighter had a maximum true airspeed (TAS) of 2,450 km/h (1,361 kts) or Mach 2.3, a maximum indicated air- speed (IAS) of 1,480 km/h (822 kts), and a 310 m/sec (1,017 fi/sec) rate of limb at 1,000 m (3,280 fi). Service ceiling was 17,000 m (55,774 ft), range on internal fuel 2,000-2,200 km (1,111-1,222 nm), and maximum ferry range with three drop-tanks 3,200 km (1,777 nm). With a 3,500 kg (7,716 Ib) ordinance load, the air- craft had a 20-minute loiter time within 520 km (288 nm) from base. Combat radius was 1,250 km (694 nm) in dogfight mode (involving five 360° turns) with 2+2 short/medium- range AAMs and three drop-tanks. ‘The MiG-29M's G limits, rate of climb, and acceleration were roughly the same as in the production MiG- 29/MiG-29UB. The maximum AOA, however, was much higher, enabling the fighter to make brief 9-G maneu- ‘vers with a full fuel load, which was ‘The MiG-29M shows off its characteristic ordnance load: Two Kh-29 AGMs, two Kh-31 AGN AAMs. Unusually, these are mounted asymmetrically in this photograph. (Yefim Gordon) EST WARBIRDTECH 36 fs, two R-73 AAMs, and two R-774 major improvement over produc- tion aircraft. The MiG-29M had an electronic alpha limiter; initially the AOA limit was set at 30°, but this would be increased when the aircraft completed fight tests. According to the development plan, the MiG-29M was to gradually supersede the Fulcrum-a/C on the MAPO production lines in the early 1990s. Within ten years the number of production MiG-29Ms would reach 300 or 400. Still, these hopes were shattered, The trials program was making slow progress; only the manufacturer's flight tests were com: pleted by the early 1990s. These were deemed to be successful, even though both aircraft had to be grounded because of fatigue cracks. The state acceptance trials, however, were sus pended because of funding shortages. ‘The final flight under the state accep- tance trials program was made in May 1993. Between them, the five prototypes made 1,068 flights According to MAPO-MIG esti- mates, the MiG-29M can match the performance of the Boeing/Lockheed 1-224 Raptor fifth-generation fighter. ts combat potential is 1.5 times that of the Fulcrum-a/C in the counter- air role and 3.4 times better in the strike role MiG-29ME (MiG-33) Export Multi-Role Fighter ANPK "MiG" are also working on a downgraded export version of the MiG-29M, designated MiG-29ME or ‘MiG-33. This has a less capable WCS, which is borrowed from the MiG- 29SD/SE based on the N-O19ME radar. MiG-29UBM Combat Trainer Project (izdeliye 9.61) A trainer version of the MiG- 29M, similar to the MiG-29UB, was under consideration for some time, ‘To stress the similarity and “genera- tion change” from the MiG-29UB, the aircraft was designated MiG- 29UBM. However, this remained a “paper ainplane” because of the sus- pension of the MiG-29M program. MiG-29Sh Attack Aircraft (Proposal) After evaluating the MiG-29 in the strike role, MAPO-MiG proposed a specialized attack version of the Fulcrum designated MiG-29Sh (shtoormovik - attack aircraft). The project was shelved due to lack of customer interest and funding, MiG-29 (izdeliye 9.25) Multi- Role Fighter Project Development work proceeded on this from the late 1980s; the main objectives were to extend range, improve agility, and integrate additional weapons. ‘These phowos are from an air-to-air study of the fifth prototype MiG-29M, 155 Blue, and sixth prototype, 156 Blue. Both these aircraft were used for avionics trials and kive weapons training against ground and airborne targets. (Aviatsiya i Kosmonavtika) HIBOTAN GVRETICH MiG-29 FULCRUM 37‘The new fighter was designated 9.25. It featured engines uprated to 10,000 kgp (22,045 Ib st). The fuselage was stretched by moving the engines 910 mm (2 ft 11.82 in.) aft to make room for an additional integral fuel tank. Canard fore- planes were introduced and wing area was enlarged. A new WCS built around a new radar was fitted and the ordnance load was increased to 5,000 kg (11,023 Ibs); the weapons range included anti- tank guided missiles ‘The final change was the installa- 1n of new engines and a new avion- ics suite, which would turn the MiG- 29 into a fifth-generation fighter. Fuel tank No. 2 was enlarged and a further tank (No. 5) was added, bringing the total to more than 8,000 lit. (1,760 Imp. gal.) ~ 40% more that the MiG. 29M's and 90% more than the Ful- crum-a’s, A refueling probe was also introduced. Initial WS reactions were positive. Later, the program was shelved along with the MiG-29M as funding dried up. the R-77 (RV (Viktor Drushilyakov) The Kh-31P ARMs under the port wing are for air defense radar suppression, and 2) AAMS are used against aerial targets at medium range. 155 Blue was also used for cockpit ergonomics trials and extensive systems evaluation. The TV-guided Kh-29T missiles under the starboard wing are designed to destroy large-area ground targets while the R-73s are close-range “dogfighting missiles.” (Wefim Gordon) MiG-29 (izdeliye 9.35) Multi-Role Fighter Project ‘Ata VPK MAPO press conference held on August 21, 1997, during the MAKS-97 air show, Mikoyan announced that an even more mas- sive upgrade of the Fulcrum, referred to by the press as “MiG-35," was in the making. Since it had become lear by the late 1990s that no more money would be forthcoming for the MiG-29M, ANPK MiG decided to cheat the money from the stingy gov. ernment by proposing an allegedly new-generation fighter. The fighter incorporated the improvements pro- posed for 9.25, albeit on a more modern technical level, and some ideas from the MFI program - the famous fifth-generation multi-role fighter known as Project 1.42 It featured uprated engines with revised air intakes and inlet ducts, a 910-mm fuselage stretch, new radar, and an increased ordnance load Internal fuel capacity was increased to approximately that of the MiG- 29SMT. Besides the extra integral tank ahead of the engines and larger wing tanks, two strap-on fuselage tanks and integral tanks in the fin roots were added. It also had flight refueling capability. Because length and takeoff weight had grown, span and root chord was increased for ‘wing area, and the result was quite similar to the MiG-25 Foxbat in plan- form, with lopped-off wingtips and a straight tailing edge. ‘This project seems to be suffering the same fate - the Russian MoD doesn't want it because it can’t afford to buy it ‘Trainer Derivative of izdeliye 9.35 (Proposal) Concurrently with 9.35, ANPK MIG submitted a proposal for a two- seat trainer version. ‘The aircraft dift 38 WARBIRDTECHfered mainly in having a new forward fuselage, retaining the improvements introduced on the single-seater Unlike the MiG-29UB, the new train- er retained the fire-control radat. This was also put on hold, MiG-298MT Stage II Upgrade Project Mikoyan proposed an upgrade of the MiG-29SMT. The so-called Stage UI upgrade introduces RD-43 engines uprated to 10,000 kgp (22,045 Ib st) with thrust vectoring both in the pitch and the yaw plane. The (WCS) is built around an all-new “Zhem. choo” (Pearl) fire-control radar with a detection range of 130 km (72 nm) and 180° scanning in azimuth. The radar is capable of tracking ten targets at a time while guiding missiles to four priority threats. The Stage Il upgrade introduced a new BINS-SP navigation suite fea- turing ring laser gyros and correction via satellite link, The MiG-29SMT also featured a new "Kedr-29” (Cedar) ESM suite comprising an RHAW: active ECM, threat-distinguishing sy tem and chafffflare dispensers. To guide advanced AGNs to their targets, the aircraft carries an IKSPOZ pod intended to expose tar- gets, The MiG-29SMT Stage IT can fill the tactical reconnaissance, inter- ceptor, attack, and C* (command, control, and communications) roles Experts estimate that it is eight times ‘mote effective than today’s Fulerum while being at least 35-40% cheaper to operate. ‘The landing of the same aircraft. Note the drogue chute pulling the tail chute from its housing between the mid-engine airbrakes. (Aviatsiya i Kosmonavtika) 29M 301 Blue (ex- 16 Blue) sits at Mikoyan’s flight-test facility in Zhukouskiy in April 1998. Note the absence of the ‘ake dorsal intakes that suggested these were ordinary Fulcrum As or Cs. As this aircraft began 10 regularly visit the West, the deception tas easily noticed. (Yefim Gordon) MIROTAH GTRETICH MiG-29 FULCRUM 39CARRIER TRIALS Fulcrum-D, MiG-29K Ship- board Fighter (izdeliye 9.31) ractical work to adapt fourth- Prersee fighters to CTOL carriers began on August 21 1982, when the MiG-29KVP research aircraft made the first take- off from the provisional T-1 ski jump. Originally, it was intended that the MiG-29K would fill the counter-air role for the carrier group, and this drove the cartier design Full-scale development began in 1984, Two upgraded versions of the -MiG-29 were being developed in par- allel ~ the MiG-29M for the VS and the MiG-29K for the AV-MF. The MIG-29K was to provide air defense for the cartier group day and night in any kind of weather at altitudes between 30,000 and 27,000 m (98,000-88,582 ft). Apart from air defense, it was to act asa “hunter,” destroying enemy ASW, transport, and AWACS aircraft; make anti-shi ping strikes; support marine land- ings; escort land-based aircraft; achieve multiple kills; and perform reconnaissance tasks, ‘The MiG-29K's design was based on its land-based counterpart, the MiG-29M. Special attention was given to corrosion protection to enable operation in the salty ocean air. More stringent requirements applied to structural materials, coat- ings, seals, and gaskets. The fuselage {primarily the main fuel tank) was strengthened considerably to absorb the augmented loads during landings and arrested braking. To reduce approach speed, ‘wingspan was increased to 12.0 m (39 fi 4.44 in.) and wing area to 43 im? (462.36 sq. ft). The wings fea- Pre-production Aircraft 918 was fitted with an arrestor look (the so-called “MiG- 29KVP") during trials at the naval test centre, Saki AB. (stills from a Mikoyan video) tured a modified TSAGI P-177M air- foil instead of the basic P-177, dou- ble-slotted flaps inboard, and flaper- ‘ons outboard. The dorsal fin exten- sions housing the chaff/flare dis- pensers were removed, and the dis- pensers were incorporated in the aft fuselage. The outer wings folded hydraulically to a vertical position for hangar stowage, reducing span to 7.8 m (25 ft 7 in,). For better fatigue resistance, the wings were of welded- steel construction. The radome could be folded upwards to decrease overall Iength from 17.27 m (56 ft 7.92 in.) to 15.1 m (49 ft 6.48 in.) The landing gear struts were lengthened, featuring heavy-duty increased-stroke shock absorbers and tiedown shackles. Special links shortened the struts during retrac- tion to make sure they would fit into standard wheel wells. The nose- gear unit incorporated a modified steering mechanism, allowing the wheels to turn through £90° for deck handling. It also had approach lights resembling a small traffic light to inform the landing signals officer (LSO) of the aircraft's posi- tion and speed on final approach. All wheels were fitted with new higher-pressure (285 psi) tires. The brake parachute was deleted; a quick-release FDR and the arrestor hook attachment and rebound damper were installed where the brake chute canister had been, Removal of the dorsal auxiliary intakes made room for additional fuel in the LERXes, increasing the internal fuel capacity to 5,720 lit (1,258.4 Imp. gal.) or 4,460 kg (9,832 Ibs) of usable fuel. The total fuel load with three drop-tanks 40 WARBIRDTECH‘Aircraft 918 takes off from the ski jump at Saki, The ski jump was over 175 feet long and 18 feet high, with a 14.3 degree incline matching that of the proposed carter. (stils from a Mikoyan video) exceeded 6,500 kg (14,329 Ibs). A fuel jettison system was provided to lighten the aircraft to the 15,300-kg (33,730-Ib) maximum landing ‘weight in the event of an emergency landing The MiG-29K was fitted with a fully retractable L-shaped refueling probe offset to port ahead of the windscreen; this allowed the fighter to receive fuel from any aircraft equipped with an UPAZ-1A.podded hose drum unit (HDU). For night refueling the probe was illuminated by a special retractable light. The arrestor hook was also illuminated during night landings The MiG-29K was equipped with an SN-K “Oozel” (Knot) navigation suite for overwater flights and carrier approach, It was more accurate and had a higher navigation data feed rate than previous systems, The MiG. 29K had eight underwing weapons pylons and a centerline pylon. The ordnance load was increased to A close-up of the arrestor hook mounted beneath the airbrakes on Aircraft 918. 4,500 kg (9,920 Ibs) and included (Andrey Yurgenson) COTA GURATICHL 29 FULCRUM a Mi311 Blue was the first prototype MIG-29K shipboard fighter. The fuselage was strengthened to take the extra loads of arrested braking and no flare landings. (Mitayan OKB archive) 311 Blue on SNS ‘Tbilisi’ deck with Tokar Aubukirov in the cockpit. Special corresion protection was ulded to courte the effect of the salty sea air. (Yefim Gordon archive) 2 WARBIRDTECHeight combinations of AAMs and no fewer than 25 air-to-surface weapons options. Typical external stores in counter-air mode were four R-27s and four R-73s. Specified combat radius was 850 km (472 nm) on internal fuel, increasing to 1,050 km (583 nm) with one drop-tank and 1,300 km (722 nm) with three, On-station time during combat air patrol (CAP) missions within 250 km (138 nm) from the carrier was 1.6-2.3 hrs, The crew escape system had a feature unique to the naval version: The ejection seat trajectory was inclined 30° sideways so that the seat would go overboard instead of falling on the deck ‘Naturally, the structural changes added to the aircraft's empty weight, In normal takeoff configuration with four missiles and internal fuel only, the MiG-29K weighed 15,570 kg (34,325 Ibs); MTOW with four mis- siles and three drop-tanks was 18,210 kg (40,145 Ibs). The design took four years to accomplish. In early 1988 the factory began manufacturing two prototypes. The first completed its ground systems tests and flew for the first time in June, The trials program ended in 1991 ‘The aircraft was used at Novolyo- dorovka AB for extensive trials on the “unsinkable carrier’ along with the MiG-29KVP testbed. By then the ‘Nitka” RDTC had been equipped with 2 representative S-2 arrestor ‘The MiG-29K makes its first carrier takeoff. The landing gear was both strengthened and tengthened with exira shackles to aid retraction. (Yefim Gordon archive) We did it! The picture was taken immediately after the first deck landing. Note the arrestor wire on the tail hook. (efi Gordon archive) ‘ELBURN MiG-29 FULCRUM 43into position and hotd.” Toktar Aubakirov aligns 311 Blue Jor takeoff. It is presumed that the nose-mounted frame was some form of primitive approach aid. (efim Gordon archive) 311 Blue, the first prototype MIG-29K, sits on the deck of RNS Admiral Kuznetsov (ex-Thilisi) near the “rival” Su-27K prototype. These joint trials allowed a very honest comparison, operating in identical environments. (Yefim Gordon archive) wire system and a “Luna-3” visual approach system, Seagoing trials commenced at the end of the month, Before a landing could be risked, however, a new series of test flights had begun on August 30; these quickly progressed into low passes over the carrier. On October 27 at about 11 A.M,, the second prototype Su-27K appeared suddenly out of the mist to thunder over the flight deck. ‘Then the lighter MiG-29K proto- type flew along the carrier's port side, judging the effect of the carrier's wake turbulence. Before making a real landing, Mikoyan, Sukhoi, and NIL WS pilots trained day after day, ‘mastering the unfamiliar no-flare landing technique. The first conven- tional carrier landing in the Soviet Union was successfully accom- plished at 1:46 P.M. by TIOK-2. At 3:12 PM. the MiG-29K followed suit, touching down somewhat more roughly; in fact, it appeared to onlookers that the aircraft dropped onto the deck like a gliding brick Pictures of the first prototype aboard the carrier taken by a TASS reporter were circulated in November 1989, whereupon the MiG-29K received the NATO code name Fulcrum-D. 312 Blue was the second prototype MIG-29K shipboard fighter. The welded sieel wings folded to reduce the span to 25 feet 7 inches. The nose radome folded upwards, (Yefime Gordon) im TARBIRDTECHSore Some other views of the MiG-29K second prototype show that the nosewheel was modified to turn through 90 degrees to aid deck hnandling. (Yefim Gordon) EDEAE ORRTIC MiG-29 FULCRUMSNS Thilisi completed her seago- ing trials in 1991. On October 4 she ‘was rechristened once again, becom- ing SNS Admiral Kuznetsov. The second prototype, 312 Blue, joined the flight-test program at its final stage. Besides flying, the final stage of the carrier's state acceptance trials included aerodynamic trials of the jet blast deflectors. The latter ‘were a constant source of annoyance; not least because their water-cooling system had a propensity to explode when overheated, as demonstrated by the Su-27K on two occasions. ‘Thus the Fulcrum-D never got the chance to complete its state acceptance trials, There was another reason for this ~ a rather absurd acci- dent. In the 13th flight of the state acceptance trials program, NII VS test pilot V. M. Kandaoorov landed normally after a 1.5-hour sortie and inadvertently worked the landing ‘gear control switch, selecting “gear up.” Realizing his mistake, he imme- diately selected “gear down,” but it ‘was too late. The retraction jacks and hydraulic lines burst and the aircraft sank onto its belly, suffering serious damage. While 311 Blue was undergo- ing repairs, the carrier departed for Novorossiysk ~ and that was it. Finito. “The first prototype made a total of 313 flights. Between them, Mikoy- an and NII WS test pilots made 74 cartier landings and a number of aer- ial refuelings. After the accident described above, 311 Blue made another seven flights, bringing its total score to 320. The second proto- type was grounded after only six flights. The uprated RD-33K engines behaved well throughout the trials program. The trials were suspended in early 1992. The Su-27K emerged as the winner, entering production in 1989 and becoming the Soviet Union's first operational CTOL ship- board fighter ‘The MiG-29M was to gradually supersede the Fulcrum-A/C on the production lines in the early 1990s, Plans also included the pro- 312 Blue departing from Ghelendzhik airfield where it participated in the first hydro aviation show in September 1996. The ‘antique Lisonuv Li-2 in the background unfortunately crashed near Moscow in 2004. (Yefim Gordon) 46 TARRRDTECHduction of 27 MiG-29Ks between 1986 and 1995. Defense spending cuts and the subsequent complete termination of state support for the program prevented the MiG-29K from reaching maturity. However, operational experience with the Flanker-D and the Admiral Kuznetsov's first Mediterranean cruise in December 1995 through March 1996 made the Russian Navy give some serious thought to reviving the MiG-29K program. MiG-29KU Shipboard Trainer Project (izdeliye 9.62) To facilitate conversion training, the Mikoyan OKB developed a pro- jected two-seater version of the Ful- crum-D designated MiG-29KU (shipboard trainer). Only a full-scale mockup of the new forward fuselage ‘was built, and this currently survives as a teaching aid at the Air Force Academy in Monino. MiG-29SMT (izdeliye 9.17K) Shipboard Fighter Project In late 1997, ANPK MiG pro- posed a navalised version of the MiG-29SMT to Russia's Ministry of Defence. The principal differences from the existing MiG-29K were increased range on intemal fuel and a revamped cockpit with an EFIS identical to that of the MiG-29SMT. By February 1998 the project was still at the preliminary development stage. Mikoyan considered offering the aircraft to the Indian Navy. Alternatively, the aircraft could be purchased by the air force, and the STOL capability, beefed-up landing gear and arrestor hook could enable it to operate from short tactical airstrips equipped with ski jumps and arrestor systems. ‘The MiG-29K had its public debut in August 1992 when 312 Blue was in the static park at MosAeroShow ’92 in Zhukowskiy. AIl the tives were increased to a higher pressure of 285 psi on the naval version. (Yefim Gordon) In due time the Soviet Navy flag on ihe fins of the second prototype gave way 10 Si, Andrew's flag of the Russian Navy. (Yefim Gorton) ‘MiG-29K 311 Blue és armed here with four Kh-31AS and four R-77 (RVV-AB) ‘medium-range AAMSs. A tensioned wire helps support the folded wing tip while on display. (Yefim: Gorton) MIROTAR GUREYICH MiG-29 FULCRUM a312 Blue was present again at MAKS-2002 in Zhukovskiy. The tail hook replaced the drag chute between the airbrakes. (Sefim Gordon) 48 WARBIRDTECHolite marking). A model of the s : at insight into the future thinking im Russian des RET Hl MiG-29 FULCRUMINTO SERVICE nnn TES el jhe MiG-29 achieved initial "TL ereciiom capability (10¢) several months before it was formally cleared for service. In July 1983 some 20 initial production air- craft were handed over with great cer- emony to the 234th Proskoorovskiy GvIAP(fighter wing) based at Kubin- ka AB near Moscow. This unit, which can trace its history back to 1938, was traditionally the first to receive new types of fighters and was thus some- thing of a “showcase unit.” The Fulcrum had first been demonstrated at Kubinka on April 7, 1981. Mikoyan test pilot Boris A. Orlov gave a brief 5-minute flying display to show what the new fighter could do. T engaged full burner,” Orlov reminisced, “and the nearly 16 tons (35,273 bs) of thrust pressed the air- team. (Yefim Gordon) craft's nose down. At a weight of 13 tons (28,660 Ibs) the brakes could not hold the fighter and it crawled forward, tires squealing against the runway. I let go the brakes and the aircraft rushed forward like a dog which has burst its leash. The speed grew quickly ... NOW! I pulled back on the stick and the aircraft became airborne immediately. 1 continued hauling back to put it into a vertical climb as I retracted the gear. Now, climbing vertically at 400 km/h (222 kis), I checked the altitude ~ 1,200 m (3.937 ft), made a barrel roll, and put the nose down. At low altitude I checked my position and made a skewed loop, then a wingover, a turn, a three-quarters loop, putting the fighter into a vertical dive, then a half roll in the dive before pulling out Finally, | passed over the runway, making a barrel roll over the middle of it, and broke to land.” ‘The ath Combat and Conversion Training Centre in Lipetsk was one of the first WS units to receive the MiG- 29. As early as the mid 1980s, the centre began developing operational recommendations and tactics for the type. The Centre's pilots performed mock combat between the MiG-29 and the production Su-27 (Flanker- B) to evaluate their respective merits and drawbacks. The pilots’ opinion was that, despite the Su-27's FBW conttols, pilot workload was greater than in the MiG-29. By the end of 1991, MAPO’s divi. sions at Moscow-Khodynka and in Lookhovitsy had built about 1,200 single-seat MiG-29s between them, and nearly 200 MiG-29UB trainers had been assembled in Gor'kiy. More and more VVS units were re equipped with the new fighter as pro: duction increased. By 1991 the WS had some 800 Fulcrums on strength. They were operated by 25 fighter regiments usually with 32 fighters to a unit (though some units had as many as 48 or 54 aircraft). Nearly 800 MiG. 29 were permanently deployed abroad (in East Germany, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia). The biggest Ful- crum contingent was 250, stationed in East Germany with the Western Group of Forces. These included some very early-production aircraft with ventral fins, later supplemented with “fatback” Fulcrum-Cs, Most aircraft wore standard two- tone grey camouflage. Some, howev- ex, had non-standard paint jobs Many early Fulerum-As had a very ‘weathered finish which technical staff VARBIRDTECHrefreshed on site, painting up bat- tered areas without worrying about an exact color match, ‘The MiG-29 was also stationed in other Warsaw Pact states, though in much smaller numbers. A single fighter division with 34 Fulcrums operated from airbases in Hungary. ‘The 13ist SAD included a fighter regi- ment operating 10 MiG-29s and 26 MiG-23s from Milovice AB in Geechoslovakia. Ten MiG-29 regiments totalling some 350 aircraft were based in the European part of the Soviet Union. ‘Two-thirds of these units were sta- tioned outside Russia. The Ukraine had three units - in Mukachovo and Ivano-Frankovsk and at Martynovka AB. The last unit, part of the 5th VA (Odessa), operated a mixed bag of Fulcrum-Cs, MiG-29UBs, and MiG- 23UBs. It was the only Fulcrum unit to be transferred to the Soviet Air Force's fighter-bomber arm. In Belorussia, a fighter unit with S51 aircraft operated from Beryoza AB Another unit with 35 Fulcrums was based at Takhakaya AB in the Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic. This unit's name has come to be connected with a very unfortunate and widely publi- cized incident when one of its pilots defected to Turkey on May 20, 1989. Capt. Aleksandr M. Zooyev was a first-class fighter pilot but a thor- oughly rotien person; he was known as a “pocket Napoleon” — extremely vain and egotistical. Zooyev had been suspended from active duty some time before the incident because of poor discipline. Obviously, resent ment at this coupled with his person- ality led him to commit treason. After sedating the pilots and ground crew of the quick reaction alert flight and Anatolly Koochur, one of the world’s best test pilots, is about to show the spectators what the Pulerumt can do, after a remarkably hort takeoff. (Yefim Gordon archive) ru em a ‘made the headlines. It was one of the eartiest public demonstrations that the Cold War was finally coming to an end. (Wfim Gordon archive) ‘MIBUTAR EURETICH MiG-29 FULCRUM 51‘An AV-ME fighter unit wearing the Soviet Navy flag operates this very early produc- tion MiG-29 (sans ventral fins). (Yefim Gordon archive) cutting the telephone cables to pre- vent anyone from raising the alarm, he shot and seriously wounded a sentry on the ramp who tried to stop him. He then took off in one of the QRA MiG-29s despite also being wounded in the shootout. Subse- quent analysis of FDR readouts showed that Zooyev had twice attempted to strafe the airfield before making for the border, but a safety feature of the internal gun foiled his plan. The Turkish border was a mere ten-minute-flight from Tskhakaya AB. Another MiG-29 scrambled to intercept the defector but could not get within firing range before he entered Turkish airspace. Surface-to- air missile sites in the area were alert ed but failed to detect the target because Zooyey was flying at ultra low level to avoid radar detection. ‘Thus Zooyev was able to cross the border unscathed, landing at the civil airport in Trabzon. The stolen fighter was returned the very next day pursuant to an agreement between the Soviet Union and Turkey. The defector's fate is unknown and despite insistent demands from the Soviet govern- ment, Zooyev was not extradited 131 Fulcrums were based in the Buropean part of the Russian Federa- tion in 1990. Most of them were operated by training units and R&D establishments. No less than 79 MiG 29s resided at two instructional fight- cer regiments in Borisoglebsk. Fifteen Fulcrums were operated by the 234th ‘ae On June 8, 1989, 10 Blue crashed spectacularly at the Paris Air Show at Le Bourget during a demonstration flight on the opening day. Quick reaction and an excellent 36D ejection seat saved Kuochur’s life. (T:Shia) 52 IDTECHSAP at Kubinka AB. The above units were part of the Moscow Defence District in the late 1980s. Another MiG-29 unit with 40 aircraft operated from Orlovka AB in the Far East. Some Fulcrums were stationed in the Central Asian republics of the Soviet Union, including 22 aircraft in Turkmenia and 30 in Uzbekistan. There were also an unknown number in Kirghizia, where Loogovaya AB near the capital of Frunze served as a training centre for foreign MiG-29 pilots and ground crews. Sqn 1 of the Combat Training Centre, located at Maryy AB, was the first VS unit in Soviet Central Asia to master the Fulcrum. This was an “aggressor” unit, visitors often sport ing sharksmouths and other gaudy nose art supposedly characteristic of the “potential adversary.” Originally, the unit’s MiG-29s retained their factory finish and red Company-owned MiG-29 999 White is a regular participant at air shows and is tactical codes outlined in white. As often demonstrated to foreign delegations. (RSK MiGjArthur Sarkisyan) ‘The best company pilots are usually entrusted with performing demonstration flights, 506 Blue is seen here in a steep turn inamediately before landing. (Yefim Gordon) Se aariEInE rennin RUUReROE WMIOTA GORBFICH MiG-29 FULCRUM 8regular units operating the Fulcrum began visiting Maryy for a tussle with the “aggressors,” however, telling the “good guys" from the “bad guys” became a problem, espe- cially in air-to-air combat. The prob- Jem was solved by applying special markings to the upper surfaces of “aggressor” aircraft - known locally as “brandy stripes.” The Fulcrum was also operated by the AV-ME In 1989 a complete fighter division comprising two MiG- 29 regiments and a MIG-23 regiment was transferred to the Black Sea Fleet's air arm. One unit went at Limanskoye AB near Odessa and another at Markuleshty AB in Mol- davia, In the early 1990s, one squadron of MiG-29s (12 aircraft) When the MAPO industrial association was formed, company demonstrators were adored with the MAPO logo on the nose. (Yefimt Gorton) was assigned to the Air Defence Com- mand. The squadron was part of a fighter unit reporting to the 19th Independent PVO Army and operated from Privolzhskiy AB near Astrakhan’ on the Volga river. The political developments of the late 1980s in Eastern Europe and the subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union seriously affected the fate of MiG-29 units. On July 6, 1990, NATO's London summit passed a declaration on impending German reunification (October 3, 1990). Hence on September 12, a truly historic treaty was signed in Moscow under which the Soviet Union pledged to withdraw its troops from Germany. The CIS leaders agreed that such units based in Belorussia (Belarus), Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and the Ukraine would remain there, becom- ing the basis of the air forces of these respective states. By early 1992 the Russian Air Force had some 300 MiG- 29s on strength; more than half of them were still in Germany, awaiting redeployment to Russian airbases. As on the Su-27, a typical ordnance load comprises two medium-range R-27 AMS and four R-73 “dogfight missile.” (RSK MIC) WARBIRDTEGH 54From its first days of MiG-29 operations, the 234th GvIAP started forming a display team flying the type. It was not until mid-1990, how- ever, that the team was officially orga- nized as the unit's Sqn 2 under the name Strizhi (Swifts). It was staffed with the unit's best Fulcrum pilots. ‘The team had ten single-seat Ful crum-As and three MiG-29UBs. All of them wore eye-catching colors with bright blue tails, blue/white wings, white engine nacelles, and a white fuselage with a black spine and blue lightning flash. Originally, the Strizhi performed on four aircraft. Later, the team per- fected the six-aircraft display tech- nique in close formation, the aircraft flying within 3 m (10 ft) of each other. The Stizhi had their debut in France on May 13, 1991, performing at Reims-Champagne airbase. Unfortunately, the MiG-29 has had its share of accidents, Forty-five Fulccums have crashed as of April 1, 1998, with the loss of 23 pilots. The highest attrition rate was recorded in 1993 - 22 of the 31 WS RE aircraft lost that year were MiG-29s, Only six crashes were caused by design and ‘manufacturing defects. In 90% of the cases, pilot error was the cause of the accident. Staying on the ground cer- tainly does not improve a pilot's ly- ing skills! ‘The most famous accident was at the 38th Paris air show. On June 8, 1989, Mikoyan test pilot Anatoliy N, Kvochur was making a demo flight 303 Blue. During a high- alpha/low-speed pass at 160 m (525 fit) concluding the Fulcrum’s aerobat- ics display, a flash of flame belched from the starboard engine's nozzle as the engine surged. Kvochur immedi- ately selected full afterburner for the good engine, but at 180 km/h (100 kts) he had insufficient rudder and aileron authority to counter the asymmetric thrust Participants of the 1993 Royal International Air Tattoo (RIAT) at RAF Fairford saw a spectacular colli- sion at 200-250 m (656-820 ft) in which one aircraft was virtually cut in This MiG-29 (izdeliye 9. the spine and fins, is o} two aft of the cockpit and burst into flames. Incredibly, both pilots escaped without a scratch, even though one of them had to eject inverted. In spite of these accidents, 13), with white “war game” recognition markings on sated by the Tactical Aviation Combat Training Centre (ISBP FA) in Lipetsk. (Yefim Gordon) A curious formation, isn't it? Piloted by factory pilots, the two types built in Lookhovitsy — the MiG-29 and the Ilyushin 11-103 lightplane ~ make a low-speed {flypast during the MAKS-97 air show in Zhukouskiy. (Yefim Gordon) OO ———— a, (MORUTAR GTREYICH MiG-29 FULCRUM 55the MiG-29 has a far better safety record than many Western fighters ‘The Fulcrum is well liked by service pilots of the Russian Air Force The Western world got its first good look at the MiG-29 on July 1, 1986, when six Fulerum-As from Kubinka AB visited Kuopio-Rissala AB in Finland. The MiG-29s lacked pylons so as to avoid revealing how many missiles the aircraft could carry Since there was no point in keep- ing the fighter veiled in secrecy any- more, the Soviet government made an unprecedented decision to demonstrate the MiG-29 at the 1988 SBAC air show at Farnborough, The appearance of two Soviet fighters cre- Notice how neatly the nose gear retracts between the intakes on this single-seat MiG-29 of the Strizhi (Swifts) aerobatic teama. (Yefim Gordon) ated a veritable sensation. The Ful- cum quickly demonstrated its supe- siority to Wester fighters present at the show. To quote Valeriy Ye. Menit- skiy (then Mikoyan CTP), who was present at the show, “The joint prac- tice sessions put everything into its proper place." The top of a loop exe- cuted on the MiG-29 is some 100 m (328 fi - Auth.) lower than on the F- 16C oF Rafale ‘The MiG-29's tailslide maneuver performed by Kvochur and Taskayev was a true show-stoppet, as it had been performed previously on com- petition aerobatic aircraft only, not on fast jets. First, it showed that the controls remained effective at ultra- low speeds (trajectory control was retained at zero and even negative airspeed when the aircraft briefly moved tail-first before exiting the maneuver in a dive). Second, it demonstrated the fighter’s high thrust-to-weight ratio and smooth engine operation, On April 26, 1995, Roman P. Taskayey set an altitude record in the 12-16 ton (26,455-35,273-Ib) gross ‘An attractive pattern is painted on the upper surjaces of the Strizhi aircraft, this time a UB. The colored wing pylons make an attractive detail, (Yefim Gordon) 56 VARBIRUTECHweight class, climbing to 27,460 m (90,091 ft) in a standard MiG-29. In May the same year, a Fulcrum set another record, climbing to an alti tude in excess of 25,000 m (82,020 fi) with a 1,000-kg (2,204-Ib) payload ‘These records were officially recog- nized by the FAL at the years end. Apart from the Gulf War when Iraq made no real effort to oppose the Allies, the MiG-29 has never been in real combat. According to the USA, three Iraqi MiG-29s were shot down on January 17, 1991, and two more on January 19. The Iraqi pilots were definitely lacking in skill. German reunification gave NATO a chance to Someone is making pre-flight checks on a MiG-29UB. The large, one-piece canopy greatly eases cockpit access. (Yefim Gordon) evaluate the MiG-29 in mock combat with the F-15 and F-16, which was especially welcome because Opera tion Desert Storm was already brew- ing at the time. Mikoyan engineers believed in the Fulcrum, and their trust was rewarded The MiG-29 has eamed a good reputa compatible with civil airfields meeting ICAO standards as well as with mili- tary bases. The fuel, power connectors, etc, are standardized, enabling the air- craft to use both Russian and Western ground support equipment. ‘The con- nectors and access panels are conve. niently located so that virtually all maintenance is done from ground level, with no need for stepladders The modular structure of the ait- craft's systems, as well as a high degree of systems component inter- change, eases maintenance and repair. Easy access to the engines facilitates engine maintenance and change. The built-in test equipment monitors more than 80% of the systems. The main problem facing the MiG-29's manufacturer and the Russian Air Force is not technical, but purely financial, Production of the Fulcrum virtually ground to a halt in 1991 because no funding was available. The Strichi in formation, extremely tight position keeping for such a larg, swept-wing aircraft. (Yefim Gordon) ‘This MiG-29UB of the Strizhi team is doing solo aerobatics. The upper wing colors are matched on the undersides, (efim Gordon) ee HIKOTAN OUREFICH (iefim Gordon) MiG-29 FULCRUM The traditional “fireworks” is displayed as each aircraft unleashes a salvo of IRCM flares at the end of the display. 57OVERSEAS SALES s of mid-1994, some 500 Atte? had been delivered 0 or ordered by the air forces of 16 nations. By 1997 the Fulcrum was in service in 23 states, including, the CIS. Known operators of the type are dealt with in this chapter. Belorussia ‘The Belorussian Republic had 47 aircraft on strength. Economic problems led them to put the Ful cums up for sale, Eventually, Bel- techexport signed a contract with the Peruvian government for the delivery of 18 MiG-29s to the Peru- vian Air Force; the first four aircraft were shipped shortly afterwards Some sources stated that the fighters were sold for US $11-14 million each. There have been tumors, how: ever, that the price was closer to US $4,0-4.5 million each. Bulgaria In 1990 the Bulgarian Air Force took delivery of 12 MiG-29s ~ 10 sin- gle-seaters (9.12) and 2 MiG-29UBs. Currently, Bulgaria is reported to have 21 or 22 on strength. Upgrades are now being undertaken at Graf- Ignatievo AB, the first Bulgarian base to be improved to NATO standards. Cuba Cuba was traditionally a Soviet ally and still enjoys “ftiendly nation" status, The Cuban Air Force received the state-of-the-art MiG-29 even before the collapse of the Soviet Union. The first aircraft arrived in October 1989 and made its checkout flight following reassembly on April The fatback MiG-29 20 Yellow (ex-12) at Novofyadorouka AB in Saki is in very weathered current-style Ukrainian AP insignia. The aircraft is carrying two 1,150-lit, drop-tanks. (Viktor Drooshlyakov) This Ukrainian Air Force MiG-29 (‘zdeliye 9.12) is one of 216 “claimed” by the country from the V after they were withdrawn from Germany. (Ciefim Gordon archive) 8 and also CISAF stocks DN ne 58 WARBIRDTECH19,1990, There have been uncon- firmed reports that the FAR currently has one squadron of MiG-29s (twelve singles and two MiG-29UBs) on strength. The Fulcrums retain their two-tone grey factory finish, Czech Republic Czechoslovakia was one of the first socialist states to receive the MIG-29 (9.12A) and MIG-29UB. In 1988, fifteen carefully selected Ceech Air Force pilots were sent to Loogovaya airbase near Frunze, the capital of the Kirghiz Soviet Socialist Republic, to undertake training. Deliveries began in the spring of 1989. The first aircraft arrived on April 24, 1989, Unlike most Ful- crums, Czech MiG-29s were painted in a so-called East European tactical camouflage (dark green/foliage green/datk earth/tan upper surfaces and light grey undersurfaces). The MiG-29s were used primarily in the air defense role. In 1991 CzAF pilots flew to Akhtoobinsk to train at the NIL WVS firing range. When the Federal Republic of Czechoslovakia split into the Czech Republic and Slovakia, the Fulcrum fleet was divided equally between the two. Having decided to join NATO, the Czech government was eager to dispose of Soviet equipment that did not conform to NATO standards and re-equipped the CzAF with western aircraft. Thus on December 22, 1995, a contract was signed with Poland and all ten Czech MiG-29s were trans- ferred to the Polish Air Force in exchange for new PZL Swidnik W-3 Sok6l (Falcon) utility helicopters. Germany East Germany was the first of the Warsaw Pact countries to re-equip with the Fulcrum, Between March 1988 and May 1989, the East German — = w We We ei —_ eS a oe Ookrains'ki Sokoly (Ukrainian Falcons) MIG-29s (101 White and 109 White) ‘ake off from RAF Fairford for a sixship display at the 1997 Royal International Air Tattoo, (Ryszard Jaxa-Malachowski) iUROTAR CURETICH MiG-29 FULCRUM 59Air Force received 20 MiG-295 (9.12A) and 4 MiG-29UBs, LSK/LV pilots had taken their conversion training in the Soviet Union in 1987, East German Fulcrum-As also wore East European tactical camou- flage and red serials. Conversely, the trainers had standard two-tone grey camouflage and, like all other LSK/LV aircraft, black serials. ‘When Germany reunited on Octo- ber 3, 1990, the LSK/LV and the West German Air Force merged into a single Luftwaffe. There was much debate as to ‘The Ookrains'ki Sokoly show off their patriotic color scheme during a practice session. (via Viktor Markovskiy) With the exception of a single MiG-29UB trainer, all Moldovan MiG-29s acquired by the USAF wore a crudely applied non-standard green camouflage. Not all had the gaudy Moldovan insignia, as ilustrated by these Fulerum-Cs. Note the access hatch- @5 f0 the avionics bays. (AFM) 60 WARBIRDTECH whether Soviet aircraft should be retained. Since the MiG-29 was the most modern of these, the German government decided to evaluate the type. To this end, two single-seaters and two trainers were transferred in late October to WID 61 at Manching AB near Ingolstadt. The others remained at Preschen with IG 3. ‘The trials program comprised nearly 200 items. Performance, operational flexibility, and reliabili- ty of the weapons system as a whole and its various components were investigated. Operating and mainte- nance/overhaul costs were calculat- ed. Equally important was how the MiG-29 would fare against NATO fighters in air-to-air combat. The lat- ter came as a considerable shock as USAF F-15 and F-16 pilots often found themselves “shot down” in mock combat before they even got the Fulcrum on their radar screen! Meanwhile, the German govern- ment addressed the Soviet Union, seeking aid in modifying the MiG-29s to make them compatible with NATO standards. The Soviet government authorized the Mikoyan OKB to do the job. The Luftwaffe proposed that Mikoyan check and authorise all the changes, and so they did, The fighters were fitted with new identification friend-or-foe (IFF), communications and tactical navigation (TACAN) equipment, flight instruments marked in feet and knots, an “English-speak- ing” version of the “Ekran” (Screen) ground test system, anti-collision strobe lights, etc. Even the colors of the artificial horizon changed to suit NATO requirements. The instruments were altered in Moscow and delivered to Germany for installation; the rest of the changes were made on-site. Post-modification trials were held in April and May 1991 in Italy at the Air Combat Maneuvering Instal- lation (ACMI) at Decimomannu: AB, Sardinia. ‘The Fulerums won in all