Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
Not to mention various other Russian sources that I've mentioned that apparently means absolutely nothing compared to GarryB.net.
You on the other hand has not produce a single shred of evidence to support your claim - nadda!
Perhaps you could use your brain.
MiG design and make aircraft, and they have names for their various prototypes, but the official designations for aircraft are given by the VVS or RuAF.
The original single seat MiG-29K with the single seat canopy would logically be called MiG-33 only if the MiG-29K based on that design was not accepted for service... when the MiG-29K was not accepted for service then the MiG-29M was the aircraft they wanted the Russian Air Force to adopt and so they promoted it as the MiG-33 too.
They were still hopeful of selling MiGs to the Navy and when India ordered some upgraded MiG-29Ks they got their chance... the MiG-29K was not going to be sold to the Air Force, which already operates MiG-29s, it was sold to the Russian Navy which does not operate MiG-29s so the MiG-29K and MiG-29KUB designation for the new upgraded 1/2 seat designs was fine, but for the Russian Air Force they wanted a new light fighter and it was different enough from the MiG-29 to warrant more than just an M, so they called it the next available number which was MiG-35, where the MiG-29K/UB could be the MiG-33 if they wished to make it so... they didn't.
This means that the MiG-29K and MiG-29KUB are current in service 1/2 seat variants of the new MiG-29M which is also a 1/2 seat capable aircraft and the MiG-35 1/2 seat fighter... MiG-33 is not going to be used for any of these aircraft, which means my use of MiG-33 to define the previous prototype versions of the MiG-29M and MiG-29K with single seat canopies and designs is just fine.... if you have a problem with that make a complaint to the forum Admin.
Btw - Concord publication is a Western source which you should frown upon - as you've objected to me siting any Western sources.
In this case the Concord publication was just relating what the MiG design bureau was telling them at the time trying desperately to promote their aircraft to international customers in the 1990s when it was clear there was no money for local orders.
There were also other designs and suggestions for MiG-33s and MiG-35s that included enlarged designs to make them closer in capability to the Su-27 and also with canard foreplanes and other changes... none of which were official because none made it to prototype form let alone service.
Your entire argument* is based on something you may have seen in a Concord publication but you fail to produce any evidence of that claim at all!?
I would still like to see that "evidence" though.
This is not an argument. I am just stating what I know from the time period we are talking about.
You even used Migavia as the be all and know all of all the Mig-29 production variants. Well if you look closely you will see that they have missed a couple of major production variants - including the Mig-29S and the Mig-29SMT!
It is talking about export products... MiG-29B and MiG-29UB and MiG-29SE... MiG-29S are not for export sale and now they are pushing the new models so why bother with the SMT that no one seems to be interested in any more?
The SMT is included in the photos at the top of the main page as it cycles through their aircraft range.
Her is some more "facts" from the Migavia website >>
The MiG-25RB is an important aircraft, why would they not include it on their website?
HATO codename was Foxbat B.
PS: Important historical facts should not swept under the carpet (The Talking Bollox thread) just because it doesn't sit well with GarryB.net.
We were discussing the use of the Mig-33 designation... what relevance does the recon bomber variant of the MiG-25 have with that?
*Meaning of argument in this context:
1.: a statement or series of statements for or against something
2.: a discussion in which people express different opinions about something
a coherent series of reasons, statements, or facts intended to support or establish a point of view
You have not introduced any facts or statements or reasons to make me change my views in this instance so it is not an argument, it is a discussion... I am stating my reasoning and view... not really sure what you are doing except being annoying.
discussion noun
Save Word
To save this word, you'll need to log in.
Log In
dis·cus·sion | \ di-ˈskə-shən
\
Definition of discussion
1 : consideration of a question in open and usually informal debate a heated political discussion
2 : a formal treatment of a topic in speech or writing A discussion on the topic is included in the first chapter.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discussion
China is ahead in some fields and behind in others. They are ahead in naval surface ship construction for example. They used to be behind in ballistic missiles but with the DF-31A and DF-41 missiles they aren't behind anymore and their technology is probably roughly equivalent. China is behind in nuclear submarines, transport aircraft, aircraft jet engines in general. China is roughly equivalent in terms of rocket engines. China is ahead in electronics like fire control systems in tanks, or avionics in aircraft including radars. China is behind in tank technology like APS, ERA, tank engines, etc.
The core of the problem is that we don't know specificially where the technology comes from.... if they are just buying it and replicating it then they haven't really mastered it yet.
There is no question they have good production capacities... they have been the workshop for much of the western world for a few decades now so their capacity to produce things is not in question, and they certainly have areas where they have talent, but I really don't think it is that easy to say which areas they are obviously ahead except for a few.
They certainly make excellent roads and their high speed trains seem to be very good as well and they have good experience with both... but how does that translate to whether they are better than any other country or not is another question.
I am very please with this partnership with Russia and I think both sides will benefit massively from this arrangement, and I don't think China just brings money and Russia brings everything else.... this is a proper partnership. I didn't think India and Russia was Russia providing the brains and India providing the money either... no country has exclusive ownership of talent.
The Chinese have had AESA technology on naval ships for a long time already. All their latest 052, 055 destroyers have AESA radars as do the aircraft carriers. They have had AESA radars on aircraft for at least a decade and they are exporting this technology to Pakistan right now.
They have had aircraft engines for a while too, but how do they stack up compared with those made in other places.
Try looking at their souped up Type 96B performance in the Tank Biathlon for example. I think only a biased person would think the T-72B3Ms in there have better FCS or gun stabilization.
Comparing the best they have with a numbers tank upgrade is hardly a useful comparison... I didn't follow it closely... did they win everything with their amazing tank?
They have the J-20 which came out into service before the Su-57.
Kinda looks like they bought the MiG MFI prototype to me... and the contents are rather unknown...
They cannot do something like a Tu-160 because they do not have the jet engines to do one.
The thing is that the Tu-160 has been in service for quite a number of decades and the new models are likely so vastly upgraded from the previous models they should probably have different designations.
Would say the same about the Su-34, and lets just say the Su-35s they sold to China wont be the same as the ones the Russian AF uses either...
>>
.
.