forties wrote in message . com...
Soviet Fulcrum-A's or C's with their 1980-vintage equipment are more a
match
to F-16A's (that's the SMT upgrade is for, but there is no money).

And Fulcrums are superior than F-16* in all modifications by all
factors- be honest.


Wrong comparison. You cannot compare MiG-29-12B (first export) to latest block F-16. Malesian
"cabrolet" MiG-29, OTOH, can be compared in the fighter role. Malesians also have "Hornets", so
ask them what they prefer ;-) .

About the
MiG-31 fuel bills-well, T-6 is not JP-7 (if it is T-6 at all), and
MiG-31's
replaced Tu-128's, the lagest fighters/interceptors ever used in
operational
service!

Mig-31 replaced Mig-25.. Mig-31/Tu-128 replacement - is profanation..
like b-2 replaced b-29 largest US bomber..

MiG-31s replaced Tu-128 "ships" or "barraging fighters" in their units. Size did not matter
there, range and authonomy does (as well as requred Pk).


Maintenance is the problem, not fuel. I haven't herd about the
latest BM conversions.

Maintanance of SR-71 is also a problem.. as well as for any a/c reaches
M3+. Agree?

-E


It is not M3+ for MiG-31, but M2.83. I suppose that maintaining MiG-31 resembles more that of
F-14, and it is hard to make it with the Siberian airstrip at sub-zero temperatures without
enough money!

Nele

NULLA ROSA SINE SPINA