Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "Why the Soviet answer to the F-16 failed - MiG 29 story" video.

  1. ​ @mikemontgomery2654  bruh the F-16A was based on the lightweight fighter program, it was an air to air fighter for point defense. Guns and heaters. The ground attack mission was secondary.
    13
  2. ​@@thypeasantslayer3621 From an aeronautical standpoint the design is wonderful. The issue is that it is let down by everything else. During the 2000s several MiGs pancaked themselves as engine failures started to increase. The "roughness" of the design everyone praises leads to short service lives in engine parts.
    4
  3. ​ @guaporeturns9472  MiGs gave Phantoms a hard time because they caught Phantoms escorting bombing runs in ambushes. When US Phantoms started flying in bomber formation to surprise the MiGs with fighters, the Phantoms won.
    3
  4. ​ @shawnmiller4781  The MiG-21 turning performance isn't that hot. It's a rocket with stubby wings. It beats the Phantom clearly at high altitude, but start turning in thick air and you lose airspeed quick. Turning hard in a MiG-21 makes it an airbrake.
    3
  5. ​@@mitchellcouchman6589 3 to 1 for North Vietnam ahahah now that's delusional
    3
  6.  @guaporeturns9472  Well the Phantom is the world's biggest distributor of MiG parts... I'd say they won.
    3
  7.  @mikemontgomery2654  The F-16 was designed for air to air. It was meant to be a cheaper alternative to the F-15 because the US couldn't afford a full F-15 fleet. Please stop trying to change history - you can literally go back and read how the lightweight fighter program was meant for a FIGHTER not attack aircraft, and the ground attack role came later.
    3
  8. And the MiG-35 is a massive failure. How many produced?
    2
  9. 1. It wasn't that cheap. 2. Focusing on handling this late in the Cold War is nonsense. 3. I disagree because the F-16 has a computer with flight director, the MiG-29 requires constant re-trimming because speeding up and slowing down causes lift characteristics to change.
    2
  10.  @JamesOMalley-hb4tf  It's not cheap. There's a reason the Su-27 dominated. The MiG-29 wasn't cheap enough to justify the purchase.
    2
  11.  @JamesOMalley-hb4tf  New MiGs? But MiG was absorbed into Sukhoi to make the UAC. MiG went down precisely due to the MiG-29 failing and the MiG-35 not gathering enough interest. The MiG-29 was bought in very small numbers, with the Indians being the biggest export customers. And even they had to get French/Israeli tech into them to improve upon the base model.
    2
  12. The real deterrence was nuclear. Non-nuclear nations with MiG-29s were invaded.
    1
  13.  @JamesOMalley-hb4tf  But 4,600 F-16s were built compared to 1,600 MiG-29s. It's not cheap. It's not even successful. The F-16 outsold it by over 3x.
    1
  14. ​ @guaporeturns9472  Prevention of attacks comes down to the nuclear arsenal and air defenses, not MiGs.
    1
  15. There's what, 8 MiG-35s in flying condition?
    1