ADA Tejas (LCA) News and Discussions

[cobra commando]

20 times the speed of sound His Azzz!

 

[bhramos]

what is the difference between those two LGB's, one have circle and other has fins in mouth of the bombs!!!!!!!!!

 

[Bhadra]

I don't know about that. But he makes up stories for Force.



It is as though RAW hired him for spreading disinformation.

Anyway, I don't wanna defame him. But his articles need to be taken with a sea full of salt.

Why should RAW hire him to defame DODOs? Raw is still raw !!
And all article need to be studied skeptically !

 

[p2prada]

what is the difference between those two LGB's, one have circle and other has fins in mouth of the bombs!!!!!!!!!

The one on the left is a Paveway II, the other is a Griffin.

Why should RAW hire him to defame DODOs? Raw is still raw !!
And all article need to be studied skeptically !

For spreading wrong information about our capability.

 

[Shaitan]

Tejas MK-2 to get AESA radar


Aesa Radar development for Tejas MK-2 is in full swing but testing and certification might take some few more years and radar will be ready for the first batch of Tejas MK-2 , and will come in later batches of the aircraft as per DRDO sources .

Tejas MK-1 carries Pulse-Doppler Multi-Mode Radar which is integrate to Hybrid version of the EL/M-2032 radar with locally developed radar systems , this radar will be in first 40 aircraft's ordered by Indian air force in Tejas MK-1 batch and even in first few aircraft of Tejas MK-2 will carry same radar before both Tejas MK-1 and MK-2 radars are replaced by new AESA radar .

New AESA will be have many of similar components of current radar and come in similar dimension to current MMR radar , But defence experts Rakesh sharma is skeptical on DRDO's claims , " DRDO still has not declared who will be its technical partner in AESA radar development yet , under whom they were supposed to develop first 10 prototype radars under a technical partner " and adds "Aesa might come in later batches rather then in first few aircraft's"

Sources close to idrw.org have informed that first Tejas MK-2 will be ready by end of 2014 and will be ready for first flight in 2014 , new higher thrust engines from GE for Tejas MK-2 will start arriving in late 2013 and integration will happen by 2014 .Tejas MK-2 will carry new Avionics and new cockpit layout and development has already started and work on first air frame for Tejas MK-2 will start in 2013 .

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Aesa Radar development for Tejas MK-2 is in full swing but testing and certification might take some few more years and radar will be ready for the first batch of Tejas MK-2 , and will come in later batches of the aircraft as per DRDO sources .

This is a good move, At least we are not updating Aircraft's in prototype models but in Production models now just like any other Country..

New AESA will be have many of similar components of current radar and come in similar dimension to current MMR radar

The Radar may be related to this, DRDO may have technical data of this radar long back, But focused on LCA present radar..

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Some Old Articles On LCA AESA..

Monday, February 01, 2010
Livefist: EXCLUSIVE: AESA Programme For Tejas Scans For Development Partner

India's homegrown AESA radar programme appears to be gathering pace. The Bangalore-based Electronics & Radar Development Establishment (LRDE), a laboratory under the DRDO, has invited bids from global radar houses to be the development partner (DP) for India's in-house active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar for the LCA Tejas programme. In a tender issued on December 4 last year, LRDE wants the partnership to be initiated with the supply of an Active Array Antenna Unit (AAAU) supplied by the development partner chosen.

According to the bid invitation, India wants the development partner to be responsible for "detailed design, development and realization" of (a) antenna panel consisting of main antenna, guard antenna and side-lobe cancellation antenna, (b) transmit/receive modules/groups, (c) RF distribution network consisting of RF manifold/combiners, RF interface, (d) antenna/beam control chain consisting of T/R control and T/R group control, and (e) array calibration/BITE among other areas. The final requirement in the comprehensive list of ten requirements from the development partner is listed as "AAAU Integration on Tejas A/c", confirming that the radar is indeed for a future tranche of the Tejas, or possibly, the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA).

"DP (development partner) must have experience in design, development, integration, testing and flightevaluation of AESA Radar systems for fighter class of aircraft. DP must ensure that the items/components used for the development of AAAU are not protected by International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR). DP must have delivered AESA class of operational systems for fighter class of aircraft meeting delivery schedules of the international customers," the bid invitation states.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Thursday, June 24, 2010
Livefist: EXCLUSIVE: India's LCA AESA Radar Programme Detailed

The images above, seen here for the first time, are from official material on the Indian AESA radar project for the LCA Tejas, shared with LiveFist. Indian state-owned radar developer Electronics R&D Establishment (LRDE) is in the process of identifying a development partner (DP) for an indigenous AESA radar for future tranches of the Tejas and the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) and is likely to make a final decision shortly. The radar has begun development in the country. According to official updated material made available to LiveFist, the fully solid-state X-band radar is being developed with the following modes:

Air-to-Air: Multi-target detection and tracking / Multi target ACM (Air-to-Air combat mode) / High resolution raid assessment

Air-to-Ground: High Resolution mapping (SAR mode) / AGR – Air to Ground Ranging / RBM – Real Beam Mapping / DBS – Doppler Beam Sharpening / Ground Moving Target Indication (GMTI) / Ground Moving Target Tracking (GMTT) / Terrain Avoidance (TA)

Air-to-Sea: Sea search and multi target tracking / Range Signature (RS) / Inverse Synthetic Aperture Radar (ISAR)

As I've reported here before, the development partner that LRDE identifies will be responsible for "detailed design, development and realisation" of (a) antenna panel constisting of main antenna, guard antenna and sidelobe cancellation antenna, (b) transmit/receive modules/groups, (c) RF distribution network consisting of RF manifold/combiners, RF interface, (d) antenna/beam control chain consisting of T/R control and T/R group control, and (e) array calibration/BITE among other areas.

 

[praneetbajpaie]

20 times the speed of sound His Azzz!

Thank God they didn't say 20 times the speed of light. Lol

BTW, can anyone do a detailed comparison of the LCA, & JF 17 or is it already on this forum and I may have missed it?

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Thank God they didn't say 20 times the speed of light. Lol

BTW, can anyone do a detailed comparison of the LCA, & JF 17 or is it already on this forum and I may have missed it?

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/military-aviation/10726-lca-vs-jf17.html

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Tejas MK-2 to get AESA radar

Tejas MK-2 to get AESA radar | idrw.org


Aesa Radar development for Tejas MK-2 is in full swing but testing and certification might take some few more years and radar will be ready for the first batch of Tejas MK-2 , and will come in later batches of the aircraft as per DRDO sources .

Tejas MK-1 carries Pulse-Doppler Multi-Mode Radar which is integrate to Hybrid version of the EL/M-2032 radar with locally developed radar systems , this radar will be in first 40 aircraft's ordered by Indian air force in Tejas MK-1 batch and even in first few aircraft of Tejas MK-2 will carry same radar before both Tejas MK-1 and MK-2 radars are replaced by new AESA radar .

New AESA will be have many of similar components of current radar and come in similar dimension to current MMR radar , But defence experts Rakesh sharma is skeptical on DRDO's claims , " DRDO still has not declared who will be its technical partner in AESA radar development yet , under whom they were supposed to develop first 10 prototype radars under a technical partner " and adds "Aesa might come in later batches rather then in first few aircraft's"

Sources close to idrw.org have informed that first Tejas MK-2 will be ready by end of 2014 and will be ready for first flight in 2014 , new higher thrust engines from GE for Tejas MK-2 will start arriving in late 2013 and integration will happen by 2014 .Tejas MK-2 will carry new Avionics and new cockpit layout and development has already started and work on first air frame for Tejas MK-2 will start in 2013 .

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Re: Tejas MK-2 to get AESA radar

Some Old Articles On LCA AESA..

Monday, February 01, 2010
Livefist: EXCLUSIVE: AESA Programme For Tejas Scans For Development Partner

India's homegrown AESA radar programme appears to be gathering pace. The Bangalore-based Electronics & Radar Development Establishment (LRDE), a laboratory under the DRDO, has invited bids from global radar houses to be the development partner (DP) for India's in-house active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar for the LCA Tejas programme. In a tender issued on December 4 last year, LRDE wants the partnership to be initiated with the supply of an Active Array Antenna Unit (AAAU) supplied by the development partner chosen.

According to the bid invitation, India wants the development partner to be responsible for "detailed design, development and realization" of (a) antenna panel consisting of main antenna, guard antenna and side-lobe cancellation antenna, (b) transmit/receive modules/groups, (c) RF distribution network consisting of RF manifold/combiners, RF interface, (d) antenna/beam control chain consisting of T/R control and T/R group control, and (e) array calibration/BITE among other areas. The final requirement in the comprehensive list of ten requirements from the development partner is listed as "AAAU Integration on Tejas A/c", confirming that the radar is indeed for a future tranche of the Tejas, or possibly, the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA).

"DP (development partner) must have experience in design, development, integration, testing and flightevaluation of AESA Radar systems for fighter class of aircraft. DP must ensure that the items/components used for the development of AAAU are not protected by International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR). DP must have delivered AESA class of operational systems for fighter class of aircraft meeting delivery schedules of the international customers," the bid invitation states.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Thursday, June 24, 2010
Livefist: EXCLUSIVE: India's LCA AESA Radar Programme Detailed

The images above, seen here for the first time, are from official material on the Indian AESA radar project for the LCA Tejas, shared with LiveFist. Indian state-owned radar developer Electronics R&D Establishment (LRDE) is in the process of identifying a development partner (DP) for an indigenous AESA radar for future tranches of the Tejas and the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) and is likely to make a final decision shortly. The radar has begun development in the country. According to official updated material made available to LiveFist, the fully solid-state X-band radar is being developed with the following modes:

Air-to-Air: Multi-target detection and tracking / Multi target ACM (Air-to-Air combat mode) / High resolution raid assessment

Air-to-Ground: High Resolution mapping (SAR mode) / AGR – Air to Ground Ranging / RBM – Real Beam Mapping / DBS – Doppler Beam Sharpening / Ground Moving Target Indication (GMTI) / Ground Moving Target Tracking (GMTT) / Terrain Avoidance (TA)

Air-to-Sea: Sea search and multi target tracking / Range Signature (RS) / Inverse Synthetic Aperture Radar (ISAR)

As I've reported here before, the development partner that LRDE identifies will be responsible for "detailed design, development and realisation" of (a) antenna panel constisting of main antenna, guard antenna and sidelobe cancellation antenna, (b) transmit/receive modules/groups, (c) RF distribution network consisting of RF manifold/combiners, RF interface, (d) antenna/beam control chain consisting of T/R control and T/R group control, and (e) array calibration/BITE among other areas.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Re: Tejas MK-2 to get AESA radar

SAAB can be involve..

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Re: Tejas MK-2 to get AESA radar

Or

Thales..

 

[venkat]

Re: Tejas MK-2 to get AESA radar

P2P where are you boss? no comments yet!!!

 

[Rahul Singh]

I am late very late and i am afraid i can no longer make it any better, please with bear with me.

Mk1 was deemed to be underpowered because it cannot carry enough payload at the right altitudes. The trainer version does not need similar performance.

As far as i know, now a days twin seat versions are be supposed to be comparable to single seat fighters with no compromise in combat performance except a bit reduced fuel load. And this is fact in case of K and KUBs and this applies to LCA as well.

I understand, somewhere down the line real issue is the question "what to do with already acquired F-404s?". In my opinion, solution is inclusion of an advanced Combat Air Training stage or which some call LIFT with LCA MK-1T --purpose built dual seat version-- as aircraft up and above AJT stage. If included, this stage shall let cadet pilots have far elaborate thus better training before moving on to operational trainers much like in some advanced air forces, which however uses advanced versions of existing AJTs. Not only that, quit some of these (customized ) twin seat Mk-1Ts can go to TACDE, where they will not only relieve operational jets (regularly sourced from active squadrons from time to time) but will also provide instructors a more advanced jet than old Mig-21,23s for mimicking RED in addition to various other uses.

In order to get this working, AF shall first forget LCA MK-1Fs and order only LCA MK-1Ts, use them for training as well as for combat roles till Mk-2s start arriving, once MK-2s are is adequate numbers, retire Mk-1s in bulk, divide complete batch (of 40 jets) in two groups, get them purpose modified/tweaked/customized for CAT/LIFT duties and TACDE's requirements separately.

I believe safety and training is not compromised by using the Mk1 as trainer.

That has to be seen if what you say goes on, as such. I for one believe that Mk-2 is going to be far superior than MK-1 simply because it is supposed to be. And that difference in performance will make MK-1 dual seat version eventually useless for training Mk-2 pilots.

If by chance I come across a source saying the KUB has no radar, then I will post it. It is like looking for a needle in a haystack.

Needle from haystack! Not really. Despite, i still feel effort went into re-searching was entirely unnecessary since RVE-AAE info from Mig page was more than enough.

Just to add; I have read somewhere that even sharp nosed UB (undergoing up-gradation) is getting KYPO (as part of UPG program), only and only because space permits only that size, not Zhuk-M.

I have never seen the K or KUB, even head to head pictures, so personally I do not know if the noses are the same. If BR says it is so, then I don't have to disagree. Perhaps this version has the same nose. However, that does not mean things are the same inside.

In head to head comparison you won't be able to pick which one is K and which is KUB. They are so identical by appearance that you will always have to look at back seat/area behind front cockpit in order to distinguish K from KUB and vice versa -- if there is ejection seat then it's KUB, if there is just black cover (in place) then it's K, amusingly even canopy is exactly same.

KUB and UB head to head . Nothing looks different except nose, wonder why? But then, i have already posed source as answer and proof.

My bad. I wasn't clear. I was talking about the LCA trainers because you mention the same just before in the same post. I have seen videos of KUBs being used on Kuznetsov. Sometimes the meaning is lost in words rather than speech. Most of the times I do not proof read what I type.

Ok.

Mig-21 is a much more complex piece of hardware. Lack of fly by wire does not help. Suffice to say, the same will not be repeated on the LCA or IAF won't have learnt anything from past mistakes. You and I know IAF is a professional organization.

You know there can be thousand excuses, but one, that stand different is the fact that IAF handled training of to-be-Mig-21-pilots very improperly ('unprofessionally' would be harsh).

Please check dimensions on the F-16. Significant changes made since Block 30 to block 52+ including engines, but all pilots say the handling is all pretty much the same. You can say the difference is as significant as the LCA Mk1 and Mk2 difference, if not more. I think an extra meter was added on 52+, along with enlarged wing. You don't see them saying the difference is significant. They still believe the performance parameters are not very different.

You need to see the XL, again they say the difference was not as vast as you claim even though the entire wing was changed.

It has to be seen, how much they mean by 'much'. Not just dimension but engine is also changed. However it will be interesting to dig to know if pilots are only training in inferior dual seat version or they have divided training between inferior/ old and comparable/ new one.

Here i wonder if situation is such-such then why cash stripped force like PAF upgraded all (including D version) of its F-16s to Block 52+ when --as claimed-- old F-16Ds could have handled all training requirements? That not all, IAF too upgraded/upgrading all its Mig-29UBs to Mig-29UB-UPG, question is again, why?

I don't know the specifics, but Mig-21 wasn't easy to fly even during those times. Heck, Mig-29 is easier and we have western pilots complain about the Mig-29A being a b!tch to fly. Let's give some credit to our pilots.
Now the difference between a Mig-29A and Mig-29K would be significant because fly by wire is added on K.

Mig-21 was easier because it had swift and responsive controls than SU-7, harder because it had higher takeoff and landing speed than Mig-23/27. Predecessor in most cases is harder and successor in most is easier. So, Mig-21 was easier to fly in those times, comparatively.

Whole point was, in that time flight cadets had much identical trainer than those in late 90s and early 20s, a time when cadets were training on FL and flying Type-96.

Both aircraft are pretty much oriented in the air superiority role. It was different if LCA was more like JF-17 which fits quite well for strike missions. I don't see how placing a Mig-21 type fighter with a Mig-29 will supplement it. No! As the Admiral said, the only reason LCA is being inducted is because "it is our own fighter."

MK-2 is going to be Mirage-2000H class fighter unlike Mk-1 which can be called 4th gen cousin of Mig-21 Bis (something which I agree only to keep things aside for while). And since Navy will only be taking Mk-2, it is absurd to keep calling it Mig-21 type or a comparable fighter.

Regarding supplementing Mig-29K/KUBs" abroad carrier"¦... LCA MK-2 is expected to be in class close to or of Mirage 2000H and will carry more fuel and increased load of armament than Mk-1. LCA as we all know is small and features large percentage of composites, quite acceptable to say it will feature quite smaller RCS than Mig-29K/KUBs. In addition, being a single engine design it will have smaller IR signature. Put these advantages in air defence role and you know which aircraft has advantage over which with regard to fulfilling certain requirement, in this case air defence. Agree or disagree LCA MK-2 will have all the potential to take away entire air defence duties from Mig-29Ks/KUBs and when supported by KUBs for Mid Air Refueling requirement the LCA MK-2s will even do away with the present disadvantage of 'reach'. So yes, LCA MK-2s can supplement Carrier's air wing by freeing up Mig-29K/KUBs from Air Defense duties (primary role of IN carriers), which then can concentrate entirely on missions like espionage and long range anti-shipping.

Do note that I am not saying Mig-29Ks can't under take air defence missions, it sure can, but in comparison with MK-2s, less effectively, because of larger signature.

Admiral saying 'only reason we are buying it because it's our own' has much broader meaning than you are intending to conclude into. An indigenous deign has much advantage over imported one in terms of availability, maintainability and flexibility. And admiral could very well be referring to it in addition.

It is not significantly different from Gripen. N-LCA is bound to have lesser payload and perhaps lesser fuel capacity than the air force version. It is a given. At best, LCA carries 2.5 tons of fuel, say 3tons with Mk2. A 100KN engine will burn that quickly once it takes off. So, for the fuel load, and on station time of 30 minutes, it can at best move to a distance of 150Km and stay there. Placing drop tanks would mean carrying only 2+2 AAMs with greater loiter time and reduced payload.

Comparatively, Mig-29K carries 4.6 tons of fuel, has 3 wet stations and 13 hardpoints(or 9 depending on config) which allows greater flexibility in carrying air to air weapons. Unlike the LCA, the Mig-29 is a high drag aircraft, so it can carry more weapons (say 6+2 AAMs) even with 1 drop tank without significant drop in performance as compared to LCA with drop tanks and 4 AAMs.

Well, definitely Naval Mk-2 will carry less fuel than IAF version when taking-off from carrier. But still, i don't think it will have mere 150 KM range with 30 min on station time. I will go no further because there is no way telling what exact performance it will exhibit by time it enters service. That said, Mig-29K is a heavier twin engine jet with fuel guzzling Klimov/Russian engine which exhibits poorer SFC when compared to LCA MK-2's GE F-414 engine (which is famed for better SFC). Taking into consideration this very important point, i wonder if difference between Mig-29K and LCA MK-2's range will be as large as 350Km.

You stated more LCAs are better by replacing the Mig-29s. I said the ship won't have the space to carry the extra crew apart from the fact that the LCA itself is a less capable aircraft. Space is a major problem on carriers. Honestly, the LCA is a glorified Mig-21, like the Mirage-2000. It is merely 4th gen as compared to the Mig-21s older technology base.

Dedicated training instructors has nothing to do with the above. From what I know, the 6 Mk2s that the Navy has ordered, the navy is leaning towards more twin seats.

I said, there will be no need for any extra back seat pilot/dedicated training instructor abroad carrier as senior officers will handles/double up as instructors on twin seaters. Adding to clarify further, during combat, twin seat jet can easily perform all tasks of single seat version with just one pilot. Now, you had said this

The N-LCAs will be two seaters, so that's another disadvantage unless you want the pilots to bunk on top of each others. Let's not forget they are officers, so they will have quarters that befits an officer. Currently the Mig-29K is our best carrier capable aircraft.

I absolutely had no idea of you putting your logic on assumption Navy asking/leaning (or whatever may be proper word) for/towards twin seat LCA than single seat. I for one have not seen any news regarding that and far far far from getting to any logic behind.
Regarding original assertion behind putting more LCA MK-2s (single seaters ), well I stand by it. Mig-29Ks are no generation apart from likely adversary (PAF at most of the time) it might face in near future. Not only that, since its primary adversary is going to be a land based force, the requirement of more numbers abroad ship becomes all that important. Mig-29Ks don't stand much chance in highly outnumbered air combat scenario say 1 to 3. With LCA on board and more numbers on board (I presume 3 LCA will come for 2 Migs) ADS class IN carriers will have more jets to throw at"¦"¦"¦ Not to forget thye important fact that primary role of IN Carriers is fleet air defence.

Neither the Navy nor ADA are sure whether they should pick a single seat NP-2 as the fighter version or the twin seat NP-1 as the fighter version. I think the Navy is currently in favour of a twin seat LCA as it's fighter while going for a less capable twin seat Mk1 as the trainer. A little birdie told me so, about the twin seat thing. A larger number of twin seat Mk2s is guaranteed for IN. AFAIR, even a French Admiral was cribbing about not having ordered more twin seat Rafale-Ns while already leaning more towards twin seats.

I don't get here . Why will Navy buy twin seat version belonging to MK-1 for training and twin seat version belonging Mk-2 for combat when later version (MK-2) can easily and comparatively more effectively handle combat conversion training? And what could be the logic behind opting for more or only twin seat MK-2s when rear seat will be occupied only during training or during joy ride by CO or visiting officer of equivalent or better grade? N-LCA MK-2 is not a long range/6-8 hr mission fighter like MKI where rear seat pilot/WSO is required to reduce load. And as a matter of fact none of the IN fighter jets are supposed to be like MKI unless of course Navy changes its doctrine.

 

[Rahul Singh]

Re: Tejas MK-2 to get AESA radar

DRDO/LRDE is working on X band modules for quite sometime, so not surprised to see this news. May be they will need help in few modes (only to save time) and buy few LRUs but rest of it should be ours.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Lack of Improvised Ideas regarding LCA program..

I have a question :

We produced a good flyable airframe long back, Due to the sanctions we were unable to procure Engine and radar back in days coz huge delay in LCA program, In this situation MIG-21 were crashing down and IAF were losing precious human Pilots which are difficult to replace, Even today same trend is going on..

Why didn't IAF & DRDO take help from Russians ? There was a good engine for LCA was available RD-33 for example, And Radar too...
If implemented LCA would have in service long time back and have the best safety record than any IAF fighter, This move could have saved may pilots lives..

Further LCA could have been upgraded similar way other fighter do like Russian MIG-29/21 & EF-2000 & Rafale..



Thanks in Advance..

 

[Rahul Singh]

Re: Lack of Improvised Ideas regarding LCA program..

It is not known if Russia/USSR was ready to cooperate at that time. Also there were serious reservations about Russian work culture which was riddled by red taping as ours. Worthy of mention is switch (joystick) story where designers favored going to an automobile switch manufacturer based in Bangalore instead of going to Russians citing their longer response time.............. Also the fact that LCA was envisaged as technologically modern fighter --multiple notch above Mig-21-- people in charge favored western concepts of aircraft design and manufacturing.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Re: Lack of Improvised Ideas regarding LCA program..

Also there were serious reservations about Russian work culture which was riddled by red taping as ours, LCA was envisaged as technologically modern fighter --multiple notch above Mig-21-- people in charge favored western concepts of aircraft design and manufacturing.

Regarding Russian imports ? & Indeed LCA was very modern deign but putting Russian Radar and Engine wont make it inferior ?

This move could have done a duel job of Inducting LCA within Air-force and Saving Pilots lives at same time..

------------------------------------------------------

The same aircraft can be updated later..

 

[pankaj nema]

Re: Lack of Improvised Ideas regarding LCA program..

Kunal Sir

Forget about RD 33 series 3 engine which powers our Mig 29 even
AL 31 was rejected by IAF/ DRDO /ADA

Maybe because from the very beginning ie 1985 onwards
the whole thrust of the LCA program was towards a light single engined fighter
like the F 16 and Mirage 2000

These were the TWO role models before ADA / IAF

And since we were taking a LEAP of TWO generations ie from second to the fourth
generation we also needed a lot of help in Fly by wire Control Laws ; Composites Materials

It was assumed that Western technologies were ahead of Russia
Because BOTH F 16 and Mirage 2000 were successful SINGLE engined planes

The ONLY Russian plane that gave these two a fight was the two engined
Mig 29