"This means the MiG-29 driver is going to be sitting there, steadfastly trying to keep his radar lock on the F-16, while keeping a wary eye out for the two AMRAAMs the F-16 has launched at him" There's two things you seem to be forgetting; The R-27R happens to outrange the AIM-120A by about 20-30km (it is about even with the AIM-120C), and the MiG-29 would also be free to evade if he used the R-27T. In that case, I wonder if the Falcon pilot would know what killed him, as the Fulcrum can engage totally passively. And I think the Fulcrum would have no problems in executing a Cobra or a Kolokol when loaded with only four R-73s (the R-27s eagerly seeking a Falcon). I know speed is life, but you're gonna be prepared to sacrifice some to dodge those AMRAAMs...and BTW the Fulcrum can afford to sacrifice speed more than the F-16 can due to its higher speed and significantly better acceleration. I didn't say the Falcon wouldn't be a tough opponent for a MiG-29A/C but the point I was trying to make is that it is very greatly underrated (the Fulcrum). People ALWAYS seem to forget that on every occasion the MiG-29 has engaged in combat it was at a great disadvantage, both because of numerical and crew inferiority, and overwhelming enemy AWACS/ECM activity. The MiG-29 isn't the equal of the Su-27 in the air-supremacy role. The Flanker carries a better IRST, has a much better endurance and carries the extended range R-27s. The radar, despite reliability problems (which also plague the earlier N-019s) is much longer ranged and has better mass raid discrimination. And the Flanker has superior performance, especially in climb.

Free, Exactly how did the Apache fail in Afghanistan? Where exactly do u get your information that the Mi-28 performed better in Afghanistan? Or in fact, even was in Afghanistan especially considering its first flight was in 1982? I can tell you, the Apache and its crews are performing quite well in Afghanistan. Think you might want to look at the power specs and missions weights of the Mi-28 vs the Apache and you will quickly realize how much more capable the Apache will be in the high DA/high temp enviroments you find in Afghanistan.

The Apache is far superior to the Havoc or any other combat helicopter out there. Especially if we're talking the LongBow version. I'm also guessing we're talking air combat here, Apache vs. Havoc in the air, not who is the better attack helicopter (BTW it's the LongBow Apache hands down). So if the LongBow Apache met the Havoc in the air, the Havoc would go down. The Longbow FCR would pick off the Havoc, and have a stinger locked on his ass before the poor Ruskie knew what was up.

Personally...I'd prefer to be in a Ka-50/52 than either a Longbow or Havoc.

That is one fugly bird.

the apache is a delicate bird. sand and other stuff getting into the engine bay can ground th chopper. besides the mi-28 is heavily armoured and more manuvourable than the ah-64. so i guess i'll go for the havoc

How many apache's are grounded in Iraq, not many. And I hand the impression that Iraq had some (fine grained) sand laying around... PS, the Dutch AH64 D now in afghanistan a working perfectly. The Mi28 has much less power/lift reserves, so hot/high your not going to like being in one. BTW, what about maintenance? The apache has a lot of Built in testing and easy to repair/replace moduals etcetc...it's build for easy maintenance....can the same be said for the MI 28??...even the N version. I don't know, I haven't read the manual but russian past records are not impressive in this field.

It depends what you want to use the 'choppers for. As a tank killer, the Longbow is superior to any Havoc model. It has a better radar and better missiles (AGM-114Ks are quite a bit better than Shturms/Konkurs). As a "gunship", however, the Havoc's payload allows for a greater combat persistance and the gun is more powerful. I believe the Mi-24V/P is a better platform for attacking "soft" targets than either. The cabin in the rear would also be quite useful for recovering downed wingmen. One thing I never understood about the Havoc is why its exhaust deflectors point straight down (i.e. directly at a shoulder-fired SAM) As a trade-off between tank-killing and soft targets (and vs. helos) I still go for the Ka-50/52 series. The flight performance and armour is excellent, as is the payload. The ATGMs are very capable (I think you Americans refer to them as AT-12 "Swingers" and now the new AT-16s) and 12 of these are combined with a pair of B-8 rocket pods. The single seat may be a limitation, but the Ka-52 is optimised for leading formations of Ka-50s (i.e. the Ka-52 is a scout with attitude). The twin rotors also allow the Hokum to perform some amazing manoevers, which could prove quite useful in air-to-air engagements.

ka-52 isn't a scout version of the ka-50, it has all of its capabilities, and has the additional advantage of 2 pilots.This allows the helicopter to operate more efficiently since the workload is shared by the 2 pilots but each is trained to fly the chopper alone and fight alone because the two sets of controls are identical so any one of the two pilots can operate the helicopter alone if the other pilot is knocked out(which is unlikely, since the pit is armored to withstand hits from 30mm shells)

which is unlikely, since the pit is armored to withstand hits from 30mm shells From which angle, which impact velocity, which type of munition? FAS: The fully armored pilot's cabin can withstand 23-mm gunfire, and the pit glass 12.7-mm MG gunfire. Amry technology.com Extensive all-round armour installed in the pit protects the pilot against 12.7mm armour piercing bullets and 23mm projectile fragments. The rotor blades are rated to withstand several hits of ground-based automatic weapons. So yet again, K*ck up info. FAS: KA50 empty weight 7,692 kg link below says 7500 Janes's:KA 52: empty weight 7500 (http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/vvs/ka52-01.htm) So one could concluse that the weight increase of the wider "fully armoured" pit is about 0 kg. That's very cool. Doubling the frontal aspect and remaining at the same weight while not decreasing the protection level. Face it, just another case of bad nfo. unless ofcourse you could prove me wrong