F-16 vs MiG-29 - True story

Hi everybody,

I am from Serbia and Montenegro(former Yugoslavia).I am F-16 fan but also MIG-29 fan as well. IMHO overall F-16 is the finest multi role aircraft ever built.

During NATO campaign over Yugoslavia I had the first hand experience of how destructive NATO air to ground arsenal really is.
Back to the topic.

I want to discuss actual showdown between MIG 29's and Holland f-16 AM's that were flown by the Holland pilots that received advanced training in America.

I actually was there near air force base when our MIG-29's scrambled to intercept enemy aircrafts.

Well, due to poor maintenance, radar on one of the MIG-29's failed and the pilot was forced to practically fly blind.4 MIG-29's were in the air against 4 Holland f-16AM's and 10 USAF F-15C's.3 MIG's were lost and one was damaged.F-16's advanced radar and weapons ( AMRAAM) were simply the huge advantage and they did not stand a chance. But those were earliest versions of MIG-29B that were not capable of carrying active guided air-air missiles.(R-77).One MIG manage to hit something but there was no reliable evidence that MIG made a kill.

Now what do you think if those two aircrafts were in dogfight. Lets say that both pilots are equal in skill what do you think who would be a winner?

I think that in this scenario MIG would take down the Viper.
I live near the air force base and I really enjoy watching MIG-29 doing unbelievable maneuvers.It is extremely maneuverable and has great thrust to weight ratio. Also R-73 is one of the best short range heat seeking missiles out there.Helmet mounted cuing system and R-73 missiles combined with MIG 29's extreme maneuverability and 30 mm cannon would be enough to take down the Viper .

What do you think?
Best regards.

Roll the dice

So you think that they are evenly matched and that pure luck would be deciding factor?

I think chances are even. Both designs reach the same results through different ways. The F-16 tends to be more sophisticated avionics-wise, the MiG 29 is more of a simple yet strong kite with very good aerodynamics and an engine that lives shorter but can take more adverse maneuvers. The Mig has a big advantage with the IRST slaved to an HMCS. F-16 carries a more sophisticated loadout. So again, roll the dice...

The MIG is mechanically not as reliable. Not just in YU but anywhere. Just look at the power plant service life. A F16 turbine lasts twice as long! The electronics is more reliable on the F16.

The US uses the AIM9X which is harder to jam and has a range advantage over its Russian counterparts.

The radar in the better F16s (Especially those in the block 60 with AESA) is superior over that in the MIG.

The AIM120C and AIM120C-5 is more capable than the Amramski Russian copy.

Look at the avionics in the F16! The pilot has better Situational Awareness and can fly the F16 with ease. The avionics is far better on the F16. The MIG is like a F4 with steam gauges everywhere.

Helmet Mounted Cueing System on the F16 is better. The F16 has Link 16 (data link)………. The F16 actually even has a lower RCS.

The F16 does not have a huge advantage, but especially BVR can beat a MIG29 which neither carries armament nor a radar as capable while having a larger RCS. WVR the game is a bit different. Then it’s a toss up. BVR the F16 has a definative advantage while WVR it's about a tie in the sum of all factors.

Red6

dupe post sorry

The F-16 has always had better man machine interface and a slightly easier cockpit workload ( if you can call BFM easy ). I think it would be the pilot and training..... but........ lack of situational awareness kills. A good pilot isn't going to play to the other guys strength.... i.e. in that era the F-16 had the potential to face a enemy that had the HOBS helmet heater combo... they train to face that to a degree but you don't want to put your self in that kind of a position if you don't have to. Therefore you AMRAAM them down. Oh yeah I forgot. Early R-27 Semi-Active Radar Homers suck. So if you are counting on that, you are counting a missile that has a worse hit record than a early Sparrow.... if you could imagine such a thing. This is all of course framing it all in that time. Given the history of poor performance with RuTech BVR.... I don't know. R77 looks promising and the only safe thing to do is treat it with respect until we know otherwise. R-77 = Amraamski?? I don't know. I do know AMRAAM is combat proven and has gone through a lot of work to keep it sustained in ever improving versions based on past experience. AMRAAM has been worked over to breed out anything that isn't reliable. ( one of Sparrows many faults was the hook up to the aircraft re: reliability )

A MiG-29 is no longer something you want to hang your hat on, unless you enjoy maintenance methods a la F-4, and everything else with hackware avionics to try and make some thing modern. Your best bet is the M2 which was cool but I don't know. Make no doubt, the MiG-29 is seriously dangerous. Just that it is a one trick pony. Nice turning and manuver, but now with modern HOBS helmet heaters in their latest gen.. good turning won't keep you from getting murdered in WVR. Take that a way from the MiG-29 and I don't really need it. I don't like any of it's A2G stuff and the maintenance method is so pre-80s that I would pass on that too. Small air forces like Romania, ditching MiG-29 because they could not afford to maintain it, should tell you something also.

It comes down to 2 things. Training and ability. And being visual with SA helps as well

Thanks for the replies.

Head-to-head, I too believe it is a toss up. Even BVR the new MiG-29s look impressive on paper. If you put them side-by-side, I think it is general consensus that the F-16 is the more versatile of the two, and it also seems to be a sounder decision for your backbone fighter force.

If you put a MIG-29M which is the newest version of the MiG 29. It features LCDs and advanced avionics with a good pilot and good maintenance. Then they both have an equal chance. They are both excellent aircraft.

It all depends though, you cant just say that one is better than the other without talking about what kind of loadout each jet has. If they are both using HOBS heaters, then you would be arguing the missiles, not the aircraft. If you are talking BFM getting into a gun wez, then again it depends on what Viper you are talking about, big mouth block 30, 40, 50...then you would have to talk what kind of fight, rate vs radius and what pilot can force his game plan, so as you can see there are just too many things to take into account when talking 1 vs 1, which isn't going to happen ever anyway, so why argue?

mig29 wrote:I want to discuss actual showdown between MIG 29's and Holland F-16 AM's that were flown by the Holland pilots

I did some checking on the following websites which list aerial voctories for the date of 03/24/99. (The particulare paragraph is the seventh from the bottom)

ACIG.ORG
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_380.shtml

Aviation Kill Record
http://server-mat.fce.vutbr.cz/safarik/ACES/index.html

MiG.-29 piloted by Maj. Arizanov was shot down by USAF Col. Rodriguez in an F-15C with an AIM-120A

MiG.-29 piloted by Majors Nikolic and Kulacin was shot down by USAF Capt. Showers in an F-15C with a AIM-120A

MiG.-29 piloted by Nikolic. Maj. Milutinovic’s aircraft was 'probably' shot down by RNAF 322 FS of KLu in an F-16A/MLU with a AIM-120A

An Article From Code One Magazine
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives ... 2a_99.html

Do you know of any other sources of which I could check with? There are some minor conflicts in data but, nothing of significance. Thank you for your perspective of the events!

Adrian

Adrian; Did anything work on the migs? they might have faired better if they had radar,and rwr working ?

In my opinion F-16 would take down MiG. Thats because the the technology from USA is far better than Russia and plus the combat record of F-16 is also much proven. Another reason is that American missiles are much much accurate and better than Russian missiles.

The plus side on MiG is its maneuverbility.