Forum: F-16 versus XYZ

I'm not sure if this article has been posted before. http://aeroweb.lucia.it/rap/News/SHAREN ... tml#MiG-33

I found it after searching for info on the F-16 vs Mig-29. Someone claimed the Mig-29 was more maneuverable at low speed than the F-16. "Surely this cant be" I thought. But wouldn't you know it, even General Dynamics admitted it was.

I was astonished to find the Mig-29M had a higher top speed and a better thrust-to-weight ratio than the Mig-29M.

F-16.net Sponsor

The article can be qualified as pure, genuine BS!

Quote:

The MiGs feature more complex aiming systems, incorporating
the radar, the OESS and the helmet-mounted sight meanwhile the
American fighters have [only] radars and visual aiming at
targets

.
I don't know when the article was edited, but now, the F 16 C has a visual/IR systems that's years ahead of Russian can do: Sniper. With detecting ranges of 80 Nmiles (ideal atmospferic conditions) with cristal clear images at about 40 Nmiles (one can identify the type of ennemy fighter and even its weapon load!), with laser ranging at 35 Nmiles and with advanced software (AA tracking, image enhancing algoritms, background heat rejection) and so on... Also, the APG 68 (V)9 is no match for Russian radars. Even the future "Mini_Bars" upgrade is no match for the APG 80...

Quote:

- The MiGs have radars with wider scan and track angles in
azimuth: +/-60 degress for the F-16C, +/-70 for the
MiG-29 and the F-18C, +/-90 for the MiG-33.

And?...

Quote:

- The MiGs have wider zones of target had-off designation for short
air-to-air missiles suspended under pylons: +/-28 degrees for
the AIM-9 [Sidewinder] and +/-45 degrees for the R-73 [NATO code name
Archer] as well as wider target-tracking angles after launch 45 deg for
the AIM-9 and 75 deg for the R-73.

Yeah, but what about JHMCS/9X combo? That means +/- 90 degrees...

Quote:

- The Russian aircraft's assigned calendar lifetime is longer (25
years). This has been proved by the operational experience
of the previous models (the MiG-21, the MiG-23 and the MiG-29).

What???? the Russian planes are fifespan of 4000 hours vs American ones 8000 hours! It is true, OTOH, that most of the MiG s29 users (maybe with a notable exception India) are banckrupt countries that can't afford to keep thei pilots flying more than 50 hours/year. In these conditions, you can keep the MiG 29 for 80 years Laughing

Quote:

- The MiGs have more effective, in terms of accuracy, methods
of gun firing which are coupled with the larger calibre of the
cannon (30-mm against 20-mm).

They better be at least as accurate as the US cannons, since the MiG has 150 rounds, vs 500 rouds (F 16) Laughing

Quote:

- The twin-engine MiG-29 has better flight safety compared with
the single-engine F-16.

That's the most pathetic statement! the safety record of MiG 29 is horrendous...

The conclusion? A desperate selling leaflet edited by a cash-stipped company...

The article said:

Quote:

The twin-engine MiG-29 has better flight safety compared with
the single-engine F-16.

That's a proof that Soviet-style propaganda still lives!!! - at least in someone's mind over at Mikoyan Design Bureau.
I hate to repeat myself but this is what I said in another 29 vs Viper thread:
"About the two engine issue
elp wrote:Quote:

2 engines are nice, especially if one quits

I've seen this in all other threads abut the MiG-29 compared to the Viper. To keep it short fact is that the second engine is there for power not safety. Time and again 29s with one engine flamed out have crashed, at least 5 were caught on tape:
-Paris 89-it could be argued that it was at min speed low alt and high AoA
-Kecskemet 2005(Hungary) -same story the plane was in level flight not at min speed and about 1000 feet alt-still wasn't controllable on one engine
-I've seen three aborted takeoffs on tape due to one engine failing or just loosing max thrust-planes had to be crashed back on the runway, gear up

My country's air force had 4 MiG-29 crashed from 1990-2003, three of them due to one engine failing (1 UB at take off, 1UB and one A model in flight) The crews of the latter two died (3 pilots total) because they believed they could bring the planes back on one engine...
29s just aren't flyable on one engine - maybe the new MiG-29M2 with the smokeless engine is a different story-but that's only a prototype as of now..."

Not much more to add to that...

The article wrote:

The twin-engine MiG-29 has better flight safety compared with
the single-engine F-16.

Any one who writes technical articles should know by now that engine reliability is no longer an issue. This why twin engine civilian airliners can fly with confidence.
Upon designing their first twin engine widebody jet, Boeing did some research on any and all "jet" airliners that had an inflight engine shut down. They looked each piece that failed and results of the survey is what was used as the the basis for the requirements for the new generation of widebody twin jet airliners B-777, etc. The results of this effort was the FAA allowed the engines and aircraft to be qualified four more than four hours for of operations.
The new F-35 has only one engine and the number of manhours per flight hours will be lower than any previous jet fighter. One of the seldom mentioned but most important aspects in the operation of the F-35. Janes Book of aircraft 2004/2005 (I think) stated the RAM on the F-35 will cost 1/10th the amount of the F-22 cost! In an interview on TV one test pilot stated that the operating cost of the F-22 is 4% less than the F-15's, reliability is increasing and reducing operational cost.

Adrian

Why people like Cru tend to compare Americas latest stuff with soviet mid-80s stuff?

You can order a MiG-29 with all the fancy stuff of modern F-16s and TVC as a further option.
But who can afford that? And if so why not by the more potent Su-3x?

MiG-29 production almost ceased, lets wait for the new Sukhi/MiG T-50 single engined fighter.

Check Six asked:

Quote:

Why people like Cru tend to compare Americas latest stuff with soviet mid-80s stuff?

Because that's what happened in all the conflicts in the last 15 years.

Quote:

lets wait for the new Sukhi/MiG T-50 single engined fighter.

It's not gonna happen. The T-50 is in fact an old Sukhoi design called S-55 from the late 80's which pretty much was a smaller Su-33 with one engine only. It died as a scale model, never made it to flying status.It was supposed to be the equal of the Viper.

Besides, the new Russian fighter to replace the Su-27/MiG-29 will be a two-engine plane. Take a look at the current inventory of the Russian air force. It's all twin-engines. Even their new trainers are both twin-engined (MiG-AT and Iak-130).

Forum: F-16 versus XYZ

Mig-29, Mig-29M, F-16C, F-18C