MiG-29 vs F-16

Agreed, it will never be a fair fight but how would the F-16 match up against the ... ?
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

Cad

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 155
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2007, 23:44

Unread post15 Jun 2007, 19:48

falcon_sgd wrote:SWEET PAVEL,
one should `nt be so much boastful...coz the reality is far different than theory...
if u r a russian warrior u will be well aware of it .
HOW MANY RUSSIAN WERE LOST DURING AFGHAN WAR,BETWEEN THE ENGAGEMENTS OF PAKISTAN AIR FORCE AND RUSSIANS?
THE ANSWER IS 9:1
PAKISTANI F-16S MADE 9 CONFIRMED KILLS AND EVEN ONE KILL WITH A 20MM CANNON.
ONE F-16 WAS LOST AND THAT WAS AN OWN GOAL,HIT BY ANOTHER F-16`S SIDEWINDER...
ARE THOSE RUSSIANS WERE NOT TRAINED WELL WHO WERE SENT INTO ANOTHER COUNTRY`S AIRSPACE...

Packistan was not the URSS enemy in Afganistan and russian aircraft did not engage pak fighters on purpose ,usualy they avoided them since the 2 were not at war.
Offline

falcon_sgd

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 25
  • Joined: 09 Jun 2007, 10:37

Unread post16 Jun 2007, 11:25

THEN WHAT WERE THEY DOING IN IN THE AIR SPACE OF ANOTHER COUNTRY,CERTAINLY THEY WERE NOT INVITED THERE.WHEN U GET INTO AN OPPONENT`S SPACE U R PREPARED FOR FIGHT,WHAT EVER THE MISSION OR GOAL IS.....
Offline

Cad

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 155
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2007, 23:44

Unread post16 Jun 2007, 20:55

URSS pilots were not alowed to fire against pak fighters.
"You win again, gravity!"
Offline

falcon_sgd

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 25
  • Joined: 09 Jun 2007, 10:37

Unread post30 Jun 2007, 18:34

HMMM!
they were sent there to get shot down....do not fire and just become victims...very cool
ANY MODERN SUICIDAL TACTIC?
ISN`T IT?
CAD PLZ TELL WHY WERE THEY SENT THERE?
Offline

Cad

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 155
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2007, 23:44

Unread post30 Jun 2007, 19:59

afgan forces were using pakistan to equip, train and seek refuge from soviet bombing
URSS aircraft bombed targets in pakistan also but avoided confruntation with pak fighters
read this:
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_337.shtml
"You win again, gravity!"
Offline

falcon_sgd

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 25
  • Joined: 09 Jun 2007, 10:37

Unread post02 Jul 2007, 07:27

DEAR CAD,
I AM A PAKISTANI,I LIVE IN A CITY WHICH IS NEAR TO AFGHAN BORDER AND I KNOW VERY WELL WHATS GOING ON HERE AND WHAT HAPPENED HERE IN THE PAST.
THE ARTICLES LIKE THAT DONOT TELL THE EXACT STORY.
I CAN JUST ASK U VISIT ME HERE TO GET THE REALITY.... :)
Offline

Cad

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 155
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2007, 23:44

Unread post03 Jul 2007, 13:53

visiting pakistan is not my top priority right now :cheers:
i was 9 years old when the soviests pull out ,so your guess is probaly better than mine ...
romania was a warsaw pact pact country during the cold war so the information about the conflict in afganistan came from russian sources back then.
anyway TOM COOPER has studyied the conflict prety well and his opinions are not as onesided as the russians...
if u have any aditional information about the conflict i would be glad to hear it .
"You win again, gravity!"
Offline

yugoslovan

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 1
  • Joined: 14 Jan 2008, 22:43

Unread post14 Jan 2008, 22:54

No mather what. Bouth countries are big, have heavy equipment for fighting. I think nuclear weapon need be off from all, or from nobody. Nevermind, its gorgeous america thinkin Russia is pore in technology. Its best fackt at all. If war could be, things can show all. Definitly i will not be on side of americans, my roots are here and my soul is europa. No mather what, in this moment no mather who wins, war will be ugly. I think even f 16 war wriors dont wish to seen this fight at all. If they are smart of course hahaha.Other case, if all are full of themself, need try it. :shock: Any way bouth planes are on top of all.
Offline

007india

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 8
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2008, 06:55

Unread post08 Jun 2008, 09:41

KarimAbdoun wrote:The F-16 has proven itself to be one of the most remarkable piece of equipment flying in the sky, but what about its Soviet chief rival Mig-29?

What will be the consequences of these 2 planes meeting head-to-head?

Also who is better? Faster? and had a better history than the other?

What are your opinions?


MIG-29 against F-16

Both are different in their purpose, MiG-29 is for air superiority, F-16 is for low level combat. you start your F-16 with after burner and start the MiG after 2 minutes. No doubt the MIG-29 will catch F-16 quickly. Better you compare MIG-21 with F-16
Offline

viper1234

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 58
  • Joined: 12 Dec 2006, 01:23

Unread post08 Jun 2008, 22:16

MIG-29 against F-16

Both are different in their purpose, MiG-29 is for air superiority, F-16 is for low level combat. you start your F-16 with after burner and start the MiG after 2 minutes. No doubt the MIG-29 will catch F-16 quickly. Better you compare MIG-21 with F-16


The MiG-29 is not an air superiority fighter (the SU-27 is). It is a point defense fighter that can barely succeed if in the right hands in this limited role if (and that's a VERY big if) it can get to the merge. Once at the merge it's probably looking at breaking even at best (mutual kill). Let's face it, the MiG-29 is a cold war relic that probably should have gone away back in 89 (amongst many other cold war relics).

It is great for shooting down unarmed UAV's.
Offline

007india

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 8
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2008, 06:55

Unread post09 Jun 2008, 06:54

haven't you read the IAF exercise with USAF, the Russian made IAF fighters just outperformed all USAF fighters. US fighters are good at electronics. But Russian jets are robust and very agile, what is necessary for a fighter.

F-16 is very naive in many aspect. especially the stall in low altitude with a sharp bank. Also the older F-16 are poor when worked with BVR systems.
I tried the simulator and i induced flat spin but not able to recover. F-16 is good for Hollywood films like Airforce1.

on the other hand in MIG-29 i recovered it successfully. Also MIG-29 has dual intake system.

h**p://vayu-sena.tripod.com/comparison-f16-mig29-1.html
Offline

Des

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 63
  • Joined: 09 Nov 2005, 04:52

Unread post09 Jun 2008, 10:30

007india wrote:haven't you read the IAF exercise with USAF, the Russian made IAF fighters just outperformed all USAF fighters. US fighters are good at electronics. But Russian jets are robust and very agile, what is necessary for a fighter.

F-16 is very naive in many aspect. especially the stall in low altitude with a sharp bank. Also the older F-16 are poor when worked with BVR systems.
I tried the simulator and i induced flat spin but not able to recover. F-16 is good for Hollywood films like Airforce1.

on the other hand in MIG-29 i recovered it successfully. Also MIG-29 has dual intake system.

h**p://vayu-sena.tripod.com/comparison-f16-mig29-1.html

you don't mean air ex Cope India do you?
Offline

F16guy

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 366
  • Joined: 22 Apr 2004, 14:08

Unread post10 Jun 2008, 09:18

To those that try to compare actual aircraft with what they have flown on desk top simulators... don't. One cannot even try to speculate about how real aircraft fly based upon sims. Sims don't compare to actual flight. Trying to pass off simulation vs actual aircraft flying will cost the poster incredible amounts of credibility with actual pilots.
F-16 having flat spin problems after banking sharply???...you've been watching too much of the top gun movie.
F-16's were not shown in Air Force 1.
F-16's and MiG 29's were not utilized in the first Cope India exercise.
The MiG 29 does not have a dual intake system...It has two engines.
The MiG 29 would run out of gas if it tried to catch an F-16 with a two minute head start. The MiG 29 will run out of gas very quickly period.

Good articles to read about the F-16 vs the MiG 29 (real pilots flying actual aircraft) are located at: http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/1995/articles/jul_95/july2a_95.html
and :http://www.codeonemagazine.com/cgi-bin/swish-bin/code1.pl





Why am I even posting this????? I'm usually alright with people posting nonsense. Must be in a bad mood. :evil:
Offline

Aks_20

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 25
  • Joined: 11 May 2006, 05:49

Unread post28 Jun 2008, 23:45

falcon_sgd wrote:HMMM!
they were sent there to get shot down....do not fire and just become victims...very cool
ANY MODERN SUICIDAL TACTIC?
ISN`T IT?
CAD PLZ TELL WHY WERE THEY SENT THERE?


They were attacking Afghan camps located on the Pak Afghan border, and ROE were such that they werent supposed to engage PAF fighters. But lets be clear, if it ever came down to an actual conflict between the Russians ie then Soviets and the PAF, then the Soviets would have wiped the PAF off the face of the planet. You are talking about an AF which was intended to go to toe to toe with NATO and the PAF is nowhere in that category, by far. So ditch your jingoism and be rational. Good that the PAF defended its airspace @ the time, but even they knew what would happen if the Bear went ballistic. And the Bear didnt attack, because of the ramifications of the US entering the conflict & the potential for issues with the Muslim world (already strained thanks to Afghanistan war).
Offline

tonini

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 12
  • Joined: 29 Oct 2011, 11:53

Unread post04 Nov 2011, 22:07

KarimAbdoun wrote:The F-16 has proven itself to be one of the most remarkable piece of equipment flying in the sky, but what about its Soviet chief rival Mig-29?

What will be the concequenses of these 2 planes meeting head-to-head?

Also who is better? Fster? and had a better history than the other?

What are your opinions?


During the air attacks on former Yugoslavia five enemy MiG 29 were destroyed in air combat, 4 by F15 Cs and one by a Dutch F16 Fighting Falcon. All MiG-29 have old avionics only MiG-29 Luftwaffe have western avionics. In BVR F-16 should be better.
PreviousNext

Return to F-16 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests