MiG-29 vs F-16

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2004, 13:13
by KarimAbdoun
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?

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2004, 13:47
by LinkF16SimDude
Head-to-head? I'm partial but I have to go with the Viper. Some Fulcrum drivers say setting up weapons employment in the Fulcrum is a bit cumbersome (switches to flip, knobs to turn, etc), unlike the Viper's Dogfight/Missile Override "flip-n-fight" function that buys you a couple of extra seconds or more in an engagement.

On the flip side American pilots who have gotten Fulcrum backseat rides have stated it's manueverability is on-par with the Hornet (which is a compliment to a hydro-mechanically operated FCS) and coupled with the "look-n-launch" A-A targeting system (I'm full of catch phrases today! :wink:) it could pose problems for the Viper in a close-in knife fight. This will be effectively negated with the fielding of HMCS and AIM-9X in the Viper and F-35 fleets.


In any case it bears repeating: in any close match-up between evenly matched airframes the deciding factors will almost always be who sees who first and the skill and training of the pilots involved.

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2004, 13:51
by Pumpkin
Hi Karim,

comparsion was never my cup of tea. I thought one must really be equipped with the best knowledge on the 2 subjects and agree upon a base line of criterions, and to finally come to an unbiased comparsion. Not a very easy task.

Having said this, I hope the following article is able to satisfy most if not all of your queries on the 2 platforms. The article was documented some time back. Hence the latest blocks might not be taken into account. In addition, it is a shame, the links referenced are not longer active.

enjoy, :D

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2004, 13:59
by KarimAbdoun
Thanks, that's a nice article!

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2004, 17:54
by awetsock
Pumpkin wrote:Hi Karim,

Having said this, I hope the following article is able to satisfy most if not all of your queries on the 2 platforms. The article was documented some time back.
enjoy, :D


I have to disagree with the article…pictures and video speak a thousand words. We deployed to Denmark to fly against some West German MIG 29’s and the following video speaks 1000 words…The video was made some years back, but the Viper has become nothing but better...

http://www.f16techs.com/greatest_hits.htm

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2004, 18:38
by Pumpkin
hi wetsock,

nice extract of the HUD recording. Some pretty cool EEGS symbology!!

As for the article, I was merely making a reference. 8) Not really advocating the content. If you have noticed, it is a .ru site. I guess I will leave for the experts on this forum to decide, if the webmaster has presented an unbiased writing.

cheers, :D

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2004, 19:17
by awetsock
Pumpkin

I am by far no expert...I can only comment on what I see...I was merely giving my .02 worth. I am curious to see what other feedback comes up... :D

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2004, 19:21
by habu2
Personally I think these A vs B threads are pretty useless. If you want to form an opinion about such comparisons, do some research first. This article is a good first step: http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives ... 2a_95.html

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2004, 19:52
by LinkF16SimDude
awetsock wrote:
I have to disagree with the article…pictures and video speak a thousand words. We deployed to Denmark to fly against some West German MIG 29’s and the following video speaks 1000 words…The video was made some years back, but the Viper has become nothing but better...

http://www.f16techs.com/greatest_hits.htm


Outstanding! 8) Especially at about 5:30-ish: pipper on the cockpit...you're DEAD!! :twisted: You actualy get paid to do that? :wink:

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2004, 21:02
by awetsock
habu2 wrote:Personally I think these A vs B threads are pretty useless. If you want to form an opinion about such comparisons, do some research first. This article is a good first step: http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives ... 2a_95.html


What better way to research than to pull the AVTR tapes out and watch the video 15 minutes after it was filmed? There is nothing better than hands on research... :wink:

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2004, 22:31
by Pumpkin
habu2, I guess what I enjoy reading and can't agree more was Rose Smith's Introduction. Where he mentioned about pilot skill/training, and the customised technical strength, export version can provide, in a decisive fight. Hence we can never have 1 conclusive comparsion.

The two different outcomes of the RMAF Mig 29 in simulated BVR air combats with 2 different platforms clearly indicated this.
[1] RMAF Mig-29 Vs RAAF F-18
[2] RMAF Mig-29 Vs RAF Sea Harriers

The Code One article was informative indeed. If only we could have a similar report on the USAF Viper Vs the (Indian) IAF Fulcrum, if there were such a fight in the Cope 2004 Indo-US Exercise. I would like to believe, the IAF is operating one of the best Fulcrum to date.

cheers, :D

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2004, 23:17
by elp
Early MiG-29 BVR cockpit switchology/setup is a joke. Match that with the shakey combat record of the R-27 and you are asking to get killed setting up a BVR shot.

MiG-29 Early-

-Nice WVR
-Sux in BVR
-An A2G comparison would be a joke
-Supply chain management could use "the customer is always right" approach.

Later MiG-29s? Well they have caught up to the early 90's for A2G. ( being generous here )
Newer R-27 might give some hope, R77 still unproven but should be good in Chinese or Indian hands ( i.e. someone that has a well funded aerospace industry )

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2004, 23:41
by habu2
Personally I think these A vs B threads are pretty useless.

What I meant by that was when someone starts a thread with "which is better" or "which is faster" or "which flies higher" or "which would win a dogfight" etc. Sorry KarimAbdoun, I'm not attacking you personally.

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2004, 23:43
by habu2
BTW the most remarkable piece of equipment I ever saw flying in the sky was a certain stewardess I remember from a commercial flight years ago.... :mrgreen:

Unread postPosted: 28 Feb 2004, 23:53
by elp
Cool video. Now I have to wash out the music in Premier before I add it to my archives :wink: I'd rather hear the original audio in HUD tapes. Don't worry. The music was less annoying then most corporate videos from the big weapons makers. :D

Unread postPosted: 29 Feb 2004, 04:03
by habu2
pictures and video speak a thousand words

Wow you guys were going a lot slower that I thought you would be in a knife fight with a -29 - I saw airspeeds below 120 KIAS on the HUD during some of those engagements! Shamolie!!!

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2004, 13:47
by SwedgeII
I saw a Cool "Wings" program about DACT in Germany; they have a Mig-29 squadron set up for that. But the program said that basically they have to mimic Russian tactics that frustrates the hell out of them. Every once in a while if the pilot is especially cocky they will cut lose and "Improvise" and kick some western Aircraft a$$. They are pretty proud of there Aircraft. BTW the new Mig-29 has FBW too. . In a Knife fight it would be a toss up… It was on TV so IT must be true!!!!! *L*

Re: MiG-29 vs F-16

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2004, 14:00
by LeeRichardson
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 consequenses 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?


Through my Cooperative Key and Tactical Leadership Programs in Europe I can confirm that the Mig-29 burns almost as much oil as it does fuel. We had some Ukrainian 29's in Akinci Turkey that couldn't make it home without borrowing a case of oil from us. So, if you're a pilot, just keep it flying a little longer and watch the Mig's engines flame out!

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2004, 17:45
by elp
Pretty hard ( real world ) for an early MiG-29 to suvive to even get to WVR when it gets "Rodney Kinged" by AMRAAM shooters. Early MiG-29s are not even competitive in BVR. They are dangerous, and there certainly is risk, but going up against F-16 AMRAAM shooters in a early MiG-29 with garbage BVR man-machine interface and early R-27 ( garbage in real world combat ) BVRs is just like the pizza ad: "What do you want on your tombstone?"

WVR is practiced vs. the MiG-29 because it just makes sense to do it. But when it comes to real shooting, You aren't there to fight fair, you are there to win. So that = AMRAAM until there ain't nothing standing.

Other oddball MiG-29 stuff... rumor has it that Iran has wired their rag tag ex Iraq MiG-29s to take Sparrow and Sidewinder - That still leaves the S**t man-machine interface in the cockpit. Early Mig-29 engines always suck, everyday, all the time. They look good on paper and kick out some power, but engine life and maintenance certainly isn't in the league of an F-16 or Mirage 2000. Hey, the German guys were ex- F-4 guys so they are "real" old school maintenance and can make stuff work. ( i.e. in the case of the MiG-29, when all else fails, de-tune the engine to get more life out of it :D )

"Newer" MiG-29s? Well, there are no new build airframes. M2 ( http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_293.shtml )is only partially new with some new components ( nose etc ) and some kinda nice avionics and radar tacked on to an existing airframe.

Due to distribution of duties between two pilots and to new on-board equipment the aircraft in complicated combat environment will have higher combat effectiveness than its single-seater competitors.


That says it all. RU designed stuff is yet to field a jet that can do A2A and A2G with ONE air crew. Something F-16, F-18 have been doing for years with MODERN all weather A2G weapons. That tells you something about their ability to do man-machine interface.

India might have gotten the newer R-27s to work to their satisfaction. Ditto R-77. I mention them because the state the RU AF is in it is problematic to get consistancy for them to get their stuff to work. At least with China and India using Russian designed stuff you know they are on the ball for making stuff work ( proper program management, depot, training and maintenance ( without these being healthy, you don't have a real air force ). One of many problems with MiG-29s is that most users are underfunded air forces. No bucks, no buck rogers.

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2004, 20:07
by SwedgeII
http://e.1asphost.com/migalley/mig29_f16.html has some good info. but take it with a grain of salt. the part about the wing area is BS.the Fulcrum is aerodynamically stable the 16 is not, so some of the lift is generated by the stabs on the 16

f16 vs mig-29

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2004, 22:51
by redline
As I know in lebanon war the Israeli f-15's were facing the Syrian mig-29 fighters face 2 face in the sky of the Lebaneese capital. All syrian fighters (about 82 ) were fallen by the Israeli fighters... that's what F-15's did.. so what do you think if they were F-16's!?

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2004, 04:08
by Alex957
as I know in lebanon war the Israeli f-15's were facing the Syrian mig-29 fighters face 2 face in the sky of the Lebaneese capital. All syrian fighters (about 82 ) were fallen by the Israeli fighters... that's what F-15's did.. so what do you think if they were F-16's!?


No MiG-29's for the Syrians in '82 (not sure if even the Soviets had any operational at that point), only -21's, -23's, -25's and Su-20/22's. Israelis had F-15A/B/C/D's and F-16A/B's for A2A as well as countless Kfirs, F-4E's, and A-4's for A2G.

MiG-29 service

Unread postPosted: 08 Mar 2004, 09:55
by Wildcat
There were Fulcrums later in Middle East, but in 1982 they were not even operational in Russian service.

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2004, 18:07
by KarimAbdoun
I think Yemen has MiG-29s and Su-27s.

Unread postPosted: 26 Jun 2004, 18:41
by nico01a
I have read the replies on this topic and must say that that video was pretty cool, but I don't think people should fool themselves as off course they (and especially some americans) will believe everything without taking a critic look at it.
Don't you people think that there are just as many HUD tapes of fulcrums 'gunning' F-16's? But the obviously very objective makers of the video (i dont blame them for being an f-16 fan, I am as well) opted to show only the f-16 victories without giving objective statistics of those training exercises.

The advantages and disadvantages of F-16 and Fulcrum versus each other have been tested and proved that they are fearsome adversaries for each other and it will usually come down to pilot skills.

I know Belgian Viper drivers who have been up to Fulcrums telling that even when the Fulcrum seemed neutralized in flat scissors, even being abreast the Fulcrum would claim a fox 2 using its helmet mounted sight; on the other hand if the f-16 can hold for 10 minutes the mig will be out of fuel.

My humble opinion is that the Mig-29 is very capable in the role he has been designed for, being interceptor and base defence. For the other roles other aircraft have been designed: Su-27 for air superiority and (fighter-)bombers for the A-G role.

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2004, 08:18
by KarimAbdoun
then the main catch about the MiG-29 is its fuel capacity

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2004, 15:48
by Pumpkin
hi guys, I'm revisiting the thread after I stumbled on this article, from Code One I gather. My apologies if this article has already been made reference before. I believe many of the pros and cons mentioned in the article have already been surface on this board. It is cool to me as this is the very first time I have the opportunity to come across the Russian HMD helmet. On the shortcomings of the Fulcrum Avionics, I believe the Indian Air Force has improved in the area. I will be looking forward to read a similar report on the encountered of the later block Viper 'fighting' the IAF Fulcrum.

cheers,

Unread postPosted: 19 Jul 2004, 02:48
by MiG21bisHZS
The best MiG-29 is the Russian upgrade MiG-29SMT... It Beats the Block 50 in A2A but the Block 50 beats the SMT in A2G... as always :D .

To answer a question.

Yes SyAAF has around 40 MiG-29's and 17 Su-27's.

No Yemen has only MiG-29's... 20 I think.

Personally I think these A vs B threads are pretty useless.


Why are they useless if people learn something from them?

Unread postPosted: 19 Jul 2004, 04:07
by habu2
Why are they useless if people learn something from them?

Because 99.9% of the people pontificating in them have never been in the cockpit of any military aircraft. That includes me and, I dare say, you.

Unread postPosted: 19 Jul 2004, 04:13
by MiG21bisHZS
I have... in a MiG-21.. although it was in the back seat... a UM version

Unread postPosted: 19 Jul 2004, 07:56
by JAFO
Perhaps a funny thing to mention is the fact that Viper Drivers told me when they where on a Fulcrum his six (during DACT) and the Mig "plugged" in his burner, the Falcon driver could actually smell the exhaust fumes from the guy in his sights !

Unread postPosted: 19 Jul 2004, 17:14
by habu2
OK so you sat in a cockpit of jet. Did you fly the MiG-21?

Did you fly ACM?

Did you fly a MiG-29SMT against a Block 50 F-16 in ACM?

Unless the answer is yes to all then your statements like:
The best MiG-29 is the Russian upgrade MiG-29SMT... It Beats the Block 50 in A2A

are just so many electrons....

Unread postPosted: 19 Jul 2004, 20:56
by Pumpkin
MiG21bisHZS wrote:The best MiG-29 is the Russian upgrade MiG-29SMT... It Beats the Block 50 in A2A but the Block 50 beats the SMT in A2G... as always :D .


hi MiG21bisHZS, with my limited knowledge, I have no dispute of the SMT could be the best Fulcrum. But I am too intrigued by the second statement. Sounds like one statement made after a thorough research. I'm all ears. 8)

Thanks,

Unread postPosted: 20 Jul 2004, 01:20
by MiG21bisHZS
habu2 wrote:OK so you sat in a cockpit of jet. Did you fly the MiG-21?

Did you fly ACM?

Did you fly a MiG-29SMT against a Block 50 F-16 in ACM?

Unless the answer is yes to all then your statements like:
The best MiG-29 is the Russian upgrade MiG-29SMT... It Beats the Block 50 in A2A

are just so many electrons....



I have been in a MiG-21 3 times.

Took controles on my last ride.

No I did not fly ACM.Only in formation.

MiG-29SMT.... no I did not.. have you?

http://www.aeronautics.ru/mig29smt.htm

Some Info......

Anyways I apologise,... I ment the MiG-29M2... sorry for any confusion :)

Unread postPosted: 20 Jul 2004, 01:23
by Cylon
Heh heh

Nuff Said

Cylon

Unread postPosted: 20 Jul 2004, 01:25
by MiG21bisHZS
What do you mean by that....

Unread postPosted: 20 Jul 2004, 01:30
by Cylon
"your data on the mig is in-acurrate...."

I love that movie...

Cylon

Unread postPosted: 20 Jul 2004, 01:38
by MiG21bisHZS
What do you mean my data is in accurate... the SMT or M2( which I didn't even post anything about).

Unread postPosted: 20 Jul 2004, 02:31
by elp
"Modern" version of MiG-29 = Unproven BVR

F-16 AMRAAM = Proven BVR


Again if both sides have HOBs_Helmet_Heaters, it won't be a very productive fight for either side.

Don't think I'd want to face the improved versions of AMRAAM -

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_news_article1126.html

With an unproven BVR.

Its time for the MiG-29 to retire. It just gets its face trampled down in the mud every time it shows up for a real shooting fight V an F-15 or F-16. The Post 9/11 shoot down of two Syrian MiG-29s by IDF F-15s was especially humiliating. That was HOBs_Helmet_Heater range so there is no excuse from the POS MiG-29A of: "my BVR avionics suck,... it wasn't fair...."

Date____Unit_______Shooter__________Victim________
14Sep01..106 Sqn.....F-15C Python-IV....MiG-29A SyAAF
14Sep01..106 Sqn.....F-15C AIM-9M........MiG-29A SyAAF
_______________________________________________

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_270.shtml

Unread postPosted: 25 Jul 2004, 17:48
by nico01a
Ever thought about about the fact that pilot trainig and experience is also a big factor in air combat and that rules of engagement also play a big role?
The fact is that you don't know what the situation was (or at least not from the article you mention) and who jumped onto who. Because if you are defensive from the start and your offender knows what he's doing, you die within the next 15 seconds barely knowing what happened to you, even if you have the best aircraft and best missiles in the world (with or without helmet mounted sight).

On the other hand if you jump onto two enemies and manage to become defensive and both die, than I'd say you are not very good at what you do, even if you'd have superior aircraft and weapons, and you should better stay home.

The only situation where you could really say something about the aircraft and pilot skills, would be if they would merge neutrally, but in the battle arena this rarely happens.

Now my opinion is that even if they would have had F-22's, the Syrians would have had their buts kicked since I don't think that their training level and tactics is on the level of any self-respecting air force. 8)

Unread postPosted: 31 Jul 2004, 00:00
by SPIKE
I gotta go with the F-16, cause we got better pilots. But if you are caught low and slow, the MiG will bite youre 6.

Ciao.

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2004, 09:12
by KarimAbdoun
There is no doubt that the Russians are trying to solve the MiG-29's fuel problem, the hunchback idea seems very practical, it works with the F-16 on the sides, why wouldn't it on the back?

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2004, 12:03
by CheckSix
I like the DF video too, but the intention of the author is obvious :roll:

Lets check an account of an west-german pilot who flew MiG-29 A (export) against western planes:
r the F-16s did score some kills eventually, but only after taking 18 ‘Archers’. We didn’t operate kill removal (forcing ‘killed’ aircraft to leave the fight) since they’d have got no training value, we killed them too quickly. (Just as we might seldom have got close-in if they used their AMRAAMs BVR!) They couldn’t believe it at the debrief, they got up and left the room!

"They might not like it, but with a 28deg/sec instantaneous turn rate (compared to the Block 50 F-16's 26deg) we can out-turn them. Our stable, manually controlled airplane can out-turn their FBW aircraft. But the real edge we have is the ‘Archer’ which can reliably lock on to targets 45deg off-boresight.

Link is: http://www.aeronautics.ru/mig29site2.htm

Of cause F-16 has better electronics, but keep in mind, it surpasses the MiG in BVR since around 1993. There is little doubt, that newer MiG-29 variants have similar or better A2A equipment than F-16s block 60.

The german MiGs are not completely equipped. Their radar lacks at least 3 odes, inluding RWS, They have no ECM suite, as
the standard Ru - MiG. It has just a simple IFF and not Datalink. So deration is obvious.

What remains is the superiour airframe for A2A. They are pretty even at low altitude but fighting higher the maneuvrebility advantage of the MiG is more pronounced. MiGs greatest disadvantage is the fuel capacity which is enlarged in the newer versions. But keep in mind, MiG is designed as a frontline fighter, able to operate from small and rough fields close to FLET. Never try this with an F-16.

I agree that F-16s greatest weaknees is its high wingloading, which compromises its combat abilities being loaded with a reasonable payload. (E.g. 2 BVRAAM, 4 WVRAAM in a high threat scenario)

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2004, 22:46
by Pumpkin
Just curious, who operates THE best Mig-29 these days? IAF?

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2004, 16:16
by CheckSix
I think the RuAF is the deadliest MiG operator.

It remains unclear what standards their MiGs represent, but their tactics and experience should be well ahead of the export users.

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2004, 18:53
by Yellow13
I guess the next question is what are their electronics are packing? Is it enough to keep up with the US fighters?

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2004, 23:06
by Dammerung
I'd guess that the VVS has the best Fulcrum force...
I've never flown either, but It's bad to assume just because it's never been used and that's it's Russian it's garbage...

I'd say that the Max Range of the AIM-120 is also shorter than the max Range of the R-27RE... not entirely sure, but this would mean the MiG-29 gets the first shot against an American Bandit.

Unread postPosted: 23 Dec 2004, 05:03
by Dammerung
I consider the F-16 slightly superior... but the MiG-29 is a great aircraft, for sure. We've never really seen a well piloted -29 against a -16 ever. RVV-AE and R-27 are good missiles, but I don't know how they compare to the AIM-120 and AIM-7 respectively...

Unread postPosted: 23 Dec 2004, 12:28
by CheckSix
My statement is: It depends on the pilot.

F-16 may have a better carefree handling, but once you're experienced with the MiG you hold an advantage in dogfight.

I am not sure about the radar and BVR capabilities. RSK-MiG claims their radar is better, LMTAS sees it different ;-)

ZHUK-M's range against a 5m² target is 120km, APG-68V5 is reportet to have only 70km, according to an RSK-MiG release. Of cause here is a lot of speculation.

Unread postPosted: 23 Dec 2004, 22:00
by Pumpkin
CheckSix wrote:I think the RuAF is the deadliest MiG operator.

It remains unclear what standards their MiGs represent, but their tactics and experience should be well ahead of the export users.


CheckSix, I think Russia/Ukraine is operating the Mig-29S awaiting SMT upgrades.

I am very interested to read the combat capability of Romania Mig-29 "Sniper". Disregard the training and pilot qualities, I would think, it is THE best modernised Fulcrum in service. And the Mig-29 OVT TV nozzle looks especially cool. 8)

Unread postPosted: 24 Dec 2004, 07:24
by TC
I love listening to the horse$hit that these MiG and Sukhoi drivers spit out on the "Discovery Wings" documentaries. You might as well write a script and have each pilot say the same thing, over and over again. "Oh, our MiG-29, or Su-37 can out-manuever the F-15 or F-16." "We can do this, that, or the other better than the F-15 or F-16." It's funny though...How many kills of American fighters do they have to show for it? I'll tell you how many. Doughnut baby. Goose Eggs. Balls. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Nil. The Eagle and Viper have a combined near 170-0 kill ratio against all Russian-built fighters. Face it folks. We have the better fighters. We have the better pilots, which is the true key here. It really isn't the machine, it's the man flying it, although I would want every advantage a great piece of equipment can give me. Now you can argue about what foreign unit got a simulated kill against an F-15 or F-16 in some horse hockey exercise, but that really doesn't mean squat. Put your money where your mouth is. Put up or shut up. If you get a real, no bull$hit kill against an American fighter, then that is some validation for your performance. But again, the MiG-29 has never achieved a true kill against an American-built fighter, so forgive me if the plane's career combat record doesn't impress me. Sorry if I stepped on any toes there, but religion according to TC dictates that ABC v. XYZ is settled on the battlefield, not at some DACT exercise.

Beers and MiGs (whodathunkit?) were made to be pounded!

Unread postPosted: 24 Dec 2004, 08:29
by Mongillo
******* original post removed by admin *******

Welcome back 'Finotov' (aka Mongillo / Liana); now please leave. I'm sorry, but we do cannot tollerate trolls on this forum.

F-16.net forum admin

Unread postPosted: 24 Dec 2004, 17:56
by parrothead
TC, I agree with you that the proof is on the battlefield not in the exercises. With that said, I think most of us still enjoy seeing video of Fulcrums in a Viper's HUD :D . Someone posted this link to a video in another thread, but I thought everyone here in the F-16 vs MiG-29 forum might like to see it too :D ! It's a bit over 11 MB for the download, but it's worth it (I have dialup so you can imagine how long it took me :shock: ). Over four minutes of video featuring the MiG-29 in the F-16's HUD gunsight set to "Welcome to the Jungle" by Guns 'N Roses :mrgreen: . Enjoy everyone!!!

Unread postPosted: 24 Dec 2004, 22:43
by Dammerung
That's a great video, still watch it every once in awhile. But as TC mentioned, the pilot is the most important factor, and we've yet to see a well piloted MiG-29 go against a Western Opponent. We've also never seen the MiG do it's job: Interception. MiGs aren't too good at dogfighting, they're all for the most part point defence.

Still doesn't change the fact that my money's still on the F-16.

Unread postPosted: 24 Dec 2004, 22:44
by Dammerung
That's a great video, still watch it every once in awhile. But as TC mentioned, the pilot is the most important factor, and we've yet to see a well piloted MiG-29 go against a Western Opponent. We've also never seen the MiG do it's job: Interception. MiGs aren't too good at dogfighting, they're all for the most part point defence.

Still doesn't change the fact that my money's still on the F-16.

Unread postPosted: 26 Dec 2004, 20:41
by CheckSix
Here is a picture from the MiG-29 HUD:
Image

Images videos containing NATO jets in the crosshairs are classified :roll:

Unread postPosted: 26 Dec 2004, 21:54
by Pumpkin
Either the pilot hit the de-cluttered option or the symbology doen't look very informative.

The classified lock-on above, looks very much like a Tu-160 from where I'm sitting.... :roll:

Unread postPosted: 27 Dec 2004, 00:52
by Dammerung
Unlike US pilots, Russian pilots don't use the Hud for everything, it's merely a supplement. That's a German MiG, I doubt a German Fulcrum would be trying to hit a Tu-160 in ACM... from the hud, it's got about 70 deg of Bank, is in Guns Mode at 300m away from the Target. I can GUARANTEE it's not a Tu-160. On the site, it says it's another -29.

Unread postPosted: 27 Dec 2004, 14:31
by EriktheF16462
Well from the web sight at the bottom, I would say that is a NATO jet, a German Mig 29. There is no way for me to tell what kind of TOI that is, it could be a Mig23/27 also. So they don't use the HUD for everything, that means they are not looking out the windows enough. There is very little info shown there.

Unread postPosted: 27 Dec 2004, 17:52
by Dammerung
Yep, Russian Jets are much more Simple. The two little bars on the side, they show RMAX and RMIN, I don't know what the Cyrillic on the side means. Number at the top left is KIAS, Top right is Ft Above sea level. I believe 38 is heading, 038 deg... But it works. No Fancy Time To Impact, but it works.

Unread postPosted: 27 Dec 2004, 21:42
by ACSheva
Dammerung wrote:Yep, Russian Jets are MUCH more Simple.


I don't really think so, at all. I would suspect that Russians know their Mig best.Both are very close jets. Pilot skill is crucial, though. One thing that a Mig has to an advantage is the Helmet sighting system, a very big advantage.(also the ability to shoot down cruise missiles) Im not sure that a 16 has that at all, also the Mig SM does have more complex radar, and more impresive array of weapons. Not even gonna talk about 16 wing load area, that should be fixed in my view. Plane wise the new Mig 29SMT is probably better than even our current Block 50 version. Still a US pilot can win fight, because of training.

AcShev

Unread postPosted: 27 Dec 2004, 22:31
by EriktheF16462
JHMICS, in active duty USAF F-16 units right now. Helmet mounted sights are out there right now.

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2004, 01:06
by Dammerung
The MiG is simple, trust me. Russian aircraft always have been. Can the MiG-29 carry the R-27EM? That's the Cruise Missile killer version IIRC. The VVS just doesn't get the flying time needed to have a really good air force. That's a financial problem though. F-16 pilot in combat has the option of just running the MiG out of fuel, MiG can't take more than a couple minutes in burner. I assume they just use 100% Mil power in Close Air Combat...

In anycase, the MiG-29SMT looks to be mostly an Air to Ground upgrade. KAB TV-Guided bombs, X-29s, X-31s. MiG-29SMT has a HOTAS, but I don't know to what extent. Can it target 4 targets simultaneously with the RVV-AE? Also, I'm still curious as to what it's endurance is with Max AB. Don't get me wrong, I like the -29, but I don't think that upgrades alone are going to make it more successful at hunting fighters. A MiG Needs good GCI/AWACS, to run on his EOS only, shoot down several aircraft, then run. And nothing can really catch a MiG, it's acceleration is phenomenal.

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2004, 08:57
by cru
And nothing can really catch a MiG, it's acceleration is phenomenal.


Really? Go to http://www.eurofighter.com/Typhoon/SwingRole/ and you might have some surprises concerning the MiG 29 acceleration and maneuvrability (especially at supersonic speeds)

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2004, 11:31
by Pumpkin
Dammerung wrote:I can GUARANTEE it's not a Tu-160. On the site, it says it's another -29.


hi Dammerung, :oops: it didn't occur to me a fighter would expel white fumes (pardon me, if this is not the correct aviation term) like that. The last time I saw fumes like that, was from the B-52.

Back to the MiG-29, I understand the German Fulcrum was upgraded and received the designation MiG-29G and GT. Was the avionics suite upgraded? If yes, was HUD picture posted before or after the upgrade?

cheers,

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2004, 13:56
by EriktheF16462
That appears to be contrails, you are right though it can't be a good place in the sky to get in a dogfight. Reminds me of old F4 tapes from Vietnam. Smoke from the engines made them pretty easy to spot.

cru, the charts on the mentioned page are pretty lame, look like advertising hogwash to me. The turn rate data could be, well total bunk, they don't tell us airspeed or altitude, that could be at max service ceiling. I suspect it is because the F15 comes in high on the charts and it is known to turn better than most at higher altitudes. The acceleration data is from what to what, all I see is .9 mach at 20K which is well also no real data. Even in "Car and Driver" they tell us accleration from 0 to 60 mph.

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2004, 16:43
by toan
According to the declaration of a Germany test pilot for EF-2000, the acceleration of EF-2000 with its maximum military thrust is as soon as the acceleration of MIG-29G with its afterburner.

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2004, 18:34
by CheckSix
The EF advertisement is ridiculous, because no scale is given. Why not? It is quite easy to assume the values for the adversaries.
For sure it outpowers the (10%) derated MiG-29s, that what it is supposed to be.
Modern variants of the MiG-29 have 2x8,7t thrust and fly 1500km/h at sea level, a benchmark that F-16, F-18, EF ... failed to achiev

There are plans to equip the MiG with a new engine: RD133, lets wait and see.

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2004, 18:42
by EriktheF16462
I would sure hope that any country looking to by EF or any real military hardware do more homework than a google search. Does LM have a lame page like that for the Viper?

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2004, 20:05
by Dammerung
Pumpkin wrote:
Dammerung wrote:I can GUARANTEE it's not a Tu-160. On the site, it says it's another -29.


hi Dammerung, :oops: it didn't occur to me a fighter would expel white fumes (pardon me, if this is not the correct aviation term) like that. The last time I saw fumes like that, was from the B-52.

Back to the MiG-29, I understand the German Fulcrum was upgraded and received the designation MiG-29G and GT. Was the avionics suite upgraded? If yes, was HUD picture posted before or after the upgrade?

cheers,


They're Contrails, Appear at Highish Altitudes. Watch anything with B-17s, everything there will have Contrails. I doubt the German MiGs are superior to the Russian Ones. Those look like the same Hud pictures from the Russian ones.

Really? Go to http://www.eurofighter.com/Typhoon/SwingRole/ and you might have some surprises concerning the MiG 29 acceleration and maneuvrability (especially at supersonic speeds)


Whoa there, you're comparing a FIFTH Generation fighter to a Fouth Generation. It's like comparing an F-86 to an F-4, or F-4 to F-15. Like I said before, with it's horrible fuel consumption, one would naturally assume it has POWERFUL engines, which it does. I suspect you could dogfight with 100% Mil power in a 29. Also, it's pretty hard to get acceleration numbers for an aircraft, because there are so many factors. You can't have a "0 to Mach" Rating easily.

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2004, 23:14
by CheckSix
I dont like these Generation-Ratings very much. Look at an F/A-18E or a Gripen. If you just see the airframe, what generation are they???

The only interesting factor is combat value in the specified task. Some planes can adopt many roles, others don't.

From my standpoint, MiG-29 is a decent interceptor and somewhat superiour in dogfight in its time.
Of cause the electronics should be upgrated since the mid 80s. How would a an early F-16C compete against the latest one if not upgrated? It would be easy meat for the AIM-120...

Back to the generations: SOme MiG-17s killed F-4s and some F-86 killed MIG-21s, so generation may not meen anything in air combat.

Unread postPosted: 30 Dec 2004, 21:02
by Pumpkin
Much have been mentioned about the MiG-29's shortcoming on fuel capacity, North Korean MiG-29 managed to intercept USAF RC-135S, some 150 mile off the the coast and maintained to shadow the reconnaissance plane for ~20min. Was that the expected performance? I remember reading, the Fulcrums were dangerously operating at the limit of their combat radius. By any chance, the interceptors were captured on film and available online?

cheers,

Unread postPosted: 30 Dec 2004, 21:14
by ACSheva
Dammerung wrote:The MiG is simple, trust me. Russian aircraft always have been


Man, you should do you're research a little bit. Their radars already outclass some of our radars, missiles,etc. Russian jets are very potent, the technology gap is closing, and is closing fast. If their sh*t was so simple, than why would they put sattelites into space first, and still are playing the leading role in ISS.

AcShev

Unread postPosted: 30 Dec 2004, 21:30
by parrothead
ACSheva, first off, did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed? Please watch the tone and the language, even if the board automatically adds a * in the "S" word. We like to keep this board civil.

Now then, I don't think that post was meant as an insult, rather as a complement. A lot of people consider a simple system better as it's less prone to failure and easier to maintain.

As for the satellites, who has the better ones? This is hard to answer due to the classification of most of the information. Please note that the US was a very close second in the race for the first satellite and the first man in space. The US was first, however, to the moon. As far as I know, we're still the only ones to have gone there. Let's also look at aircraft. Name me an interceptor that could catch the SR-71. Sure, the MiG-25 can go mach 3, but for how long and will the engines be useful afterwords? The Blackbird CRUISED above mach 3. It went even faster in some cases where it was warranted and airframe and engine life after the flight were of less concern than more immediate issues.

Now, I'm not saying that Russian equipment is junk. I think it's really pretty good. I'd love to have my own MiG! I've said it before and I'll say it again, most of the outcome of an aerial engagement's outcome will be determined by the pilot. I can't remember which Blue Angel it was, but I think it was the #1 pilot at the time, exchanged rides in the back seat of his Hornet with a Russian pilot for a ride in his jet (can't remember if it was a MiG or Sukhoi). He got in some trouble, but he also gained a valuable insight. He said that if the fight came down to the two planes, the pilot would be the determining factor.[/venting]

Edit: I almost forgot about the ISS. How are they taking the lead? The US is funding most of it if I remember right. The Russians are currently doing the lifting to it due to the Space Shuttle being grounded. They're using Soyuse (sorry for my spelling) capsules like they did when we were using the Apollo. Why? Because they're SIMPLE and THEY WORK! I'm not knocking the Shuttle, it should be back flying soon, but just telling the truth.

Unread postPosted: 30 Dec 2004, 21:38
by ACSheva
Parrothead I'm very sorry for my talk, you know how it is sometimes.

ACShev

Unread postPosted: 30 Dec 2004, 21:41
by Pumpkin
ACSheva wrote:You should try to back up youre stuff next time, please.


Ironically, I don't see much convincing backups for your statements either. :shock:

PS: your tone sounds like one particular expelled member of the board.

Unread postPosted: 30 Dec 2004, 21:44
by parrothead
No worries :wink: . I'm a little wound up myself. I goofed up at the store and didn't look at the label on my diet cola - no caffeine :shock: ! This is day two of caffeine withdrawl and it's not that easy. I'll look closer next time before I buy what's on sale! Now when I kick my really bad habit, watch out and let me know if I'm getting a bit too grouchy :D !

Edit: Pumpkin, I think you got there a bit quicker than I did. I was typing while you were hitting submit... Note to self: type quicker!

Unread postPosted: 30 Dec 2004, 22:03
by Dammerung
Trust me, I know what I'm talking about :)

Simple does not mean Inferior. In my eyes, the USAF and VVS have been pretty much neck on neck since the end of WWII. (La-7/9 was a MEAN, MEAN, MEAN Fighter, and at Low Altitude if I had to choose between that and a P-51, trust me, I'd want the La...) Even in Korea, it's only estimated now that the F-86 only had a 3-to-1 Kill ratio against the MiGs, which if you remove the Chinese and NK pilots, they're probably quite even- any Soviet pilot who survived WWII was GOOD, no question about it. Not to mention their Gunnery skills, as their weapons tended to be rapid-fire with a low ammo supply. If Russia had any money, we can only wonder what accomplishments they might've made aviation-wise.

Also, as for the Blue Angels, from watching a documentary on them (anyone wants it, PM me), they all exchanged Rides with Russian pilots. Rode in the back seats of Su-27, MiG-29, and Su-25, while giving Russian pilots from the Russian Knights, Strizhi, and Sky Hussars rides in their Hornets.

As to not providing any backup, just look at that Hud. Russian pilots still rely on keeping their head in the cockpit. Not that it doesn't work, That's how pilots have been doing it since 1914. I'd hate to be in an F-22 and have all my MFDs and HUDs go out. Ouch.

The whole Point I've been trying to make is that we've never seen a well piloted, well maintained, Eastern-equipped Airforce go up against the USAF in numbers. There were the MiG-15s, but as far as I can see they did pretty well against the sabres. Vietnam, US Planes were very badly restricted and MiGs did not operate in Numbers. If Eagles and Vipers ever meet well maintained well Piloted Flankers and Fulcrums, I wouldn't put my money on either side. Once Russia's Economy gets going again in the next 10 years, I'll not be surprised if they come out with some really nice Aircraft...

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2004, 06:03
by Cylon
"all my MFD's and HUDs go out...." And you wouldn't be looking outside because!?!?!

Those tools do not make or break an fight. They only enhance your SA PRIOR to the WVR engangement. Once you get there, the mark I eyeball will make most of the merge. Hell, most of us just put the bad guy in the same place in the hud (symbology or not) and squeeze the trigger. After a few sorties of doing that, you stop paying 5 bucks for bad kill calls.

Cylon

Unread postPosted: 01 Jan 2005, 02:18
by Dammerung
All the F/A-22's Gauges to my knowledge are on it's MFDs. You'd be flying completely blind.

Unread postPosted: 01 Jan 2005, 06:46
by Cylon
Doesn't matter... weapons can still be used...

Cylon

Unread postPosted: 01 Jan 2005, 07:27
by Dammerung
I'd think it would still be very difficult. Can you still get a tone with the sidewinder? Can you still fire an AIM-7 in Flood mode, or Pitbull an AIM-120? Or, do you just have your cannon?

That's not to say, an MFD is any more susceptible to malfunction than normal Gauges. I don't trust gauges more than I do the mk1 eyeball, for sure,

Also, when you said you just place the bad guy in the same place in your HUD and fire, do you ignore your Gunsight? After all, they say deflection shooting is only 10% aiming. When I <b>play</b> IL-2 Sturmovik, I can't hit a dang thing if I use the K-14 Gyro site with the P-51D/F-80A. I just point my noise and shoot, and more often than not I hammer the bandit, but of course, distance and speed is generally much faster in a Jet vs Jet Dogfight. I've never been in a dogfight, so I don't know exactly how much they affect things.

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2005, 09:06
by cru
Even in Korea, it's only estimated now that the F-86 only had a 3-to-1 Kill ratio against the MiGs, which if you remove the Chinese and NK pilots, they're probably quite even

The whole Point I've been trying to make is that we've never seen a well piloted, well maintained, Eastern-equipped Airforce go up against the USAF in numbers. There were the MiG-15s, but as far as I can see they did pretty well against the Sabres


You forget one point: even if you believe the 10:1 ratio stated by the US or the 3: 1 stated by the Russians, there is a small detail. There were about 150-200 F-86 facing around 800-900 Migs...

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2005, 13:18
by cru
(La-7/9 was a MEAN, MEAN, MEAN Fighter, and at Low Altitude if I had to choose between that and a P-51, trust me, I'd want the La...)


If you want a "MEAN, MEAN, MEAN" Russian fighter with good low altitude behavior, then you shud check the performances of Yak 3.

If Russia had any money, we can only wonder what accomplishments they might've made aviation-wise.


Wow! I wonder... LOL

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2005, 20:35
by Dammerung
The Yak 3 is nasty and mean as well, especially Yak 3 P with 3 ShVAK 20mm Cannons. The La-5/7/9/11, IMO, are better. The normal Yak had firepower comparable to a Bf109G-6, 2 UBS 12.7mm, 1 ShVAK. What made the La's so nice was that they had lots of Cannons all in the nose. No Convergance, just shoot and watch target get pulverized.

As far as the MiG-15s go, only a 1/3rd of them were piloted by Russian pilots, and only in the Beginning. The "Honchos" were all WWII aces that had survived years against Germans with a HUGE amount of experience. After that, they sent all the Rookies to Korea. The MiG-15 had slightly higher performance with a much shorter range. That's what made the F-86 so great, was that it could go all the way into china. Wasn't a rare occurance for F-86s to buzz antung to try and get migs to come up.

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2005, 00:33
by CheckSix
It seems here are some IL2:ForgottenBattles players around....

@Cru: Check your numbers pls!

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2005, 07:49
by cru
@Cru: Check your numbers pls!

And what would be the real numbers?

Dammerung, the very good performances of the Russian fighters at low altitude was the result of the type of engageimnts on the Eastern front: tactical, small-range, low altitude. The Russians optimized the performances of their planes to these conditions.

On the other hand, in Western Europe, the fighters should go higher to attack (defend) bombers. A P 51 or a FW 190 D had to fight at altitudes that a Yak or a LaG would never had a chance to reach.

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2005, 00:54
by JR007
This was the first 29 I got to touch, another piece of "Mig" work... And this tub is Mach 2 capable with this "trash" hanging out in the slipstream...

The antenna on the tail is, “opaque yet vivid”.

YGBSMBM!

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2005, 04:08
by Dammerung
The Eastern front was almost entirely tactical. No real strategic bombing. Pe-8 was ok, Heinkels, Dorniers, and Junkers medium bombers just couldn't cut it. As for the low altitudes battles were faught at, that's why the P-39s performed so well. Russian props just didn't go very high, with the exception of the MiGs. I don't know much about the MiG-1(I-18) or MiG-9, but the MiG-3 was great above 15000 feet. Unfortunatly, there wasn't much action up there.

In western Europe, the main focus was on allied bombers, which, according to one German pilot, was a form of controlled suicide to attack. Fw190's performance dropped off High, so came the Fw190D, and eventually Kurt Tank's Ta-152... which saw almost no service. The P-47/P-51 were also strictly high altitude fighters. The 109s were a little more of a jack of all trades, but they were just too old. There are other German fighters I just don't know much about... WWII isn't really my forte when it comes to Air Combat History, I like Korea/Vietnam a bit better.

Really nice Pics JR...

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2005, 05:31
by Person
parrothead wrote: The US was first, however, to the moon. As far as I know, we're still the only ones to have gone there. Let's also look at aircraft. Name me an interceptor that could catch the SR-71. Sure, the MiG-25 can go mach 3, but for how long and will the engines be useful afterwords? The Blackbird CRUISED above mach 3. It went even faster in some cases where it was warranted and airframe and engine life after the flight were of less concern than more immediate issues.


This is a pretty interesting paragraph. I often wonder if it was the cart that led the horse or the horse that led the cart in terms of force projection strategies the USSR adopted during the Cold War.

The USSR was largely a defensive force even in it's heyday incapable of protecting as much power as rapidly as even one CVN battle group. The MIG-25 which you mentioned was, as I am sure we all know, in response to the development of the XB-70.

The MIG-21, MIG-29 relatively short range, cheap fighters able to get to the fight quickly after being directed by GCI, try to knock a few fighters down and RTB.

Russians live with an institutional paranoia of being invaded that goes as far back as Napolean. They lost almost 20 million citizens during WW2.

I'm not saying that I don't remember a time when it seemed highly plausible that a soviet shock army with T-72's would pour through the Fulda Gap and I'm also not trying to be a Soviet apologist.

What am I saying is that in broad strokes were the Russians incapable of closing the technological gap or were the pouring their energies into other areas that more closely fit with their political and military model?

The projection of conventional military force globaly to enforce a de facto pax americana never seemed to be the mirrored by the soviets military model.

They didn't need to design and create extremely sophisticated aircraft (SR-71, B-2, F-16, F-15) they just needed to create a lot of aircraft with multiple designs to fit a specific niche. Mig-25/31 point defense high altitude interceptors. Mig-29 short range, high thrust to weight ratio, manuverable intended to operate with 150km of the front lines etc. etc.

When the cold war ended and the the Russians found themselves competing with airframes such as the F-16, F/A-18, F-15E then they start hanging bombs on airframes like the Mig-29 which is a dubious bomb truck even in it's latest variants. In this case, economy not a military model is determining aircraft specifications based on perceived market need.

Sorry for the longish post and i am quite possibly incorrect in some of my assumptions. But I just thought I'd throw out there that next gen tech, bigger, better, faster, newer, may be the answer for NATA/US but it wasn't neccesarily the answer for the cold-war USSR and the belief that the sov's built a lot of junk and were incapable of producing anything better might not always be the right assumption.

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2005, 07:24
by parrothead
Person, I hear what you're saying and I can see your point. That paragraph was in response to another post here on the board boasting about Soviet technical achievemants. There were just different design philosophies at work in each country.

The projection of conventional military force globaly to enforce a de facto pax americana never seemed to be the mirrored by the soviets military model.


I'm not so sure about that. They had some pretty long range bombers and a whole bunch of fighters and ground troops. They also controlled many other satellite countries and had a pretty big navy. The biggest thing that I can see different between the US and Soviet naval forces is the lack of a Soviet carrier fleet. That's the best way to rapidly deploy a force that I know of. I know it's fiction, but a book I really liked was Tom Clancy's "Red Storm Rising."

I may be way off base here, too, but I really wanted to explain the motivation for that particular paragraph.

JR, what's up with that control actuator on the bottom of the wing? It looks like something I'd do on one of my R/C gliders! That antenna on the tail looks like someone needed a peice of metal, so they raided the equipment from their fireplace! Is it just me, or does that antenna bear a rather striking resemblance to a fireplace poker??? Last, but not least, what's up with those flat pieces of metal on the sides of the pitot tube? I'm not talking down about them, I've just never seen anything quite like them that I can recall. Does the pitot tube really need that much support?

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2005, 13:48
by Dammerung
cru wrote:WWII isn't really my forte when it comes to Air Combat History

Well that explains why do you believe that the VVS and theUSAF (actually USAAF during WWII) were comparable...


The USAAF was largely a strategic force, while the VVS was almost completely tactical at that point. They didn't have a good strategic bomber until they completely copied the B-29 and redesignated it Tu-4. They even left the Boeing insignia on the Rudder Pedals. So Honestly, they were both good at what they did, but at that point the USAAF would roll right over the VVS. Korea, on the other hand was primarily a tactical airwar, I think, IIRC, only 1.4% of UN Sorties were B-29 sorties, which the MiG-15s could easily take down.

I never said the USAAF was comparable to the VVS. I simply said that the La-9 kicked a$$. Which, it did.

Unread postPosted: 01 Feb 2005, 17:35
by dionis
I think the Mig-29 is a better platform than the F-16 by quite a shot.

Now take the latest Fulcrums.. Mig-29SMT (standard Mig-29S/Fulcrum C upgrade) with 2 new hardpoints and extra fuel or the Mig-29M/M2.. which is a whole new airframe (much more fuel, even more than the SMT) and compare those.

With new ECM (can be podded), new radar (Zhuk-M or Bars-29) easily equal to if not better than the latest APG-68V(9) or APG 80, LCD cockpit:

Image

and then a full new weapons layout (increase payload for both the SMT and M2,) with Kh-25,29 all version ground attack missiles, KAB guided bombs KAB-500 (laser, TV, GLONASS/GPS versions [KAB-500SE], Kh-31A, Kh-35E, SS-N-27 Alfa antiship missiles, the Kh-31P, Kh-58 antiradar missiles), then the AA-10 Alamo versions (ER,ET) and AA-12 (soon to be a ramjet version), and the R-73M.

The Kh-25/29 series are easily better than the AGM-65 Maverick (one is longer ranged, one has a 3x to 6x bigger warhead)

The KAB bombs are easily comparable to the GBUs that the Americans make.

The antishipping weapons can't even be compared, the AGM-84 Harpoon is a joke. The Mig-29SMT/M2 gets the medim long range supersonic Kh-31A, the subsonic long range Kh-35E, or the insanely powerful SS-N-27 Alfa.. of which it can carry 3. (350Kg warhead, 350Km range, subsonic to supersonic flight profile -- hi lo)

The Kh-31P is also about 3x the range of the AGM-88 HARM, with a larger warhead.

It might even be able to carry the Kh-59M/MEh which is a 120KM/285KM long range TV guided missile, with a 280Kg warhead..

So don't post rubbish about AWACs-less Mig-29As that were shot down of Mig-21s that were lost to F-15s or F-16s...

Compare things relatively..

Oh... and I almost forgot, the Mig-29SMT/M2 is also CHEAPER than the F-16C/E. So you'll get more of them on your runways ($30-32 mil vs $42/50 mil)

Unread postPosted: 02 Feb 2005, 04:13
by Cylon
Na... Mig pilots still suck... Call me, we'll fight

Cylon

Unread postPosted: 02 Feb 2005, 04:19
by ACSheva
Ohhhhhhhh...

Can I watch?

BTW, why don't we start a 'pilot versus pilot' forum? Obviously many of these posts are going off track, and somehow end up being pilot vs pilot threads. This is a jet vs jet forum, so let's keep it that way, it's more informative...

Shev

Unread postPosted: 02 Feb 2005, 04:26
by parrothead
Cylon, I promise I'll be really quiet if you let me ride :D ! We can take the station wagon :) ! I'd LOVE to see this first hand!!!

Unread postPosted: 02 Feb 2005, 05:41
by Cylon
I have successfully brought the internet (and the fighter community) to a new low...pilot vs pilot forum??? sh*t, let's do BFM with UAV's while we're at it... I am ashamed of myself.

Cylon

Unread postPosted: 02 Feb 2005, 08:11
by parrothead
Cylon, you need not worry :D ! I think everyone here is starting to realize that any aircraft can win against any other depending on which pilot is in which plane!

I can guarantee you that if you put me, my girlfriend, and my parents in Vipers and Cylon, STBYGAIN, and Gums in F-5s, you'll have some great gun camera footage of Vipers in the crosshairs :lol: !!!

Cylon, I promise I'll be really quiet if you let me ride :D ! We can take the station wagon :) ! I'd LOVE to see this first hand!!!


Just for clarification, I was talking about Cylons post:

Na... Mig pilots still suck... Call me, we'll fight

Cylon

Unread postPosted: 03 Feb 2005, 03:48
by Cylon
I can tell you as a former AT-38C driver that I have some good footage of F-15's/16's and 18's in the HUD. ANYONE can get rolled in on un-observed, regardless of your sensors... Hell, one of the guys in our squadron had a bit of F-22 tape.

"Your jet can be bad-ass... you can be average.... guess what. you are probably below average in the jet...."

Cylon

Unread postPosted: 03 Feb 2005, 05:52
by flanker_hater
Dionis, you made some good points about the MiG-29 SMT but how many countries have this? Russia and that's about it. Most countries are flying "A" models with a few flying "C" models. So if you're going to do in depth contrast of jets, you need to get specific with which model your talking about or the conversation will never end.

Unread postPosted: 03 Feb 2005, 18:29
by dionis
This conversation wasn't about countries but about Mig-29 vs F-16... aircraft families basically.

So people back there started to compares Mig-29As to F-16Cs and I wanted to level things out.

And even if most countries are operating the old models, there's always the Mig-29SMT upgrade or you can purchase the Mig-29M/M2 models..

But that's irrelevant.

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2005, 17:25
by kacman
Comparison between the two beasts in terms of raw performance is not that much really. Parrothead is right, it depends on who rode it. I've seen some really, sometimes the Viper won, sometimes the MiG won but my bet is still with the Viper!

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2005, 17:38
by Pumpkin
kacman, I guess keeping the comparions within the technical/specification ground is the best the discussion can be conducted. If we were to bring in the intangible conditions such as pilot & maintenance qualities, training opportunities, etc. and the availability of support platforms (AWACS), it is really a Air Force vs Air Force thread.

cheers,

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2005, 18:07
by kacman
Yes, you are right pumpkin but the comparison I mentioned was on the aircraft peformance, 1 v 1 to be exact.

Both are 9G fighters. but the Viper (C-50/52) is so sleek and fast. after the 1st break turn, their speed is pretty much the same, but the viper regains its speed much faster. Fulcrum has 2° alpha advantage than the Viper but that doesn't mean much. As it is (lets stick in 1v1 scenario) Fulcrum is having some edge with its schlemm archer, but the jhmd+9x is already around (in small numbers, but growing), a new BFM spectrum needs to be written again..

Perhaps DIRCM may solve the problem when being shot by an AIM-9X I dunno...

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2005, 06:30
by parrothead
Hey guys, I found a really interesting article on just this subject from Code One magazine.

Here's the link:

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/1995/articles/jul_95/july2a_95.html

A couple of excerpts:

"The Fulcrum doesn't have the crisp movements of an F-16," Sparrow continued. "You need to be an octopus in the MiG-29 to work the avionics. Those German pilots have it tough. Just to get a simple lock on and fire a missile may take a half dozen hands-off switches or so. We can do the same with a flick of the thumb while we are looking at the HUD. F-16 pilots also have a significant sight advantage. A couple of hundred feet advantage can make a difference in air-to-air combat; the actual difference is more significant than that. MiG-29 pilots have a tough time checking their six o'clock. Their canopy rail is higher. They can lose sight of us even when flying BFM."


"Besides visibility, I expected better turning performance," McCoy continued. "The MiG-29 is not a continuous nine-g machine like the F-16. I tried to do some things I normally do in an F-16. For example, I tried a high-AOA guns jink. I got the Fulcrum down to about 180 knots and pulled ninety degrees of bank and started pulling heavy g's. I then went to idle and added a little rudder to get the jet to roll with ailerons. The pilot took control away from me in the middle of these maneuvers because the airplane was about to snap. I use the F-16's quick roll rate like this all the time with no problem.

"I also tried to do a 250-knot loop," McCoy recalled. "I went to mil power and stabilized. As I went nose high, I asked for afterburner. I had to hamfist the airplane a little as I approached the top of the loop. I was still in afterburner at about 15,000 feet and the jet lost control. The nose started slicing left and right. I let go of the stick and the airplane righted itself and went down. It couldn't finish the loop. In the F-16, we can complete an entire loop at 250 knots."


Like Sparrow, McCoy climbed out of the MiG-29 cockpit feeling better about the F-16, especially its automation. "The biggest instrument in the MiG-29 cockpit is the clock," McCoy said. "It took me a while to understand this. But a large clock is needed to keep track of the time after launching a missile. When they launch a missile, they have to consider their shot range and the type of missile they are shooting and estimate how long it will take to impact before firing. When they take a five-mile Alamo shot, for example, they have to calculate mentally the time required for the missile to reach its target so their radar can illuminate it for the duration. They fire and watch until they know when they can turn away. That procedure is a real disadvantage if they're flying against someone who shot a missile at them at about the same time.


"Before coming here, some of our pilots may have thought of the MiG's helmet-mounted sight as an end-all to a BFM fight," explained Lt. Col. Gary West, commander of the 510th. "We have found that it is not as lethal as we had expected.

We encountered some positions-particularly in an across-the-circle shot or a high-low shot and in a slow-speed fight-where a Fulcrum pilot can look up forty-five degrees and take a shot while his nose is still off. That capability has changed some of the pilots' ideas on how they should approach a MiG-29 in a neutral fight. Below 200 knots, the MiG-29 has incredible nose-pointing capability down to below 100 knots. The F-16, however, enjoys an advantage in the 200 knot-plus regime. At higher speeds, we can power above them to go to the vertical. And our turn rate is significantly better. By being patient and by keeping airspeed up around 325 knots, an F-16 can bring the MiG-29 to its nose. But the pilot must still be careful of the across-the-circle shot with that helmet-mounted sight.

"We have done very well on neutral BFM engagements," continued West. "We have tried single and two-circle fights, depending on how much lead turn we had at the merge. Without exception, we have been able to use finesse or power to an advantage after at least a couple of turns. I don't think any F-16 pilot has gotten defensive and stayed there. As always, and this applies to any airplane, success depends on who is flying."

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2005, 17:35
by kubam4a1
I think the MiG-29A is better than the F-16A/B. It has some BVR capabilities, and R-73 missles when we have dogfight.

But when we put AMRAMM on F-16 (I am speaking about either older C/D versions, or A/B ADF, or A/B MLU), Viper will always beat MiG-29A. But newer MiGs (for example MiG-29SMT) are comparable to older F-16C/D (Block 20/25/30/32) and SMT2 with Zuk-M radar is significantly better that some F-16C/D. Only the F-16C/D with APG-68V9XM can beat every Fulcrum. F-16 has also got more A2G abilities (larger number of weapons etc.)

Unread postPosted: 10 Feb 2005, 01:49
by ACSheva
I dont think that you can compare the "old"C/D models with the new SMT Mig at all. They are very different airframes. Their SMT is equiped with a better radar, and also has more weapons (Kh-25,29 ground attack missiles, guided bombs KAB-500 -Kh-31A,B, Kh-35E,antiship missiles,antiradar missiles, and AA-10 Alamo, AA-12,and also the R-73M. Also many of those weapons do have a longer range, than the 16's arsenal.

And still the HMS capability on the 29 is a pretty clever idea, it can be very lethal if the Mig driver is a good one. In my opinion their 29 does have an edge on the 16.

Shev

Unread postPosted: 10 Feb 2005, 09:32
by kubam4a1
I think it depends on SMT's version. If you compare SMT-2 with Block 30, MiG would win the fight. But, the opponent is the most commonly used SMT-1 (without Zhuk radar, it has only the modernized N-019) it's quite comparable to "older" C/D models.

Unread postPosted: 11 Feb 2005, 21:29
by EriktheF16462
Israel downed 2 Syrian MiGs last September over sea
Special to worldtribune.com
Friday, February 11, 2005

Diplomatic sources said Israel Air Force F-16 multi-role fighters intercepted and downed two Syrian MiG-29 fighter-jets last year. The sources said the dogfight took place in September 2004 over the eastern Mediterranean Sea.

This was the first engagement between Israeli and Syrian fighter-jets since the 1980s. The sources said the air battle took place when Israel Air Force fighter-jets buzzed the Syrian city of Latakia, a port used by Iran for the shipment of weapons to Hizbullah.

The Washington-based Reform Party of Syria first provided details of the Israeli-Syrian dogfight. RPS said the air battle took place on Sept. 14, 2004, adding that both downed pilots were rescued by Syrian military helicopters, Middle East Newsline reported.

RPS, quoting a European source, said the Israeli fighter-jets used an Israeli-origin Python-4 air-to-air missile to down one of the MiG-29s. The other Syrian MiG-29 was shot down by a U.S.-origin AIM-9M Sidewinder.

The pilots of the MiG-29s were identified by RPS as Maj. Arshad Midhat Mubarak and Capt. Ahmad Al Khatib.

Diplomatic sources said the Syrian losses led President Bashar Assad to accelerate efforts to procure advanced anti-aircraft systems from Russia.

Syria has requested a range of anti-aircraft systems, including the SA-18, TOR-M1, S-300PMU2 and the S-400 systems.

The most likely Russian sale to Damascus is that of the SA-18, the sources said. They said Russia would supply the first SA-18 short-range systems ? either directly or through a third country ? within several months.

In January, Russia and Syria ? overriding objections from Israel and the United States ? agreed on the sale of the SA-18 to Damascus. Russian officials said the sale of the SA-18 would not violate any international arms agreement.

"Russia has cooperated with Syria for decades, and my country is convinced that Syria has a strong right to get defensive weapons," Russian ambassador in Tunisia Aleksei Tserub said.

Source: http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribun ... 05625.html


Uh, how about this? Two more to the Viper.

Unread postPosted: 11 Feb 2005, 23:18
by Pumpkin
EriktheF-16462,

I don't remember reading this claim by the IDF/AF. I did a search and Google only closest return leads to the mentioned Reform Party of Syria (RPS) site. And the article could not be located under the September 2004 archives. Do we have alternate reports on the incident? :shock:

Unread postPosted: 11 Feb 2005, 23:44
by DeepSpace
Pumpkin, you can go here. Note the right side, some words would be highlighted.

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2005, 00:02
by Pumpkin
DeepSpace wrote:Pumpkin, you can go here. Note the right side, some words would be highlighted.


Thanks DeepSpace, by any chance, we have report from alternate sources?

cheers,

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2005, 01:41
by ACSheva
A concrete link would be great, to confirm it.

Thats great news. I just wonder how many minutes those 29 drivers had in the actual cockpit. The Jewish pilots as we know are some of the worlds finest, those Syrians would of never had a chance against the Jews even if they were in a supped up 37-22.Just shows that profieciency in a jet will help, to win the battle. Still this does not take anything away from the 29 as a whole jet.

Have a great day boys

Shev

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2005, 12:07
by DeepSpace

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2005, 13:31
by Pumpkin
Thanks again DeepSpace! Sounds like a recon run. I guess this is asking too much, but I would really like to read about the details,...the mission, the loadout, the encounter etc. Then again, now that it is de-classified, hopefully IAF magazine will have the full report. :wink:

cheers,

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2005, 13:38
by kubam4a1
I don't understand how F-16 could beat MiG-29 in close-combat. Either Syrian pilots are poor-skilled, or Israelis are very well (I think so), or they didn't have R-73s with helmet-mounted sights, or the tactical situation was very bad. Python-4 is quite comparable to R-73 but AIM-9M is much worse...

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2005, 16:32
by toan
The victory of dogfight depends on many factors, and I think IAF's F-16s have the advantage in most of them:

1. The numbers: 2 versus 2, equal.

2. The size of the fighters: F-16 is smaller. During the dogfight, the fighter with smaller size is usually harder to be found and located.

3. The training and the skill of the pilots: the IAF should be much better.

4. The missile and HMD for dogfight: the Isreal's HMD and Python IV has been better than the Russian HMS and R-73, and the HMS & R-73 that the Russia sold to Syria should be the down-grading ones, which extended the gap of the SRAAM's capability between the F-16s of IAF and the Mig-29s of Syrian AF.

5. When the HMS + R-73 is a powerful system of dog-fight for MIG-29. on the other hand, the design of the basic MIG-29's cockpit is poor. After locking the target, the pilot of basic MIG-29 has to switch on eleven bottons before shooting the R-73, and this reduces the advantage of HMS + R-73 greatly.

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2005, 19:40
by parrothead
kubam4a1, see the last post on page seven of this thread. The article covers all of your points and explains how the helmet mounted sight and R-73 aren't the end of BFM and why the Viper drivers aren't worried about the MiG-29.

toan wrote:5. When the HMS + R-73 is a powerful system of dog-fight for MIG-29. on the other hand, the design of the basic MIG-29's cockpit is poor. After locking the target, the pilot of basic MIG-29 has to switch on eleven bottons before shooting the R-73, and this reduces the advantage of HMS + R-73 greatly.


Great point toan! I don't know about you, but I'd rather keep my eyes on the enemy and my hands on the throttle and stick :wink: !

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2005, 22:00
by kubam4a1
There's written: " As always, and this applies to any airplane, success depends on who is flying." And I think so. F-15C may be better than MiG (especially when it uses Python 4 and HMS) but MiG-29, if it's flown by good pilot, may be very dangerous to every fighter w/o either AIM-9X or Python-5 or AIM-132...

Re: Israeli F-16s downed two Syrian MiG-29s last September

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2005, 23:38
by Tam
Oh dear. World Tribune strikes again! This is not a reliable source of information. It appears that it was either a lax day for news at World Tribune or a jounalist will be experiencing a one way conversation with the editor.

Here is the original story as it appeared a few years back. It appears World Tribune has changed the date from "14 September 2001" to "14 September 2004". Note the exact same names of the Syrian Pilots used. Don't be fooled by World Tribune and also by the original story. The original story is dubious and was linked into a 9/11 based accident/incident. Very dubious.

"The Knife Fight

By September 2001, the situation detoriated further, especially so after the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, which made both the SyAAF and the IDF/AF extremely nervous. Exactly this provoked the so far heaviest incident in the recent history of Syrian-Israeli aerial clashes.

On 14 September 2001, an IDF/AF Boeing 707, equipped for SIGINT-reconnaissance, was on a mission along the Lebanese and Syrian coast, collecting Syrian defense informations, monitoring foremost telecommunications and radar tags in the Tarabulus (Tripolis) and Hamidiyali areas. The plane was underway at 520 knots and 30.000ft, and escorted by two F-15Cs, at least one of which carried the newest Python Mk.IV air-to-air missiles.

The IDF/AF flew similar missions in the area at least twice a week for quite some time, and ? as usually ? the SyAAF scrambled two interceptors to shadow the ?ferret?: the Syrians would always monitor the operations of Israeli reconnaissance aircraft, sending either MiG-23s from Abu ad-Duhor AB, or ? less often ? MiG-29s from Tsaykal, forward deployed at al-Ladhiqiyah, would get the honor to fly such missions over the Mediterranean Sea. So far, the Syrians have always taken care to stay at least some 20 kilometers away from Israeli planes, and never showed any interest in attacking the Israelis.

But, on this day, at 0914hrs, the two MiG-29s sent to shadow the Boeing 707 suddenly turned towards the Israeli aircraft and increased their speed. For the pilots of the two Israeli F-15s in escort this was not only surprising, but also an obviously aggressive maneuver. Due to the short range, there was no time to ask questions: the MiGs turned towards the Israeli planes in aggressive manner, and could open fire any moment.

The leader of the F-15-pair ordered the Boeing to instantly distance from the area and engage ECM systems, and then called his ground control for help and reinforcements (as a result of this call, six more F-15s and six F-16s were scrambled, along a single Boeing 707 tanker). Moment later, he warned the Syrian MiG-29 pilots on the international distress frequency to change their course. As the MiGs failed to response, the Eagles moved into attack.

One of the F-15s attacked the lead Syrian MiG-29 from above, closing directly out of the rising sun, and launching a single Python Mk.IV from an off-boresight angle of 40 degrees. The missile guided properly and hit the MiG above the left wing, immediately setting it afire. The other MiG-29 banked hard right, apparently heading back to Syria, but it was too late, as the second F-15 was already too close: the pilot launched a single AIM-9M Sidewinder from a range of only 500 meters. The missile slammed into the target, crashing it into the sea.

Both Syrian pilots, Maj. Arshad Midhat Mubarak, and Capt. Ahmad al-Khatab, ejected safely and were recovered by Syrian ships. The names of the involved Israeli F-15-pilots remain unknown."

Tam

RE: Re: Israeli F-16s downed two Syrian MiG-29s last Septem

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2005, 03:26
by parrothead
Thanks for the correction, Tam :D !

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2005, 03:59
by renatohm
I will use here Sun Tzu's wise words: "If you know yourself and your enemy, you shall not fear the outcome of 100 battles. If you know yourself but not your enemy, then you will loose a battle for each victory. However, if you don't know yourself neither your enemy, then you will loose all of your battles."

Then, the Fulcrum is good at A and B, the Viper is good at X and Y... Any pilot correct me if I am wrong, but fighting an aircraft where it has advantages is halfway to death.

Cylon mentioned that the T-38 was able to defeat even the F/A-22 in a dogfight. And a single F/A-22, using its strong points - stealth, sensors and supercruise - was able to defeat 5 of the modern aircraft with better records, the F-15, in less than 3 min :!: And that where the Eagle has its edge, long range battle!

So, overall, the aircraft per se, not including avionics, weapons or pilot skills, the Fulcrum is more agile at some aspects and inferior at others. A good Viper pilot will refrain to fight when the Fulcrum has the edge, and will keep the battle on his/her own 'territory'.

In a gunfight, maybe the Viper cannot beat the Fulcrum, due to the LRMTS (Laser Rangefinder/Marked Targets Seeker). It allowns very precise rangefinding, far better than the radar. Also, the 30mm gun of the Fulcrum fires bigger shells, and I'm sure the Viper cannot survive to even a couple of them. The 20mm shells are smaller, and the accuracy of the gun is smaller, but the astonishing fire rate might counter these disadvantages. But the Viper has only 1 engine, so a stall means death, while the Fulcrum has 2, which enhances survivability. To add complexity to this little mental effort, the Viper has more fuel to burn...

Using modern WVR (Within Visual Range) HOBS (High Off-BoreSight) missiles + HMS (Helmet-Mounted Sights), the victory belongs to the pilot who sees first (which usually means fire first).

Surely, the Russian fighters' man-machine interface is cumbersome, but the pilots are used to it, and can do all functions without looking to the controls, then it might not be a real disadvantage in combat.

In BVR (Beyond Visual Range), the Viper wins, except if the publicly stated ranges are true - some 50 km for the AMRAAM, some 90 km for the RVV-AE). Newer Fulcrums have better radars, and can be vectored by AWACS, MiG-31 or Flankers, which further enhances its BVR capabilities.

In the air-to-surface arena, the Viper has tons of awesome weapons, but Fulcrum's options are increasing. Some Fulcrum's weapons are better than Viper's, others are not, but the JDAM is an excellent PGM (Precision Guided Munition), with a very good precision and relatively low cost.

As for the pilots... well, if any, only the Israelis see more action and/or have more flight hours than USAF nowadays. And nobody has the support planes USAF does.

So, if the fight is of Fulcrums (or any other fighter) from any air force, except Russia, they will win. And I hope we never see a US vs. Russia batlle...

Non-USAF Vipers vs. non-RuAF Fulcrums would be interesting to see, if from 'equivalent' versions, because an early export Fulcrum would be a sitting duck to an AMRAAM-capable Viper. But a Viper using only AIM-9L/M would be severely punished by Fulcrums using the R-73+HMS combo.

RuAF Fulcrum vs. a non-USAF Viper would also be nice to see, specially if Russia uses the latest RVV-AE (R-7, or 'AMRAAMSki')... Specially if the Viper has no AMRAAMs.

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2005, 12:25
by CheckSix
I can tell you RVV-AE range is about 45 to 55 km. AIM-120 seems to have the same range.
However, there is a RAM-Jet R-77M planned, which might have some 90km range.
AIM-120 maneuvrebility is somewhat questionable: small fins, no vector trust.
I guess, the european "Meteor" has the edge, having 110km range.

Unread postPosted: 16 Mar 2005, 21:26
by agilefalcon16
renatohm wrote:RuAF Fulcrum vs. a non-USAF Viper would also be nice to see, specially if Russia uses the latest RVV-AE (R-7, or 'AMRAAMSki')... Specially if the Viper has no AMRAAMs.


So basically, you want to see an updated Fulcrum vs. a handicapped Viper fight, right?

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2005, 18:00
by renatohm
agilefalcon16 wrote:
renatohm wrote:RuAF Fulcrum vs. a non-USAF Viper would also be nice to see, specially if Russia uses the latest RVV-AE (R-7, or 'AMRAAMSki')... Specially if the Viper has no AMRAAMs.


So basically, you want to see an updated Fulcrum vs. a handicapped Viper fight, right?


Why not? Many people have mentioned updated Vipers vs. handicapped Fulcrums... Why not the opposite?

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2005, 18:16
by parrothead
Why not? Many people have mentioned updated Vipers vs. handicapped Fulcrums... Why not the opposite?


Handicapped fulcrum? How?

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2005, 13:03
by CheckSix
yeahh,

the former german flucrums with derated engines and avionics, that represented the late 80s.

Unread postPosted: 06 May 2005, 02:53
by toan

Unread postPosted: 06 May 2005, 11:54
by Pumpkin


toan, it is a good read on the 7 parts article. Though the RTAF made a disclaimer on the source is obtained from the internet, I thought the mention of the writer should be in proper. (By Easy Tartar, [source])

cheers,

Re: MiG-29 vs F-16

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2005, 10:35
by LebaneseAce
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?


The MiG has better agility, better armament at close range (The Archer missiles!), it's bound to be a bit faster than the F-16.
  • MiG-29 Top Speed : 2,3 Mach
  • F-16 Top Speed : 2,05 Mach.
Source: <a href="http://www.milavia.net/users/fighterjets/aircraft/f16_fighting_falcon.php" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">milavia.com</a>

But it's sad that Mikoyan Gurevich didn't install a bigger fuel tank to the MiG. Wasn't it a interceptor, or was it a Low Cost Fighter?

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2005, 15:57
by parrothead
I'm bringing this back because it comes from the pilots of the different aircraft in question. It's a long thread, so I know how hard it can be to read the whole thing if you're new :wink: . I believe these guys. My $$$ is still on the Viper :thumb: !

parrothead wrote:Hey guys, I found a really interesting article on just this subject from Code One magazine.

Here's the link:

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/1995/articles/jul_95/july2a_95.html

A couple of excerpts:

"The Fulcrum doesn't have the crisp movements of an F-16," Sparrow continued. "You need to be an octopus in the MiG-29 to work the avionics. Those German pilots have it tough. Just to get a simple lock on and fire a missile may take a half dozen hands-off switches or so. We can do the same with a flick of the thumb while we are looking at the HUD. F-16 pilots also have a significant sight advantage. A couple of hundred feet advantage can make a difference in air-to-air combat; the actual difference is more significant than that. MiG-29 pilots have a tough time checking their six o'clock. Their canopy rail is higher. They can lose sight of us even when flying BFM."


"Besides visibility, I expected better turning performance," McCoy continued. "The MiG-29 is not a continuous nine-g machine like the F-16. I tried to do some things I normally do in an F-16. For example, I tried a high-AOA guns jink. I got the Fulcrum down to about 180 knots and pulled ninety degrees of bank and started pulling heavy g's. I then went to idle and added a little rudder to get the jet to roll with ailerons. The pilot took control away from me in the middle of these maneuvers because the airplane was about to snap. I use the F-16's quick roll rate like this all the time with no problem.

"I also tried to do a 250-knot loop," McCoy recalled. "I went to mil power and stabilized. As I went nose high, I asked for afterburner. I had to hamfist the airplane a little as I approached the top of the loop. I was still in afterburner at about 15,000 feet and the jet lost control. The nose started slicing left and right. I let go of the stick and the airplane righted itself and went down. It couldn't finish the loop. In the F-16, we can complete an entire loop at 250 knots."


Like Sparrow, McCoy climbed out of the MiG-29 cockpit feeling better about the F-16, especially its automation. "The biggest instrument in the MiG-29 cockpit is the clock," McCoy said. "It took me a while to understand this. But a large clock is needed to keep track of the time after launching a missile. When they launch a missile, they have to consider their shot range and the type of missile they are shooting and estimate how long it will take to impact before firing. When they take a five-mile Alamo shot, for example, they have to calculate mentally the time required for the missile to reach its target so their radar can illuminate it for the duration. They fire and watch until they know when they can turn away. That procedure is a real disadvantage if they're flying against someone who shot a missile at them at about the same time.


"Before coming here, some of our pilots may have thought of the MiG's helmet-mounted sight as an end-all to a BFM fight," explained Lt. Col. Gary West, commander of the 510th. "We have found that it is not as lethal as we had expected.

We encountered some positions-particularly in an across-the-circle shot or a high-low shot and in a slow-speed fight-where a Fulcrum pilot can look up forty-five degrees and take a shot while his nose is still off. That capability has changed some of the pilots' ideas on how they should approach a MiG-29 in a neutral fight. Below 200 knots, the MiG-29 has incredible nose-pointing capability down to below 100 knots. The F-16, however, enjoys an advantage in the 200 knot-plus regime. At higher speeds, we can power above them to go to the vertical. And our turn rate is significantly better. By being patient and by keeping airspeed up around 325 knots, an F-16 can bring the MiG-29 to its nose. But the pilot must still be careful of the across-the-circle shot with that helmet-mounted sight.

"We have done very well on neutral BFM engagements," continued West. "We have tried single and two-circle fights, depending on how much lead turn we had at the merge. Without exception, we have been able to use finesse or power to an advantage after at least a couple of turns. I don't think any F-16 pilot has gotten defensive and stayed there. As always, and this applies to any airplane, success depends on who is flying."

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2005, 16:28
by ACSheva
I was still in afterburner at about 15,000 feet and the jet lost control.


This pilot doesn't sound like a good pilot, "loosing control".

"In a low-speed fight, fighting the Fulcrum is similar to fighting an F-18 Hornet," explained Capt. Mike McCoy of the 510th. "But the Fulcrum has a thrust advantage over the Hornet. An F-18 can really crank its nose around if you get into a slow-speed fight, but it has to lose altitude to regain the energy, which allows us to get on top of them. The MiG has about the same nose authority at slow speeds, but it can regain energy much faster. Plus the MiG pilots have that forty-five-degree cone in front of them into which they can fire an Archer and eat you up."


The engines have been extremely reliable," commented Raubbach. "It goes from afterburner to military power, without problems, at various speeds and under varying g conditions. I can feel the difference detuning makes only at higher speeds. We have many spare engines. We had a shortage at one time, but we now have a big supply. Engines do not represent a shortcoming for us."


If you take a new F-16, and put it up against a Russian SMT, I don't really see any advantage in either of jets. Both are very capable.

ACSheva

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2005, 20:06
by parrothead
Quote:

I was still in afterburner at about 15,000 feet and the jet lost control.



This pilot doesnt sound like a good pilot, "loosing control".


"I also tried to do a 250-knot loop," McCoy recalled. "I went to mil power and stabilized. As I went nose high, I asked for afterburner. I had to hamfist the airplane a little as I approached the top of the loop. I was still in afterburner at about 15,000 feet and the jet lost control. The nose started slicing left and right. I let go of the stick and the airplane righted itself and went down. It couldn't finish the loop. In the F-16, we can complete an entire loop at 250 knots."


Shev, he was trying a maneuver - a 250kt. loop in the MiG that he can do in the F-16. The MiG couldn't do what the F-16 could. Not a bad pilot, just a jet that wouldn't perform the same maneuver.

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2005, 20:28
by ACSheva
But do you seriously think that the 29 cannot do what the 16 can? Im pretty sure it can. Its just probably that the 16 pilot wasnt very experienced in the Russian machine, or he didnt try hard enough. Like I said I love both the 16, and the 29s. Very capable jets. :D :lol:

Sheva

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2005, 20:33
by parrothead
Not doubting that the MiG is capable of shooting down another aircraft, but I just don't think it can do a 250 knot loop like the F-16 :wink: .

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2005, 21:01
by ACSheva
Maybe, when you take the weight of the both jets. the 29 is a bigger jet all around. But in the Novalogic 29 game, it can do a loop going about 175knts. :D

Sheva

Unread postPosted: 05 Jun 2005, 06:36
by Northax
So, this is written proof, not just inexperienced people theorizing about these 2 jets' capabilities. The Mig-29 is more agile at low speeds, but the F-16 is more agile at higher speeds. So, which do you think is better in battle? Going fast? Or slow? I think the obvious answer is: Going fast is better for actual battle. Now, if the F-16 is more agile at higher speeds, that means, it's the better jet for actual war. Case closed. :)

If we want slow aerobatic jets for airshows, then we (the U.S.) can whip out the X-29 jet, F-16 MATV, F-18 HARV, HiMAT, etc. and impress the viewers; however, we like building our jets for REAL COMBAT, to save lives, and take out the enemies at the same time. :D

Unread postPosted: 09 Jun 2005, 08:49
by LebaneseAce
Well.. I think that the latest MiG-29 will prevail.. It is extremely manueverable, and when we are talking about the armament it can fire the 'Archer' missile. It is the deadliest and most accurate short-range missile ever made.

Unread postPosted: 09 Jun 2005, 14:56
by Viperalltheway
Not sure at all.. the 9X has better off-boresight capability - 90deg, it is even designed for more than that -. Pk in tests has been close to 100%. And its range is much longer, giving it a short BVR capability.

And it's not the only one that is equivalent or better than the archer.

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2007, 10:24
by Pavel5150
TC wrote:I love listening to the horse$hit that these MiG and Sukhoi drivers spit out on the "Discovery Wings" documentaries. You might as well write a script and have each pilot say the same thing, over and over again. "Oh, our MiG-29, or Su-37 can out-manuever the F-15 or F-16." "We can do this, that, or the other better than the F-15 or F-16." It's funny though...How many kills of American fighters do they have to show for it? I'll tell you how many. Doughnut baby. Goose Eggs. Balls. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Nil. The Eagle and Viper have a combined near 170-0 kill ratio against all Russian-built fighters. Face it folks. We have the better fighters. We have the better pilots, which is the true key here. It really isn't the machine, it's the man flying it, although I would want every advantage a great piece of equipment can give me. Now you can argue about what foreign unit got a simulated kill against an F-15 or F-16 in some horse hockey exercise, but that really doesn't mean squat. Put your money where your mouth is. Put up or shut up. If you get a real, no bull$hit kill against an American fighter, then that is some validation for your performance. But again, the MiG-29 has never achieved a true kill against an American-built fighter, so forgive me if the plane's career combat record doesn't impress me. Sorry if I stepped on any toes there, but religion according to TC dictates that ABC v. XYZ is settled on the battlefield, not at some DACT exercise.

Beers and MiGs (whodathunkit?) were made to be pounded!


Why do Americans get so upset when they see technology that equals or betters what they have. I have no flight experience in F15/16 but many thousands of hours in Mig29 Suk27/and variants and have recently had the good fortune to fly Mig29OVT. The F16/15 ar very fine aircraft with good combat records against countries with pilots that cannot fly and it fills me with sadness to see these planes being flown by such people. On any given day I know what my equipment is capable of and I am quite sure that any American pilot would not want to meet me or one of my fellow pilots in the same piece of sky on a bad day. The match would be more than even except in an OVT. I consider this the most manouverable plane that is currently flying. As for doing a 250Kt loop in a Mig 29? We do this in the OVT at Zero airspeed or at 350kts, it makes no difference. The F16 should turn a lot quicker because it is much smaller but I dont think there is a difference with good pilots. And please remember the Mig 29 is similar in performance to the F/A18 and not the F15/16. As such there is nothing else that compares to it. F16 is a lightweight fighter F15 Air superiority and compares to the Suk27. All are awsome planes and I would fly any of them on any day. :)

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2007, 11:07
by Raptor_One
Hi Pavel,

I haven't seen any posts from Russian pilots here. Excellent! I'm pretty sure late model MiG-29s (without thrust vectoring of course) will turn quicker than the F-16 under most situations. Late model F-16s have gotten quite heavy. That being said, they put a multiaxis thrust vectoring nozzle on the F-16 once too (F-16 VISTA/MATV). Had they developed that engine for the F-16 beyond the prototype stage, you'd have some F-16s pulling circus stunts like the MiG-29 OVT at airshows too. Not just that, but thrust vectoring would give the F-16 the ability to fly at higher angles of attack during normal combat maneuvers beyond its 25 degree limit. At least I think that would be the case given the thrust vectoring nozzles ability to add enough downward pitching moment to prevent the F-16 from going into a deep stall above 29-30 degrees angle of attack.

As for American aircraft flown by American pilots engaging Russian aircraft flown by Russian pilots... that's rumored to have happened during the Korean War. But it will be a dark day on Earth if we have a conflict where Russian and American pilots are openly engaged in air combat. It's generally not a good idea for two countries with lots of nuclear weapons to get into direct conflict of any kind. That's why there were so many proxy wars during the cold war. Pavel... I hope you never find out how well you'd do against American aircraft flown by American pilots.

Unread postPosted: 11 Jan 2007, 09:30
by HunterKiller
Pavel5150 wrote: . The F16/15 ar very fine aircraft with good combat records against countries with pilots that cannot fly and it fills me with sadness to see these planes being flown by such people. On any given day I know what my equipment is capable of and I am quite sure that any American pilot would not want to meet me or one of my fellow pilots in the same piece of sky on a bad day.


Salute! I hope we are talking about real RuAF pilot.

There were two actual air combats where Soviet pilots took part. First was Korean War, where most of kills were made by WWII Soviet airmen who's expertise was out of question. But in later stages, using regular pilot school
graduates, US Sabres achived kill ration over 10:1. Interesting thing is that Soviets still claim number of victories that is far larger than number of US jets in theater. US and Soviet jets were more or less equal.

Second air combat happened in 1970 between 8 Israeli Mirage III-s and 4 F-4E Phantoms vs 24 MiG-21MFs at Suez. Soviets had ground radar control support while Israelis did not. Most of combat occured in dogfight range, where MiG-21MF has far better chances than Israelis.

The result was 5 MiG-s shot down (4 in combat and 1 crashed later because of battle damage). Soviets did not achieve a single gun hit! If Israelis were allowed to pursuit Soviets further - I think there would have been some 10 kills, because after some minutes in combat Soviets lost all battle order and started to escape the battle.

So what you say? Again "arab pilots who can not fly"?

The last combat proved well for Egyptians who were constantly accused by soviet advisors about bad skills using good weapons. In real combat Russians proved themself no better

During some months in 1970, entire crack soviet MiG-21 regiment (that is about 30 planes) accounted only 1 IAF Skyhawk damaged and later was revealed that nine pilots lost their lives (that means that there were other combat losses as well).

Unread postPosted: 11 Jan 2007, 10:06
by Pavel5150
HunterKiller wrote:
Pavel5150 wrote: . The F16/15 ar very fine aircraft with good combat records against countries with pilots that cannot fly and it fills me with sadness to see these planes being flown by such people. On any given day I know what my equipment is capable of and I am quite sure that any American pilot would not want to meet me or one of my fellow pilots in the same piece of sky on a bad day.


Salute! I hope we are talking about real RuAF pilot.

There were two actual air combats where Soviet pilots took part. First was Korean War, where most of kills were made by WWII Soviet airmen who's expertise was out of question. But in later stages, using regular pilot school
graduates, US Sabres achived kill ration over 10:1. Interesting thing is that Soviets still claim number of victories that is far larger than number of US jets in theater. US and Soviet jets were more or less equal.

Second air combat happened in 1970 between 8 Israeli Mirage III-s and 4 F-4E Phantoms vs 24 MiG-21MFs at Suez. Soviets had ground radar control support while Israelis did not. Most of combat occured in dogfight range, where MiG-21MF has far better chances than Israelis.

The result was 5 MiG-s shot down (4 in combat and 1 crashed later because of battle damage). Soviets did not achieve a single gun hit! If Israelis were allowed to pursuit Soviets further - I think there would have been some 10 kills, because after some minutes in combat Soviets lost all battle order and started to escape the battle.

So what you say? Again "arab pilots who can not fly"?

The last combat proved well for Egyptians who were constantly accused by soviet advisors about bad skills using good weapons. In real combat Russians proved themself no better

During some months in 1970, entire crack soviet MiG-21 regiment (that is about 30 planes) accounted only 1 IAF Skyhawk damaged and later was revealed that nine pilots lost their lives (that means that there were other combat losses as well).



Hi, It is interesting that you should pick these two examples of combat. There have been a few other examples of "unofficial" involvement as well. Of course I was talking about recent combat in the middle east where F15/16/18 had been flying against all types of Russian aircraft. I consider these aircraft very poorly maintained and piloted. I also think that one day soon, Russian and American pilots will fly side by side.

PS. My favourite aircraft that I want to fly? A4!!!!!

Unread postPosted: 11 Jan 2007, 13:47
by HunterKiller
I hope that you can give some source about this recent combat?

Why i got those examples is the fact that those wars have been studied by many historians and both cases are proven to be true.

All this tell-tale stories like "Indian Su-30s whiped a$$ of USAF F-15s" are just like any other beer stories. Without no proof, without knowing RoE and so on.

There were two nations in former Warsaw Pact, who's expertise about driving MiG-29 has become widely known. Serbs did not manage to make single shot in 1999, most died not knowing where the missile came from. East Germany's MiG-29 "skill" was later thoroughly checked by the German Luftwaffe and their air combat training and tactics were considered poor by even F-4 standards (which generally do not attempt to dogfight. I will say nothing about Iraqi MiG-29-they were too poor to mention. All forces were trained by Soviet standards and used standard soviet tactics.

That was not long ago when one Flanker came down in the middle of Lithuania. Trojanov was reportedly top ranking pilot in VVS?

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2007, 17:47
by CheckSix
HunterKiller


Are you sure?

To my knowledge having spoken to MiG-29 pilots, german mig-29 first had fly stereotype tactics to be a great target.

When they used their own tactics they became the well known enemy.

Former eastern germany had an the export version of the mig 29 for just about one year, so training was underway.
Btw. soviet MiG-29 had a datalink, you know a contemporary western aircraft with such a device?
Soviet technology may be simple but works reportetly.

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2007, 16:51
by Pilotasso
Everything I came to know, including pilots in exchange initiatives say the Mig-29 can do manuevers at slow speed the F-16 cannot replicate but on the other hand the F-16 is much more responsive and easier to fly. In BVR F-16 seems to still hold the edge.

In a final analysis once can arrive to the conclusion up close and personal the better pilot will use its plane to its fullest and win, but in BVR the falcon has an edge, not only due to radar tehcnology but also due to missiles.

If you ask me, the bilions of dollars of difference between US and russian dev programs do make a difference on the quality and reliability of their hardware. I have heard often that for example even the RVV-AE engineers admit this missile has disapointing perfomance, and whats more there are also reports that latest PESA and AESA versions of the Zhuk-M and M-AE dont have range and target discrimintaion quality anywhere near the western counterparts.

The indians/russian optimistic claims donne about the delivery of the first Mig-29KUB to india stating that it is superior to every F-16 save block 60 for example is probably BS.

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2007, 23:12
by donk14N
The MiG 35 going to India, is at best equal to a Block 60. Don't get me wrong, I believe it to be a very potent fighter, but Russia does have a tendency to over exaggerate their aircrafts performance. I was reading an official press release on the MiG 35 (and it's upcoming delivering to India) and they were saying it has 5th generation avionics, advanced AESA radar, ect... It looks to be a very capable fighter in the leagues of a later block Viper, but nothing that a Super Hornet couldn't handle.

RE: MiG-29 vs F-16

Unread postPosted: 26 May 2007, 10:11
by avon1944
HunterKiller wrote:All this tell-tale stories like "Indian Su-30s whiped a$$ of USAF F-15s" are just like any other beer stories. Without no proof, without knowing RoE and so on.

AW&ST did an article which included the ROE's, it totally changes the complexion of the exercise. URL;
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1237790/posts

HunterKiller wrote:East Germany's MiG-29 "skill" was later thoroughly checked by the German Luftwaffe and their air combat training and tactics were considered poor by even F-4 standards

True, this was talked about in the Discovery Channel's program, "Red October." Ten USN F/A-18's went to Laage, Germany in Oct 1996 to train with the Luftwaffe's 73rd Fighter Squadron for two weeks. Conversations between F/A-18 pilots and MiG-29 pilots revealed the 73rd squadron's pilots were not able to fly displaying fighter pilot flying skills to the level of which NATO expected. Nor were they able to act to unexpected events without the aid of GCI. So a large percentage of the squadron pilots were let go or washed out.
The program also revealed there are tactics to avoid the Archer!

Adrian

COMPARE EVERY THING!

Unread postPosted: 10 Jun 2007, 09:53
by falcon_sgd
when we compare 2 things ,we just place them side by side and critically examine every thing related to them...a smaller comparison may be as follows:
1)AIR TO AIR:both crafts r roughly equal
2)AIR TO GROUND:f-16 is far a head.
3)COMBAT HISTORY:f-16s have scored a number of confirmed kills..has mig-29 any or few?
4)PRICE:very clear no need to mention
5)MAINTAINANCE:F-16S r far easier to maintain than migs.
6)SALE HISTORY:due to being cheaper f-16 also prevails this portion.
7)FUTURE:according to my view both planes have to retire but the period of f-16 will be longer...

MORE COMPARISONS WOULD BE APPRECIATED.....
PLEASE COMMENT!

REPLY TO PAVEL!

Unread postPosted: 10 Jun 2007, 10:23
by falcon_sgd
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...

Re: REPLY TO PAVEL!

Unread postPosted: 15 Jun 2007, 19:48
by Cad
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.

RE: Re: REPLY TO PAVEL!

Unread postPosted: 16 Jun 2007, 11:25
by falcon_sgd
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.....

RE: Re: REPLY TO PAVEL!

Unread postPosted: 16 Jun 2007, 20:55
by Cad
URSS pilots were not alowed to fire against pak fighters.

RE: Re: REPLY TO PAVEL!

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2007, 18:34
by falcon_sgd
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?

RE: Re: REPLY TO PAVEL!

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2007, 19:59
by Cad
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

RE: Re: REPLY TO PAVEL!

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2007, 07:27
by falcon_sgd
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.... :)

RE: Re: REPLY TO PAVEL!

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2007, 13:53
by Cad
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 .

mig

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2008, 22:54
by yugoslovan
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.

Re: MiG-29 vs F-16

Unread postPosted: 08 Jun 2008, 09:41
by 007india
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

RE: Re: MiG-29 vs F-16

Unread postPosted: 08 Jun 2008, 22:16
by viper1234
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.

Unread postPosted: 09 Jun 2008, 06:54
by 007india
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

Unread postPosted: 09 Jun 2008, 10:30
by Des
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?

Unread postPosted: 10 Jun 2008, 09:18
by F16guy
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:

Re: RE: Re: REPLY TO PAVEL!

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2008, 23:45
by Aks_20
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).

Re: MiG-29 vs F-16

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2011, 22:07
by tonini
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.

RE: Re: MiG-29 vs F-16

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2011, 18:51
by sprstdlyscottsmn
You want a review of the MiG-29? Here ya go. When Berlin Wall fell the Luftwaffe acquired MiG-29s. In 2003, they sold its MiG-29s for a single euro each. They still operate F-4 Phantoms.

RE: Re: MiG-29 vs F-16

Unread postPosted: 02 Dec 2011, 06:09
by thestealthfighterguy
Has a Mig-29 or even SU-27 well I'm asking ever shot down a US aircraft of any kind? I think a Mig-25 got a F-18c in the first Gulf war. Oh! I know, maybe a F-14 from Iran. I think a Mig shot one or two down in the Iraq-Iran war.
The Mig-29 vs. F-16 RIGHT!
TSFG.

RE: Re: MiG-29 vs F-16

Unread postPosted: 02 Dec 2011, 17:13
by tacf-x
With current technologies on the Vipers there's no chance a MiG-29 could defeat an F-16 unless the MiG-29 was that well modernized. Even still the Vipers will be flown by American pilots who have likely seen actual combat before and therefore will still score highly favorably.

RE: Re: MiG-29 vs F-16

Unread postPosted: 06 Dec 2011, 23:02
by thestealthfighterguy
I found a great post about this at this link. The first post.
http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/6-68370/page2.aspx

Re: RE: Re: MiG-29 vs F-16

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2012, 15:08
by stobiewan
thestealthfighterguy wrote:I found a great post about this at this link. The first post.
http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/6-68370/page2.aspx


The whole of that post, by FulcrumFlyer appears on this board :)

RE: Re: RE: Re: MiG-29 vs F-16

Unread postPosted: 20 Apr 2012, 21:06
by Scorpion82
I think the major problem in this discussion is that people compare apples with oranges. How much does kills against MiGs in Iraq or Serbia tell you about the quality of the aircraft? Not too much in fact, considering the differences in intel, support, training and even quantity. The serious discrepancies between downgraded and partially defect firts generation MiG-29s vs MLU F-16s of all kind don't tell you anything wrt the combat capability and performance of newer variants such as the MiG-29SMT or MiG-29K for example.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: MiG-29 vs F-16

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2012, 00:03
by icemaverick
Scorpion82 wrote:I think the major problem in this discussion is that people compare apples with oranges. How much does kills against MiGs in Iraq or Serbia tell you about the quality of the aircraft? Not too much in fact, considering the differences in intel, support, training and even quantity. The serious discrepancies between downgraded and partially defect firts generation MiG-29s vs MLU F-16s of all kind don't tell you anything wrt the combat capability and performance of newer variants such as the MiG-29SMT or MiG-29K for example.


At a certain point it all just starts to sound like excuses. You have to put up or shut up as the saying goes. The F-15 and the F-16 have done very well in combat with multiple air forces. On the other hand, the MiG-29 has a losing record in combat. Sure, it was mostly going up against superior air forces and these were export versions and whatnot but come on.....it couldn't produce even a single confirmed kill of a 4th generation aircraft?

The Royal Saudi Air Force isn't exactly known to be the best trained or the most professional air force in the world. But even they managed to score kills in their less capable export F-15s. The Pakistanis scored kills in F-16s. The Iraqi Air Force was well financed and battle-tested and yet they managed to have more success with the old MiG-25....the aircraft which ironically spawned the F-15 and later F-16.

The Indian Air Force is pretty well trained and they have pretty decent maintenance of their aircraft. Even for the IAF, the Mirage-2000 has proved to be the more useful aircraft in conflicts so far (it performed very well in Kargil in air interdiction role). By in large, the MiG-29 has now assumed second line status in that air force now that they have the Su-30MKI. Heck, even the MiG-21 Bison impressed USAF pilots more than the MiG-29.

I'm sure the -29 can be a fine bird if operated by the right pilots. But almost all of the evidence we currently have on hand supports the superiority of the F-16. Combat records and the actions of the MiG-29 operators speak volumes. The rest is just mental masturbation.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: MiG-29 vs F-16

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2012, 01:08
by shingen
Look at the original MiG-29 design philosophy vs the F-16. The F-16 started as the LWF but evolved into a multirole aircraft designed to be usable by a variety of air forces. The MiG-29 was designed to take off, fly out, shoot and RTB before it ran out of fuel. It's painfully obvious which is a better idea. The MiG-29 lost considerable fuel volume for the takeoff louvres. Well, it turns out that the doors protecting the intakes were hinged at the top. The FOD collected in a gap between the door and the lip of the intake. So, they increased the cost, lost fuel, decreased reliability and were still vulnerable to FOD. If that's how they engineered the rest of it, it's no wonder it's considered junk. MiG peaked with the 17 although the 21 was also good. You could see their decline with the 23. Good acceleration, good radar (for the times) and...yeah, basically junk.

I've pointed out the ergonomic issues of the 29 in a number of previous posts but I'll bring them up again to point out that it's system vs system not plane vs plane and certainly not acceleration, turn rate, Ps etc vs the other guy's acceleration, turn rate, Ps etc. What's the point of good numbers if the pilot can't score kills easily?

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: MiG-29 vs F-16

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2012, 01:34
by 1st503rdsgt
I wonder how a certain customer's F-16s would do against this navalized version of the Mig-29.
Image

Still looks crudely built to my eye, but maybe they've solved a few shortcomings (no louvres).

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: MiG-29 vs F-16

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2012, 09:39
by Scorpion82
@Icemaverick
Maybe it sounds like an excuse, but I see no fault in pointing out the uneven start conditions. An F-15 or F-16 may not have fared much better at all. The Sausi F-15s were still operating on the winners side with AWACS support etc. In Kargil the M2ks were employed in entirely different roles so the comparison is moot. And most kills achieved by the teens were made against 2nd and 3rd generation fighters. I'm not claiming superiority of the MiGs at all, but for some reason you guys assume such arguments and reply accordingly.

@shingen
The design goals of the MiG-29 were certainly different. The MiG was never employed in the right way by those who operated it. Like most MiG designs the baseline variant had a lot of weaknesses and was in several ways inferior to its Western counter parts. Newer variants are much more capable than those first generation Fulcrum As. Like a F-16 blk 60 is in an entirely different league than the block 1. You are rightfully pointing out the system vs system aspect and that's actually something I have hinted at.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: MiG-29 vs F-16

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2012, 21:36
by southernphantom
1st503rdsgt wrote:I wonder how a certain customer's F-16s would do against this navalized version of the Mig-29.
Image

Still looks crudely built to my eye, but maybe they've solved a few shortcomings (no louvres).


If you're referring to the guys that just recently retired their Fantans, well, I hope the Fulcrums clean their clock.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: MiG-29 vs F-16

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2012, 22:04
by 1st503rdsgt
southernphantom wrote:
1st503rdsgt wrote:I wonder how a certain customer's F-16s would do against this navalized version of the Mig-29.
Image

Still looks crudely built to my eye, but maybe they've solved a few shortcomings (no louvres).


If you're referring to the guys that just recently retired their Fantans, well, I hope the Fulcrums clean their clock.


Me too. Let's hope the pilots of this latest Fulcrum variant learn well at their next Red Flag event.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: MiG-29 vs F-16

Unread postPosted: 24 Apr 2012, 01:01
by shingen
Scorpion82 wrote:@Icemaverick
Maybe it sounds like an excuse, but I see no fault in pointing out the uneven start conditions. An F-15 or F-16 may not have fared much better at all. The Sausi F-15s were still operating on the winners side with AWACS support etc. In Kargil the M2ks were employed in entirely different roles so the comparison is moot. And most kills achieved by the teens were made against 2nd and 3rd generation fighters. I'm not claiming superiority of the MiGs at all, but for some reason you guys assume such arguments and reply accordingly.

@shingen
The design goals of the MiG-29 were certainly different. The MiG was never employed in the right way by those who operated it. Like most MiG designs the baseline variant had a lot of weaknesses and was in several ways inferior to its Western counter parts. Newer variants are much more capable than those first generation Fulcrum As. Like a F-16 blk 60 is in an entirely different league than the block 1. You are rightfully pointing out the system vs system aspect and that's actually something I have hinted at.


Who's going to buy the upgrade? No second chance to make a first impression, especially when the Su is available. They should have built the MiG-33 (check out secret projects forum) instead. 80% of the capability, 50-60% of the cost.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: MiG-29 vs F-16

Unread postPosted: 24 Apr 2012, 14:58
by icemaverick
Scorpion82 wrote:@Icemaverick
Maybe it sounds like an excuse, but I see no fault in pointing out the uneven start conditions. An F-15 or F-16 may not have fared much better at all. The Sausi F-15s were still operating on the winners side with AWACS support etc. In Kargil the M2ks were employed in entirely different roles so the comparison is moot. And most kills achieved by the teens were made against 2nd and 3rd generation fighters. I'm not claiming superiority of the MiGs at all, but for some reason you guys assume such arguments and reply accordingly.


The bottom line is that the MiG-29 has had many opportunities to shine and it simply hasn't. In the early days of the Gulf War, the Iraqis had the aid of GCI so that should have evened the playing field with regards to AWACS. There was more than one 2 v 2 engagement between Eagles and Fulcrums. The Eagles blew them out. On the other hand, they had a lot more trouble with the Iraqi Foxbats.

In Kargil, the M2Ks were employed in the strike role because the MiGs' engines couldn't function well at those altitudes. In fact, even when they were used in the escort role, they could only provide top cover for 20 minutes at a time and had to be replaced by another pair. The Indian Air Force has complained about the -29's poor reliability and very high operating costs.

The Germans sold their MiG-29s at 1 Euro per plane. The Polish had operated the MiG-29 but chose to go with the F-16 and the Gripen was ahead of the MiG-29 in the competition when they chose to buy new fighters. This is despite the lower upfront cost of the MiG-29 (not to mention lower cost of integration). Even the Pakistanis, when flying against a superpower in the Afghan War, managed to get a 9:1 kill ratio using their Falcons.

I'm not just going by combat results but by the actions of countries who bought the MiG-29. It's been a mediocre aircraft at best. That's not to say that the Russians can't build good aircraft. The Flanker series is pretty much universally praised and the countries that operate various 27/30/35 variants seem to be quite pleased with their aircraft. Pilots from air forces that don't fly Flankers also seem to be impressed by it.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: MiG-29 vs F-16

Unread postPosted: 24 Apr 2012, 18:05
by Scorpion82
shingen wrote:Who's going to buy the upgrade? No second chance to make a first impression, especially when the Su is available. They should have built the MiG-33 (check out secret projects forum) instead. 80% of the capability, 50-60% of the cost.


Yemen has upgraded their aircraft to SMT standard. The RuAF introduced the SMT as well and the Indian UPG-variant is merely an offspring of the SMT. The carrier based variant MiG-29K is being bought by the Indian and Russian navies and Syria appears to buy some MiG-29M. So there are at least some customers.

@icemaverick
against what types of aircraft were the Pakistani F-16s pitted? I agree with you that the early variants were flawed and in many ways awfully limited, but the major deficiencies have been addressed with newer variants. That doesn't mean that these aircraft are now vastly superior to their western counter parts, but with everything being equal they would certainly perform better, than those downgraded first generation Fulcrums flown by usually mediocre skilled pilots of an inferior air force.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: MiG-29 vs F-16

Unread postPosted: 15 Jun 2012, 00:30
by sneakers
There is no doubt that todays F-16C with Amraam, AIM-9X and JHMCS would defeat even a modernized Fulcrum in all aspects of air combat.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: MiG-29 vs F-16

Unread postPosted: 15 Jun 2012, 03:36
by madrat
MiG should have dropped the twin engine -29 for a single engined aircraft, yes. But I think they should have gone the route like the Chinese did with the J-10 and use the Flanker motor. Kill the Fulcrum program altogether. I know the Flogger family gets belittled, but an Al-31 powered MiG-23 offshoot with modern avionics offered slashing attacks similar to what made the Foxbat so difficult to intercept. I'm glad the Soviets never figured out their advantage until the said programs were basically done running the course. The fact they used so many resources on Fulcrum for so little return is quite satisfying. If the MiG-29 had proven to overwhelm the Falcon in most conditions then the balance of power would have shaken out quite differently during arms reduction talks.