MiG-29 vs F-16

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

ACSheva

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 440
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2004, 04:48

Unread post27 Dec 2004, 21:42

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
Offline

EriktheF16462

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 540
  • Joined: 19 Mar 2004, 18:24

Unread post27 Dec 2004, 22:31

JHMICS, in active duty USAF F-16 units right now. Helmet mounted sights are out there right now.
F16 462 AD USAF. Crew dog for 3 and Even a pointy head for a few months.
Offline

Dammerung

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 192
  • Joined: 26 Jun 2004, 23:17

Unread post28 Dec 2004, 01:06

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.
Offline

cru

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 217
  • Joined: 17 Dec 2004, 08:25

Unread post28 Dec 2004, 08:57

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)
Offline

Pumpkin

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 901
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2003, 21:12

Unread post28 Dec 2004, 11:31

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,
Desmond
Offline

EriktheF16462

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 540
  • Joined: 19 Mar 2004, 18:24

Unread post28 Dec 2004, 13:56

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.
F16 462 AD USAF. Crew dog for 3 and Even a pointy head for a few months.
Offline

toan

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 535
  • Joined: 27 Nov 2004, 16:14

Unread post28 Dec 2004, 16:43

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.
Offline

CheckSix

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 102
  • Joined: 29 Nov 2004, 23:49

Unread post28 Dec 2004, 18:34

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.
Offline

EriktheF16462

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 540
  • Joined: 19 Mar 2004, 18:24

Unread post28 Dec 2004, 18:42

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?
F16 462 AD USAF. Crew dog for 3 and Even a pointy head for a few months.
Offline

Dammerung

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 192
  • Joined: 26 Jun 2004, 23:17

Unread post28 Dec 2004, 20:05

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.
Offline

CheckSix

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 102
  • Joined: 29 Nov 2004, 23:49

Unread post28 Dec 2004, 23:14

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.
Offline

Pumpkin

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 901
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2003, 21:12

Unread post30 Dec 2004, 21:02

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,
Desmond
Offline

ACSheva

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 440
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2004, 04:48

Unread post30 Dec 2004, 21:14

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
Offline

parrothead

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3279
  • Joined: 10 May 2004, 23:04

Unread post30 Dec 2004, 21:30

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.
No plane on Sunday, maybe be one come Monday...
www.parrotheadjeff.com
Offline

ACSheva

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 440
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2004, 04:48

Unread post30 Dec 2004, 21:38

Parrothead I'm very sorry for my talk, you know how it is sometimes.

ACShev
PreviousNext

Return to F-16 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests