Forum: Air Power

In a strict dogfight with guns only and no missiles of any sort, the MiG-29 would have a decent chance of winning, assuming pilots of equal skill, well maintained planes, and both pilots sticking with it to the end. Of course those are rather large assumptions, and are not likely to happen any time soon.

F-16.net Sponsor

Heh, in close-in Fulcrum is clearly in advantage, because it has better subsonic maneuverability and less weight.

The example from Iraqi war where F-15 sat in tail on Fulcrum all the time is not valid for any conclusion, because this this tail-sitting thing is mostly up to pilots and if oponent gets at your 6, it is very difficult to shake him off and you need to have signifficant turn or power advantage to do so.

The conclusion is that this Iraqi driver was not good enough (iraqi pilots generally are not) to exploit airplane's performance. Fulcrum can take and hold positions in the air that Eaglne can not for sure.

Most russian craft need expert pilots to exploit their potential. US aircraft are made keeping in mind, that average pilot can win the combat. But russians and arabs are not generally any good pilots and their tactics were good in 1965, not now.

All Serbian MiG-29 kill were made because of AIM-120 and AWACS, not the pilots or not the machine.

This thread is silly

The Eagle was not built to be a knife-fighter. It was built to catch airplanes and kill them at comfortable standoff distances (like BVR). Just as the A-10 was built around its cannon, the F-15 was built around its radar.

The guy who started this thread is obviously a big Fulcrum fan. That's fine, as it's a very capable airplane---in a vacuum. American fighters are expertly and lovingly maintained and enjoy a very high Fully Mission Capable (FMC rate) and are unlikely to suffer a key system failure after the merge. Despite a good design and solid engineering, the Fulcrum rarely lives up to its potential for the same reasons the Eagle excels. Your "yeah but what if..." arguments don't dovetail with reality. Manueverability in and of itself does not guarantee a kill. For example the F-4 was not nearly as nimble as the Mig-19 or Mig-21 and yet Duke Cunningham and Steve Ritchie became Aces. How? By employing superior tactics that minimized the advantages of their more agile adversaries.

I worked Eagle's and one of my former pilots (USAF Major Doug Russell) went on to be an exchange Mig-29 pilot with the Luftwaffe. As I understand it, his time in the Fulcrum (and German -29's are the best maintained, hightest FMC rate Mig's anywhere in the world) served to reinforce his confidence in the F-15.

As a final note, world wide, the F-15 is 200 and 0--it has never been killed air-to-air, never.

Good points Arctus. Something else to consider, is the fact that the Fulcrum was built for multi-role, much like the Hornet. Some can't seem to separate the airshow demo flight world from actual AA combat. In a demo flight, the Fulcrum is flying slick (or, as slick as a MiG can get), with just enough fuel to fly the profile. Load it full of ordnance for a strike mission, and the Fulcrum isn't much of a dogfighter either. That being said, no self-respecting pilot wants or tries to get into a dogfight. Kill from a distance if possible. Fight your way out of an engagement only when necessary.

The Iraqis were actually better pilots than people think. Gen. Chuck Horner actually said that they were very formidable pilots when he trained with them during the 80s, and he never could have predicted the overwhelming success that our pilots had against theirs in 1991. Some of the Iraqi AF pilots already had 10 years of combat experience against the Iranians. He had predicted some losses during the first couple of nights of the war, and relayed as much to Gen. Schwartzkopf. So, they were far from the pushovers that the misinformed say they were. They simply went up against a superior aircraft (the F-15), and highly trained pilots, neither of which with they could compete.

Most of the MiG killers from ODS whom I knew said that the fight was over within the first couple of turns. AWACS would give them a vector, and they would lock up the MiGs, in some cases, just after they had taken off. Thus, the catchphrase among Eagle Drivers became "Gear up, Flaps up, BLOWN up!"

AA combat is far from automatic. No matter what weapon system(s) may be involved, it still takes much training to get it right. The U.S. invests a couple of million into each pilot for training. Add Weapons School, and Red Flag, and they literally become seasoned combat veterans before they even see the first shot fired in anger. When the U.S. goes up with its training, equipment, and most especially its maintenance, against a country that has a GDP smaller than the state of Nebraska, there really is no contest. This is why Eagle Drivers worldwide have remained undefeated. That's the reality. The theories don't mean squat, if what they theorize has never actually been applied.

TC wrote:

Good points Arctus. Something else to consider, is the fact that the Fulcrum was built for multi-role, much like the Hornet. Some can't seem to separate the airshow demo flight world from actual AA combat. In a demo flight, the Fulcrum is flying slick (or, as slick as a MiG can get), with just enough fuel to fly the profile. Load it full of ordnance for a strike mission, and the Fulcrum isn't much of a dogfighter either.

Most of posters, included the quoted one do not have any idea how Soviet-like air defence system works.

First, I have to say that Fulcrum is not any multrirole aircraft. Yes, it can carry iron boms and unguided rockets, but all non-OVT or non 29M Fulcrums have AG capability similar to F-15A.

About the dogfighting - fully loaded F-16 is no way better than loaded Fulcrum.

On the air defence system and iraqi losses.

Soviet-like AD system is based on ground radar and ground guidance. Only very recently AWACS-type aircraft appeared, but they were largerly inferior to Western ones.

All soviet-trained air defence forces did receive very little ACM and ACT training. All this works like below:

1. Ground radar detects the treat
2. Alert fighters are launched and pilot will take them to climb
3. Then pilots switches on GCI director system (SAU-155 or something) and takes hands off the stick
4. Airplane is guided by radio link toward target so that its longitudional axis is aimed to target. Airplanes radar is off.
5. If airplane reaches its radar range, GCI is switched off and pilot takes over. As its nose is pointing to target, when he illuminates the radar, he will have almost instant lock on. Missile triggers wont work until target is in firing range. Then the cue "PR" (pusk rasreshon - launch autorized" appears on HUD and trigger becames active. Trigger is activated to launch ripple fire - on SARH and one IR missile. Then pilots starts to look at clock when missiles will hit and he can maneuver or turn avay.
6. If medium-range attack fails, GCI guides (using voice commands) pilot to enemy's six-o'clock to launch short-range missiles.

Normally AD pilots have little dogfight training. All system is heavily centralized and pilot only takes action if told so. All tactics are heavily ground guided.

To operate soviet aircraft radar you need to know where the enemy is. Then you choose correct sector, you will easily find it, having plane positioned by GCI to correct direction.

Because all those jets are heavily ground-controlled (or sometimes A-50 controlled), the situational awereness is almost non-existent to western standards. All this is more or less valid for Fulcrum and Flanker as well. Did you know that first accurate gunsight came in service 1987 on MiG-29.

Iraqi MiGs were driven to the ground not because of good US airmen (no doubt, they are good) - but mostly because of garbage cocpit instrumentation, where pilots looses orientation in airspace, there are even no gyro indication on HUD, but it is low on dash!

US airmen knew all the times, where enemy is, but iraqis did not. Why?
1. All early warning radars and command bunkers were destroyed at day1
2. GCI filght control, voice control links and guidance radars were either destroyed or jammed
3. Soviet AA radars, even the RP-29 Shuk (Bug) are not designed for autonomous operation, but for use with ground guidance/interception data.
4. It is difficult to manage GCI battle when screens became too crowded, they are designed to intercept only limited numbers on enemy aircraft.

Most of posters need to read this first
http://www.sci.fi/~fta/MiG-29.htm

Problem is that all this system is invalid by todays terms. it is not about airmen, but about tactics.

Maybe best explanation to problem is how they call their radars
For MiG-29, radar designation is RP-29

RP stands for "Radiolokatsionnõi Pritsel" - in english - radar sight. This is device to aim missiles toward target, which altitude and heading is previously known with GCI help. Not on their own.

I guess some are just a harder sell than others. I respect your opinion, even if I might not entirely agree with you.

First off: Fulcrum...multi-role. It's a strike fighter, built for the same missions as the Viper and Bug. It's small, can get down in the weeds, and punch off a bunch of pig iron, and other AG ordnance. The Flanker is the Air Superiority jet for the Russians, and just like the Eagle, was built "Not a pound for Air to Ground". F-15A? Sorry buddy, that one wasn't a bomb truck. Pure AA. Perhaps you meant the E?

Quite aware of how Soviet GCI works. That was a system developed pre-Vietnam, and it was a system we became able to exploit. That's why the opening strike in ODS went something like Tomahawks, followed by 117s, followed by Weasels, and Jammers. It was to blind the bastards before they could figure out what was up. It was a d@mn good tactic.

The Iraqis were fighting blind, and AWACS saw them as soon as they lifted off. Even if we hadn't taken out the GCI, with AWACS seeing the entire area, and the medium range capabilities of the Eagle, the Iraqis would not have had much chance to utilize it. Once again "Gear up. Flaps up. Blown up."

It was the most lopsided aerial campaign in history. The F-15s scored 28 kills with no losses, and a Strike Eagle even got a kill on a chopper, with a GBU-12! No Sierra.

Airmen don't count as much as tactics? I disagree. Tactics mean nothing if the pilot doesn't properly employ them. Remember, it's not the machine, it's the man.

"When a pilot says 'I'm going up against the plane' to me that's ludicrous. You're going up against the pilot flying the plane, and everything that he stands for"...---CDR Randy "Duke" Cunningham

"The duty of the fighting pilot is to patrol his area of the sky, and shoot down any enemy fighters in that area. Anything else is rubbish." ---Manfred von Richthofen, aka, "The Red Barron"

No, no, no!

I know pretty well what early Fulcrum can or can not (we are not talking about SMT, 29M and OVT-they are different animals)-it is point defence interceptor with secondary daytime air-to-ground capability. It is like MiG-21 by 90s terms. This is not pure air superiority fighter because of its short range and little loitering time.

AG capability is no better than MiG-21 or MiG-23 (not 23BN!).

Yes, it has some simple computer to illuminate bombing/unguided rocket launch reticle to HUD. Main AG weapons are FAB-250/FAB-500 iron bombs and usually 57 mm unguided rockets in containers.

And that is all. No FLIR, even no night vision googles, no ground laser, RP-29 radar does not have any ground mode. And for night blind bombing-it does not have GPS (only INS).

Most comparable western aircraft to early Fulcrum is JAS-39 Gripen. But even Gripen has better AG capability.

Russian propaganda has raised lot of fumes around Fulcrum to sell it worldwide to get hard currency. Only little truth.

Fulcrum's radar set is something close to F-15A's/F-16A's, but just close. Other gear is so out-of-date even by 90s terms. And I am pretty sure that if squadron of Fulcrums meet in the air with squadron even with German F-4F ICE or Greek F-4E AUP in 100 km distance (not to mention newer aircraft), whitch are almost 35 years old, even without AWACS - only few Fulcrums will make home in one piece.

I can not understand why so many people feel so confidently that in a 'guns envirement' that a MiG-29 would best a F-15? In performance the MiG-29 is very similar to the F/A-18C! The same tactics that would be effective against a F/A-18 would be effective MiG-29.
USAF and Israeli F-16's have also done aggressor exercises with the Luftwaffe's 73rd Fighter Squadron at Aviano AB, Italy and Sigonella AB, Sicily. There is no need for the F-15 to be anymore concerned about the MiG-29 than any other well designed fourth generation aircraft.

In October of 1996, members of two Navy squadrons (VFA-106 Squadron and VFC-12 the Aggressor Squadron) sent F/A-18C's and two F/A-18D's to Laage, Germany for "Operation Red October," with the Luftwaffe's 73rd Fighter Squadron. While specs of the two appear similar, in combat there is a advantage in favor of the F/A-18's.

If you are discussing WVR fight where the MiG has the Archer and the F-15 has a "-9L" then yes, the MiG has a significant advantage.

TC wrote:

the Eagle, was built "Not a pound for Air to Ground". F-15A?

It was a saying in the USAF BUT..... at McDD engineers discovered early the potential of the F-15A to eventual "E" variant. AW&ST (03/25/74) had an article entittled, "New Fighter to Have Ground Attack Role" By Clark Martin. As you can see by the date, the F-15A had not been in operation very long.

Adrian

I don't think you read my entire post avon, so I'll repost:

TC wrote:

the Eagle, was built "Not a pound for Air to Ground". F-15A? Sorry buddy, that one wasn't a bomb truck. Pure AA. Perhaps you meant the E?

I was referring to the fact that the A through D models were built purely for Air Superiority. I also made note that the Mudhen has a much different mission. The Strike Eagle wasn't evaluated until 1980 with a converted B model. The E model test bird first flew in 86, and wasn't operational until 90.

The A through D models started off as Air Superiority birds, and thankfully, nothing has changed. As I noted in another thread, this also marks the anniversary of two Eagle Drivers I know, who got AA kills against Fulcrums. Great job for them, and also thankfully, no Fulcrum, nor any other enemy fighter has scored an AA kill against an Eagle.

The F-15 Eagle: 107 1/2 to 0 and counting...

TC wrote:

I don't think you read my entire post avon

I think 'we' may have mis-read each other's post.

TC wrote:

F-15A? Sorry buddy, that one wasn't a bomb truck.

I did not state that the F-15A thru F-15D were designed for ground attack, I said, the engineers at McDD recognized before the "A" was operational that it could be a very good ground attack aircraft while still maintaining a better than average air to air capability. The was a lot of lobbying by McDD to convince USAF to take a serious look at the F-15 as a deep interdiction role. One reason the USAF was reluctant was because it already had the F-111 for that role.

TC wrote:

thankfully, no Fulcrum, nor any other enemy fighter has scored an AA kill against an Eagle

True but, I am afraid the USAF will keep them in service so long a fantastic record will be degraded. Many countries are purchasing other 4.5 and or 5.0 generation aircraft (Libya is purchasing the Rafale, etc.), so the chance of the F-15C being shot down in air to air combat is constantly getting greater.

TC wrote:

this also marks the anniversary of two Eagle Drivers I know, who got AA kills against Fulcrums.

The F-15 Eagle: 107 1/2 to 0 and counting...

When the last three kills take place? As of around 2000, the total was around 101 to 104.5 depending on your source.

Adrian

avon1944 wrote:

There was a lot of lobbying by McDD to convince USAF to take a serious look at the F-15 as a deep interdiction role. One reason the USAF was reluctant was because it already had the F-111 for that role.

The F-4 was also still operational at the time. TAC was also gaining more clout at the time, and they didn't want or need a repeat of the F-4. They wanted the Eagle for AA. When the AF wanted to develop a replacement for the 'Vark, Mickey D offered their converted B model 71-0291, and GD offered the XL Viper. McAir won the contract, and TAC also won. The A through D models weren't turned into bomb trucks, and they gained the E model, which was built to do both jobs.

Regarding AA engagements, the older aircraft vs. younger aircraft argument is not that simple. Remember, it's not the machine, it's the pilot.

Last edited by mig-23mld on Jul 08, 2010 - 12:32 AM; edited 5 times in total

TC wrote:

Yeah, we can confirm it right here on this site. No Viper has been lost in AA. No Eagles either. SAMs and AAA have taken out Vipers, and a couple of Strike Eagles, but the AF hasn't lost an AA engagement since Vietnam.

Akruse has it spot on. Everybody in that Wing's maintenance AND operations would know that a jet didn't make it back, and it wouldn't take long to know why. Plus, it's a small Air Force. It gets in the wind, and news travels fast. If we had lost a bird in AA, trust me, somebody here would know it. Several of us have worked around both the Eagle and the Viper.

Here's another fact: We've never lost an F-15A/B/C or D model in combat. Not by SAMs, not by AAA, and most certainly not by an enemy aircraft. Remember to check your sources folks.

there a few misunderstandings about the MiG-29, the MiG-29 is more agile for the following reasons, it has better climb rate and acceleration and better roll rate (instantaneous turn rate), F-15 have been shot down, but it has never been acknowledged they have been shot down on air to air by the F-15 users. However, both the Syrians and Serbians claimed they shot down F-16s and F-15 on air to air combat, Iraq claimed to have shot down F-16s in air to air combat, as you have said the F-15 and F-16 have been shot down but the difference is what reason each side says caused the downing of Eagles and Vipers

It was proven that the MiG-29 was superior in WVR during the 1980s and 1990s, but most MiG-29s that have faced F-15 lacked AWAC support and were built in the 1980s and had no upgrade, F-15 pilots would be in serious trouble would they have faced MiG-29Ms in the 1990s or equal numbers of MiG-29s supported by AWACs

avon1944 wrote:

I can not understand why so many people feel so confidently that in a 'guns envirement' that a MiG-29 would best a F-15? In performance the MiG-29 is very similar to the F/A-18C! The same tactics that would be effective against a F/A-18 would be effective MiG-29.
USAF and Israeli F-16's have also done aggressor exercises with the Luftwaffe's 73rd Fighter Squadron at Aviano AB, Italy and Sigonella AB, Sicily. There is no need for the F-15 to be anymore concerned about the MiG-29 than any other well designed fourth generation aircraft.

In October of 1996, members of two Navy squadrons (VFA-106 Squadron and VFC-12 the Aggressor Squadron) sent F/A-18C's and two F/A-18D's to Laage, Germany for "Operation Red October," with the Luftwaffe's 73rd Fighter Squadron. While specs of the two appear similar, in combat there is a advantage in favor of the F/A-18's.

If you are discussing WVR fight where the MiG has the Archer and the F-15 has a "-9L" then yes, the MiG has a significant advantage.

TC wrote:

the Eagle, was built "Not a pound for Air to Ground". F-15A?

It was a saying in the USAF BUT..... at McDD engineers discovered early the potential of the F-15A to eventual "E" variant. AW&ST (03/25/74) had an article entittled, "New Fighter to Have Ground Attack Role" By Clark Martin. As you can see by the date, the F-15A had not been in operation very long.

Adrian

The MiG-29 that have been used for training NATO aviators were built in the 1980s, they lacked upgrades, so in avionics were quit old, in performance is different, the MiG-29 is more agile, a modern MiG-35 will be a great threat to any F-15 pilot, the MiG-29A that NATO pilots faced was only considered superior by the Russians for a 1980s scenario, by the mid 1980`s they knew the MiG-29M was only going to be equal to the then F-16s and F-15s, the MiG-29`s main problem has been lack of modernizations due to lack of money in the air forces where it has been used, but modern MiG-29 variants do not have those problems

avon1944 wrote:

I can not understand why so many people feel so confidently that in a 'guns envirement' that a MiG-29 would best a F-15? In performance the MiG-29 is very similar to the F/A-18C! The same tactics that would be effective against a F/A-18 would be effective MiG-29.
USAF and Israeli F-16's have also done aggressor exercises with the Luftwaffe's 73rd Fighter Squadron at Aviano AB, Italy and Sigonella AB, Sicily. There is no need for the F-15 to be anymore concerned about the MiG-29 than any other well designed fourth generation aircraft.

In October of 1996, members of two Navy squadrons (VFA-106 Squadron and VFC-12 the Aggressor Squadron) sent F/A-18C's and two F/A-18D's to Laage, Germany for "Operation Red October," with the Luftwaffe's 73rd Fighter Squadron. While specs of the two appear similar, in combat there is a advantage in favor of the F/A-18's.

If you are discussing WVR fight where the MiG has the Archer and the F-15 has a "-9L" then yes, the MiG has a significant advantage.

TC wrote:

the Eagle, was built "Not a pound for Air to Ground". F-15A?

It was a saying in the USAF BUT..... at McDD engineers discovered early the potential of the F-15A to eventual "E" variant. AW&ST (03/25/74) had an article entittled, "New Fighter to Have Ground Attack Role" By Clark Martin. As you can see by the date, the F-15A had not been in operation very long.

Adrian

Oh no - mig-23mld, its you again...
The MiG-29 is not more maneuverable than the Eagle. It may have some advantage at low atitude and low speed, but at higher alt and higher speed the Eagle is more maneuverable, period.

Forum: Air Power

Air to Air Combat F-15C Eagle v.s. MiG-29 Fulcrum