Forum: F-16 versus XYZ

BVR man machine interface was primitive in the first MiG-29, but at least they had the capability. On the other hand, it's WVR interface was much better than the one of a contemporary F-16.

F-16.net Sponsor

Elite 1K Joined: May 26, 2005 - 08:39 PM Posts: 1496

isb wrote:

On the other hand, it's WVR interface was much better than the one of a contemporary F-16.

How so?

isb, I think you confused the interface with the weapons. The interface is the visible link between the avionics and the pilot = THE COCKPIT. The MiG-29 had no HOTAS, no MFDs, except for a crude radar screen (cathode tube technology). There was only one "user friendly" part of the interface: the HMD.

Of course that the AA-11 Archer (R-73) was, and still is, a much better weapon than the AIM-9L/M, Magic 2 or Python 3, even if not coupled to a HMD.
But in a real dogfight, the one who shoots first usually wins (granted he has reliable weapons like the ones named above). 80% of the planes hit in WWR after WW II had NO IDEA they were being shot at. Imagine the MiG pilot with poor visibility has to look for a small, smokeless F-16 and in the meantime monitor the "steamgauges" in his cockpit. On the other hand, the Viper pilot literally has only the sky around his head, no need to look down inside the cockpit and is looking for a bigger airplane that is producing TWO large smoke trails.

The MiG 29 had Helmet Monted Cueing System and R-73 missiles with significant off-boresight capability, since it's early versions. An F-16 from the end of 80's didn't have much chance in WVR combat. Eventualy, all newer fighters incorporated HMS and off-boresight missiles for WVR combat.

isb, as I said in my previous post, it doesn't all come to the weapon. As for the "significant off-boresight capability" it is only 45 degrees off boresight (90 degrees total). Remember that the Israeli Python 3 went into service 2 years before the R-73, in 1982 and had a 30 degrees off-boresight capability (60 degrees total). Even an AIM-9 L/M or Magic 2 without an HMD have about 20 degrees off-boresight capability (or rather launch tolerance).

What I would call a "significant off-boresight capability" is a 90-100 degrees like today's AIM-9X or IRIS-T. Not to speak about the "full sphere" engagement capability of the Python 5 or ASRAAM

RoAF, newer versions of R-73 range is up to 25 miles, it has 90° off boresight, can be fired to go backwards. The Zhuk ME has some integrated characteristics, wich doesn't require pods to be mounted. Newer RD-33 engines operate cleaner and have 15° X-Y TVC options. The M2 can fire the stand-off Kh-35 missile, SMT/M2 have very long range missiles too. You seems to miss to understand that like just the case in the case of the MiG 29, earlier versions of F-16 didn't had such advanced COCKPITS. I'm not a particular fan of Russian equipment; however the time goes on and the technology advances for them too.

isb wrote:

Quote:

RoAF, newer versions of R-73 range is up to 25 miles, it has 90° off boresight, can be fired to go backwards

Indeed, newer versions of the Archer are more advanced, but in my previous post I was referring to the pre-1989 situation. Most people who know something about today's military aviation agree that in a dogfight with latest generation WWR missiles "everybody dies" so let's consider this chapter closed, ok?

Quote:

The Zhuk ME has some integrated characteristics, wich doesn't require pods to be mounted

Maybe you are referring to datalink pods, but in order to guide an LGB by yourself, you MUST have a laser designator pod

Quote:

Newer RD-33 engines operate cleaner and have 15° X-Y TVC options

In fact they are smokeless (like the GE-404 on the Hornet)

Quote:

The M2 can fire the stand-off Kh-35 missile, SMT/M2 have very long range missiles too

You are right, The "Harpoonski" (Kh-35) is an anti-ship missile that can be modified for ground attack (much like the AGM-84 E/F)
But still the Fulcrum has no cheap GPS guided weapons like the JDAM.

Quote:

You seems to miss to understand that like just the case in the case of the MiG 29, earlier versions of F-16 didn't had such advanced COCKPITS.

The F-16 always had better cockpits than the Fulcrum
In regard to the interface, they are equal only since the appearance of the SMT and M2
But the visibility is still far better in the Viper.

Quote:

however the time goes on and the technology advances for them too.

Couldn't agree more. However, the gap between Western technology and the Russian one still exists. It's not that hard to slap a couple of MFDs in a cockpit, we did that with our old MiG-21s. But weapons R&D, integration and ease of maintenance are harder to complete when you lack the money.

crobato wrote:

Just as a clarity. The single seater Su-35 is indeed multrole. The 2 seater Su-30 is intended for some particular weapons that requires a man in the control loop, such as the Kh-59ME and the TV guided bombs. The Su-35 can do well with AGM weapons that do not require another person to manage, such as the Kh-31 series and the Kh-29 series.

The MiG-29M2 should be capable of using the TV guided Kh-29T series. Even the original SMT should be capable of doing so since the fire control system in the N010M radar supports TV functions.

Hi Crobato. Good to see you Smile

.

One thing on the "multi-role" ability of the SU-35. Even in their own tests they said it needed work and was a "negative experience". As for cockpit interface, and switchology.... : A Rafale or F-18E... it is not. Smile

The Su-35 certainly needs work on the interface side. But without buyers who is going to pay for that work? Still, the Su-35 could have gotten clues from the single seater Su-27SKM entering service with the RuAF or from the Su-25T/TM.

with regards to another post, there is no land attack or SLAM variant of the Kh-35 Switchblade aka Harpoonski. It would have been redundant and you have the Kh-59ME already for that.

Forum: F-16 versus XYZ

F-16 vs MiG-29 - True story