Forum: F-16 versus XYZ

Quote:

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!!!

F-16.net Sponsor

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*

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!

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 Very Happy

)

"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.

Quote:

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.

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

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!?

Quote:

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.

There were Fulcrums later in Middle East, but in 1982 they were not even operational in Russian service.

I think Yemen has MiG-29s and Su-27s.

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.

then the main catch about the MiG-29 is its fuel capacity

Forum Veteran Joined: Nov 07, 2003 - 09:12 PM Posts: 901

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,

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 Very Happy

.

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.

Quote:

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

Why are they useless if people learn something from them?

Quote:

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.

I have... in a MiG-21.. although it was in the back seat... a UM version

Forum: F-16 versus XYZ

MiG-29 vs F-16