Article - F-16 versus MiG-29 Fulcrum
- Elite 3K
- Posts: 3151
- Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43
Nice video - thanks
Haven't seen much of the new paint scheme since it came out - but looks like it went to Bulgaria
Haven't seen much of the new paint scheme since it came out - but looks like it went to Bulgaria
- f-16new.JPG (39.32 KiB) Viewed 49847 times
- Banned
- Posts: 2848
- Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
- Location: New Jersey
It seems that this article by "Lt. Col. Johann Kock" can no longer be found outside of Forums and blog sites. This makes it hard to use as a "credible source" when comparing the F-16 with the Mig-29.
Is there any other performance comparison between the 2 aircraft that can be found in an official site.
Is there any other performance comparison between the 2 aircraft that can be found in an official site.
- Newbie
- Posts: 16
- Joined: 18 Jul 2017, 11:21
There is loads of propaganda involved in the international arms industries, mostly from the russians, who are desperately looking for idiots to buy the crap they produce. Interestingly the western militaries reproduce the russian hype, because that helps them promote their procurement.
The first Helmet Mounted Sight and the first off-boresight capable AAM were produced by the Yanks. The missile was the AIM-9H.
The first off-boresight missile shots in actual combat were again made by the Yanks in 1972 when Steve Ritchie scored his double kill. Both his kills were identical and involved shooting Dogfight-Sparrows (AIM-7E2s) 45-60 degrees off boresight.
The first time the “Cobra” maneuver was tried in combat, was by an Iranian pilot who flew an F-14 and thereso managed to force an Iraqi MiG-23 out in front and bag it with a 'winder. The Iranian pilots referred to this maneuver as the “high AOA maneuver”.
Why did the MiG-29 need a HMS is beyond comprehension. The AA11 only had a 45 deg capability which is within radar limits. The French Matra Magic (employed by belgian F-16s) could be made to scan vertically and lock on to off boresight targets, without assistance from the radar. What's so special with the MiG-29 then? Well, it's russian, so it comes with a lot of BS.
The MiG-29 had its chance to demonstrate its maneuverability in combat against the F-15 flown by Rodriquez, on Jan. 19, 1991. Rodriquez was not considered the “best” F-15 driver---before the war. Which tells you that peacetime exercises and experiences are not an indicator of what will happen in a real battle. So “Rico” went on to score three victories in combat, more than any other US pilot. The Iraqi pilot, we are told, was not a noob, but had combat experience against the Iranians. The combat started with a neutral pass and ended with the MiG29 pilot losing control and driving into the ground. Apparently he had overridden the FCS, probably encouraged by the “tough talk” in the press, but...the manual just says you can override it, it doesn't say you will survive that! With the FCS on, max allowable AOA is the same as in the F-16.
The MiG-29 and the Su-27 had the opportunity to demonstrate their BVR capability in the war between Eritrea and Ethiopia. Quite a few P-27s were fired, all missed.
Would the F-16 be threatened by the BVR capability of the MiG-29 or the Su-27 prior to the arrival of the AMRAAM? Nope. These aircraft had radar sets with a range not superior to the APG-66 (30-40 nm head on, 20 nm tail-on). Prior to reaching 20nm the lead F-16s could pump (and thus disappear from the MiG's radar) then change altitude, arc around and make a surprise side attack within 80 seconds. The pump could be initiated at a lesser range if the F-16 had a jammer, because in a tail-on aspect the radar cannot afford to suppress sidelobes, thus jamming is more efficient.
With regard to its alleged close combat “advantage” over the F-16, a video is worth more than a thousand words (as the ancient Spartans used to say). Notice the speeds at which the kills occur.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ry3HQQvIUjI
The F-16 demonstrated its versatility. The F-16A/Bs, built in the '70s and '80s now carry the AIM-9X/IRIS-T, they may be fitted with the AIM-120D, mount TGPs and regurarly drop JDAMs/JSOWs/LGBs. What of the MiG-29s that became operational in the '80s?
The first Helmet Mounted Sight and the first off-boresight capable AAM were produced by the Yanks. The missile was the AIM-9H.
The first off-boresight missile shots in actual combat were again made by the Yanks in 1972 when Steve Ritchie scored his double kill. Both his kills were identical and involved shooting Dogfight-Sparrows (AIM-7E2s) 45-60 degrees off boresight.
The first time the “Cobra” maneuver was tried in combat, was by an Iranian pilot who flew an F-14 and thereso managed to force an Iraqi MiG-23 out in front and bag it with a 'winder. The Iranian pilots referred to this maneuver as the “high AOA maneuver”.
Why did the MiG-29 need a HMS is beyond comprehension. The AA11 only had a 45 deg capability which is within radar limits. The French Matra Magic (employed by belgian F-16s) could be made to scan vertically and lock on to off boresight targets, without assistance from the radar. What's so special with the MiG-29 then? Well, it's russian, so it comes with a lot of BS.
The MiG-29 had its chance to demonstrate its maneuverability in combat against the F-15 flown by Rodriquez, on Jan. 19, 1991. Rodriquez was not considered the “best” F-15 driver---before the war. Which tells you that peacetime exercises and experiences are not an indicator of what will happen in a real battle. So “Rico” went on to score three victories in combat, more than any other US pilot. The Iraqi pilot, we are told, was not a noob, but had combat experience against the Iranians. The combat started with a neutral pass and ended with the MiG29 pilot losing control and driving into the ground. Apparently he had overridden the FCS, probably encouraged by the “tough talk” in the press, but...the manual just says you can override it, it doesn't say you will survive that! With the FCS on, max allowable AOA is the same as in the F-16.
The MiG-29 and the Su-27 had the opportunity to demonstrate their BVR capability in the war between Eritrea and Ethiopia. Quite a few P-27s were fired, all missed.
Would the F-16 be threatened by the BVR capability of the MiG-29 or the Su-27 prior to the arrival of the AMRAAM? Nope. These aircraft had radar sets with a range not superior to the APG-66 (30-40 nm head on, 20 nm tail-on). Prior to reaching 20nm the lead F-16s could pump (and thus disappear from the MiG's radar) then change altitude, arc around and make a surprise side attack within 80 seconds. The pump could be initiated at a lesser range if the F-16 had a jammer, because in a tail-on aspect the radar cannot afford to suppress sidelobes, thus jamming is more efficient.
With regard to its alleged close combat “advantage” over the F-16, a video is worth more than a thousand words (as the ancient Spartans used to say). Notice the speeds at which the kills occur.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ry3HQQvIUjI
The F-16 demonstrated its versatility. The F-16A/Bs, built in the '70s and '80s now carry the AIM-9X/IRIS-T, they may be fitted with the AIM-120D, mount TGPs and regurarly drop JDAMs/JSOWs/LGBs. What of the MiG-29s that became operational in the '80s?
- Forum Veteran
- Posts: 989
- Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46
Read what Fulcrumflyer has to say about the Mig-29. He flew it as an exchange pilot in the GAF.
In deployed exercises the engines are not de-rated.
FF says the Mig-29 is better than the F-15C but not as good as the GE powered F-16's. I think even the small tail A model has a better STR than the Mig-29.
Mig-29 was great when it was the only player with a HMS, but those days are over.
In deployed exercises the engines are not de-rated.
FF says the Mig-29 is better than the F-15C but not as good as the GE powered F-16's. I think even the small tail A model has a better STR than the Mig-29.
Mig-29 was great when it was the only player with a HMS, but those days are over.
- Newbie
- Posts: 16
- Joined: 18 Jul 2017, 11:21
@f-16adf
Who me?
I fought Bulgarian Mig-29s just a few years ago in a Block 30. The MiGs were clean, we carried our wing tanks. And we did not have a HMS.
So, I don't have to read internet BS.
Who me?
I fought Bulgarian Mig-29s just a few years ago in a Block 30. The MiGs were clean, we carried our wing tanks. And we did not have a HMS.
So, I don't have to read internet BS.
Last edited by klearhos on 01 Aug 2017, 19:21, edited 1 time in total.
- Newbie
- Posts: 16
- Joined: 18 Jul 2017, 11:21
@f-16adf
...or turkish, who knows.
It's true the MiG-29 can start a loop at 180 knots, which the F-16 cannot follow, because this is the F-16's minimum (level) fighting speed. The F-15 can do the same thing. The F-16 pilot can defeat that by going out of phase, ie accelerating when they start their vertical maneuver and pull up as they drop back down, ending up in a position of advantage, high above them.
That's the greatest problem when fighting the MiG-29 up close and that's the solution.
Otherwise the threat of a high aspect AA11 shot following initial maneuvering can be dealt with by going nose to nose (one circle) at low alt/low speed and nose to tail (2 circle) at high alt/high speeds. In the second case you may be able to fire a radar missile b4 he can use the AA11.
Remember the AA11 only had a 16 deg advantage over the AIM-9M. If you turn towards each other in a 2 circle at a combined 50-55 deg a second, those 16 deg disappear in a flash.
Tiny advantages of this sort, like an "instantaneous" turn rate adv of 2-3 deg, cannot get you into a dominating position soon enough, ie b4 you bleed badly. They have to be taken into consideration but they are not decisive.
...or turkish, who knows.
It's true the MiG-29 can start a loop at 180 knots, which the F-16 cannot follow, because this is the F-16's minimum (level) fighting speed. The F-15 can do the same thing. The F-16 pilot can defeat that by going out of phase, ie accelerating when they start their vertical maneuver and pull up as they drop back down, ending up in a position of advantage, high above them.
That's the greatest problem when fighting the MiG-29 up close and that's the solution.
Otherwise the threat of a high aspect AA11 shot following initial maneuvering can be dealt with by going nose to nose (one circle) at low alt/low speed and nose to tail (2 circle) at high alt/high speeds. In the second case you may be able to fire a radar missile b4 he can use the AA11.
Remember the AA11 only had a 16 deg advantage over the AIM-9M. If you turn towards each other in a 2 circle at a combined 50-55 deg a second, those 16 deg disappear in a flash.
Tiny advantages of this sort, like an "instantaneous" turn rate adv of 2-3 deg, cannot get you into a dominating position soon enough, ie b4 you bleed badly. They have to be taken into consideration but they are not decisive.
- Banned
- Posts: 1293
- Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25
klearhos wrote:The first Helmet Mounted Sight and the first off-boresight capable AAM were produced by the Yanks.
From what I know, only about 500 HMS were fielded with the USN. The project was quite ambitious and advanced, and achieved high levels of technology.
http://www.best-of-flightgear.dk/vtas.htm
Although the one that was actually fielded in the early 70s was not as advanced as the prototypes that followed later in the mid-late 70s. Interestingly, the later Russian HMS (not the first generation fielded in the mid 1980s) is remarkably similar in design to the ones fielded by the USn in the 1970s.
The first generation of Soviet HMS were these bulky looking things:
Later to be replaced by these things (in the late 80s-early 90s maybe?)
Interestingly, the specs of these Russian HMS appear to be less impressive than the US ones from 1976:
http://www.best-of-flightgear.dk/vtasaur.htm
http://www.spetstechnoexport.com/catalogues/145
Higher angles and lower error. Even some newer HMS the Russians were advertising in 2010 were inferior to these 1976 US sights in angle, error and resolution. Apparently the US just didn't like these sort of HMS ("granny sight" types) until holographic displays become available.
- Elite 3K
- Posts: 3151
- Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43
klearhos wrote:@f-16adf
Who me?
I fought Bulgarian Mig-29s just a few years ago in a Block 30. The MiGs were clean, we carried our wing tanks. And we did not have a HMS.
So, I don't have to read internet BS.
On the subject of Internet BS how exactly have you moved from possibly the worst example of a modern day merge (for many reasons) to being an active fighter pilot? - You appear to be utterly devoid of even a basic understanding of technology.
Let's get this straight shall we - you think because physics 101 radar works in the same principle, nothing has changed today despite the massive difference in radar technology and computing power available?? - I could state computers today work with similar principles to the ones in the 1980s - and to some extent they do but due to the massive exponential increase in computing power coupled with the many years of gained programming experience there is simply no comparison to todays PCs (Desktop/Smartphone/Tablet) - they are infinitely more capable and can do things the early 80s ones could only dream of! - thus it would be utterly ludicrous to try to compare an APG-81 AESA to an APG-68v5 MSA or say an SARH AIM-7M to an AIM-120D.
Would you be one of these pilots that jumps from an old F-16 into an F-35 and thinks they are on a different planet??
Fulcrum flyers history is pretty well validated for your information - so before you come on here spouting utter BS you had better provide some of your background - btw actual fighter pilots never discuss tactics or anything in this area so this had better be good.
Last edited by basher54321 on 02 Aug 2017, 20:12, edited 1 time in total.
- Banned
- Posts: 1293
- Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25
klearhos wrote:@ arian
Only 500? Some air forces will never get 500 aircraft!
Otherwise, very informative post.
Yeah what I meant was that the US apparently didn't really like them and waited until holographic sights were available. But they were virtually identical in concept to the ones the Soviets fielded with MiG-29/Su-27, but a decade earlier. It is indeed strange that it is almost universally held that the Soviets were the first.
The USAF apparently agreed with you that there was really no point to this type of HMS and didn't adopt it, and the USN just dropped the program altogether. Apparently, pilots didn't really like them either. I'm not sure if it was because of some specific drawbacks, or because it provided no real advantage.
- Banned
- Posts: 81
- Joined: 13 Jul 2017, 21:08
zero-one wrote:It seems that this article by "Lt. Col. Johann Kock" can no longer be found outside of Forums and blog sites. This makes it hard to use as a "credible source" when comparing the F-16 with the Mig-29.
Is there any other performance comparison between the 2 aircraft that can be found in an official site.
Well some short info. Some mig-29s were sh*t models in the kosovo or Gulf war like 3 of 6 mig-29s in kosovo could not lift off the ground. Than Kargil War indians were given BVR missiles and Paki-f-16s refused confrontation especially when IAF kept on bombing Pakistan to the point of nuclear retaliation. What also makes it hard is US keeps low profiles on their radars.
-
- Forum Veteran
- Posts: 925
- Joined: 05 Dec 2015, 18:09
- Location: The Netherlands
wewuzkangz wrote:zero-one wrote:It seems that this article by "Lt. Col. Johann Kock" can no longer be found outside of Forums and blog sites. This makes it hard to use as a "credible source" when comparing the F-16 with the Mig-29.
Is there any other performance comparison between the 2 aircraft that can be found in an official site.
Well some short info. Some mig-29s were sh*t models in the kosovo or Gulf war like 3 of 6 mig-29s in kosovo could not lift off the ground. Than Kargil War indians were given BVR missiles and Paki-f-16s refused confrontation especially when IAF kept on bombing Pakistan to the point of nuclear retaliation. What also makes it hard is US keeps low profiles on their radars.
More anecdotal stuff that we have to take your teenage words for it?
Not falling for that anymore, please go troll on another site you math genius you.
"Those who know don’t talk. Those who talk don’t know"
- Newbie
- Posts: 16
- Joined: 18 Jul 2017, 11:21
@arian
Apparently the USN worked with the -9 and the USAF with the -7.
So the last remaining Navy Phantoms received the VTAS/SEAM Sidewinder and the last USAF/ANG F-4Es received an update to their radar that enabled it to scan vertically 45 deg upward which allowed for off-boresight employment of the latest AIM-7E models.
Clearly, anything that adds weight on the pilot's neck muscles, has to prove its value. The weight problem was resolved I believe by the time of VTAS III and I am sure they did sth with the slippage problem which was the most serious.
Apparently the USN worked with the -9 and the USAF with the -7.
So the last remaining Navy Phantoms received the VTAS/SEAM Sidewinder and the last USAF/ANG F-4Es received an update to their radar that enabled it to scan vertically 45 deg upward which allowed for off-boresight employment of the latest AIM-7E models.
Clearly, anything that adds weight on the pilot's neck muscles, has to prove its value. The weight problem was resolved I believe by the time of VTAS III and I am sure they did sth with the slippage problem which was the most serious.
- Banned
- Posts: 1293
- Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25
wewuzkangz wrote:zero-one wrote:It seems that this article by "Lt. Col. Johann Kock" can no longer be found outside of Forums and blog sites. This makes it hard to use as a "credible source" when comparing the F-16 with the Mig-29.
Is there any other performance comparison between the 2 aircraft that can be found in an official site.
Well some short info. Some mig-29s were sh*t models in the kosovo or Gulf war like 3 of 6 mig-29s in kosovo could not lift off the ground. Than Kargil War indians were given BVR missiles and Paki-f-16s refused confrontation especially when IAF kept on bombing Pakistan to the point of nuclear retaliation. What also makes it hard is US keeps low profiles on their radars.
Go back to wherever you crawled out of, kid.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests