Article - F-16 versus MiG-29 Fulcrum

I fought Bulgarian Mig-29s just a few years ago in a Block 30.

Which exercise was that?

The MiGs were clean, we carried our wing tanks. And we did not have a HMS.

Did they have? 'Cause I think those old USSR systems doesn't work at all...

I think this klearhos guy is a pretender. Some of his posts elsewhere revealed his true colors.

From http://www.hostultra.com/~migalley/mig29_f16.html

Ok this analysis was performed taking in consideration the old versions of the MIG 29, however I would like to know what is your opinion about the MIG 29 M2 Vs F 16 Block 50/52.......



Both the F-16 and the MiG-29 were designed to correct mistakes and shortcomings of previous aircraft. With the USAF it was the low kill ratios over Vietnam as well as the lack of complete air superiority over the battle field a feat that was achieved with great success both over the battlefield's of Europe and Korea where the US Army was able to operate under little threat of air attack. With the Russians they wanted an aircraft that would perform the same roles as the MiG-25 and the Su-27 but at a shorter range. As well as an aircraft that for the first time could match Western fighters in ACM, while maintaining the ability to operate as an interceptor. Thus the MiG-29 became a smaller and shorter range F-15 while the F-16 became a larger and longer range F-5. Both teams designed craft that were cleared to operations of 9g and made use of wing-body blending to increase internal volume , reduce weight and improve maneuverability. They both located the intakes close to structures to reduce the AoA (angle of attack) sensed at the face of the intake/s thus increasing the AoA that the aircraft could take in comparison to other aircraft of their day. With the F-16A the AoA limit is 25deg where as the MiG-29 has been cleared of an AoA of up to 45deg.

One of the major differences was in the engine arrangement with the General Dynamics team choosing a single P&W F100 this gave commonality with the F-15 and lower fuel consumption. In contrast the Mikoyan team choose a twin arrangement of the RD-33 with no thought give to using the Saturn/Lyulka AL-31F as used in the Su-27. The reasoning being that the use of two engines gave the aircraft greater survivability as the MiG-23/27's suffered a greater attrition ratio then the MiG-25. With the intakes the GD team adopted a fixed geometry intake as high mach number capability was not required for the role that the F-16 was to fill, while the requirement for a dash speed of mach 2.3+ led Mikoyan to adopt a two dimensional , four shock , variable geometry intake with one fixed ramp and two moving ramps.

In regard to FOD (foreign object damage) the GD team took the position that FOD would not be a problem as the F-16 would operate form swept, paved runways. Where as the Russians felt that a rough field capability was an important capability and as such devised two movable ramps over the intakes to prevent FOD while on the ground or at low speed at low level. When the intakes are closed the engines breath via auxiliary intakes on the upper surface of the wing. The F-16 has incorporated a number of features that are intended to enhance combat effectiveness. The pilot's seat is inclined at 30deg rather than the normal 13deg , he also has a side stick controller which allows the pilots arm to be supported this has not met with universal approval as some pilots prefer to be able to fly with either hand. The F-16 also for the first time incorporated a Fly-By-Wire flight control system, this allowed the aircraft to be made inherently unstable and would greatly improve maneuverability in air-combat. While the MiG introduced the first HMS (helmet-mounted sight) and IRST (infra-red search and track) sensor with a laser range finder for passive attacks and missile engagements up to 45deg off-borsight but maintained a conventional flight control system and achieved high maneuverability mainly due advanced aerodynamics. i.e. The tail of the MiG-29 is said to have been positioned to take advantage of the four vortices by the wing and fuselage.

In combat provided that the MiG-29's 7.5g above 0.85 mach can be avoided it should beat any F-16 due to its BVR capability , higher thrust/weight ratio and lower wing loading. While in recent exercises between USAF F-16 and German MiG-29A's showed that in ACM the greatest advantage the MiG-29 had was it's helmet mounted sight coupled with the AA-11 Archer which gives it a kill zone greater than any aircraft serving. F-16 pilots found that any aircraft within 45deg's of the nose of a MiG-29 was always under grave threat. The ability to target aircraft well of boresight has proved to be such a success that helmet mounted sights have become requirements on any new fighter program.

While both aircraft have short-commings those of the MiG-29 have effectively been solved with newer versions ( MiG-29 S/M/K and MiG-33 ) which have increased the fuel capacity of the MiG as well as adding an in-flight refueling system. The number of hard points has also been increased by two and the max warload has been doubled, along with the inclusion of a fly-by-wire flight control system and a new radar that allowed two targets to be engaged simultaneously with the new AA-12 Adder active radar missile as well as full clearance for flight at 9 g's . Most of these upgrades have been offered to current users of the MiG-29 with the Russian and Indian airforces conducting some upgrades. The F-16 by comparison has had few of it's problems solved in the past few years. One of it's greatest drawbacks the lack of a BVR capability was solved with the clearance of the AMRAAM for use on the F-16 but the second major problem of insufficient wing area on the F-16C has never been solved.

Hi guys...I´m a Rookie in this forum..
This analysis was performed taking in consideration the old versions of the MIG 29 and the F16, however I would like to know your opinion about the newer versions such as the MIG 29 M2 versus the F 16 Block 50/52...

My best regards for all you from Chile

Mig-29's issue is that it goes through its fuel FAST when flown hard. (lots of AB used)

HMS had its advantages at the time but if AB is used a lot in offence or defence, fight is short lived.

Also, newer F-16s use JHMCS with AIM-9X so that takes away the Fulcrums advantage.

“While the MiG introduced the first HMS (helmet-mounted sight)”

“The first aircraft with HMDS was the AH-64 Apache! It was a project started by the IDF/AF and the USAF! The USAF lost interest and dropped out but, the US Army took the information completed by the USAF and developed the the Apache's HMDS.”

I am not sure that is correct, South Africa was the first country to develop and use the HMS, which a South African navy admiral betrayed and sold to the Russians back in the day.

Regards
Gerg

I am not sure that is correct, South Africa was the first country to develop and use the HMS, which a South African navy admiral betrayed and sold to the Russians back in the day.
Gerg

South African system was most likely co-developed/cloned from Elbit HMS, as Israel and SA did lotsa cooperation back then. SA/Israel developed and fielded first operational HMS, but used "regular" missiles. Soviets stole the tech through defector, but made a new, dedicated missile with a gimballed seeker, bringing the FOV to 45 degrees (later 60). "The West" then came up with much better missiles, eventually capable of full sphere engagement envelope.

I think USN F-4N's and later J's were retrofitted with VTAS (a Honeywell HMS, used in conjunction with the AIM-9G). This may have been around 1972 or 1973.

I think that's right.

I flew with an ex-Navy F-4 driver in the Tucson ANG in the mid-70s who told an interesting VTAS story.

Both the front and backseaters were fitted with the little hangy down 'monocle' looking things on there helmets. There was a switch (I assume in the front) that determined whose 'monocle' had priority. During one of the early trials on a flared BQM drone, there was a helicopter off to the side filming it. The front seater fired on the BQM with the switch inadvertantly in the rear cockpit position. The RIO happened to be looking at the helicopter as they went by. Fortunately the AIM-9G couldn't perform that maneuver, but did make the attempt.

Ah, the perils of two-seat fighters.

Not sure about better missile capabilities, but didn’t the USA use the MiG 29 set up from the former DDR (east Germany) after the fall of the Berlin Wall to get a better understanding of the system? That was around 89’ - 90’ possibly 91’. Didn’t seem to be a priority for the US.

Wow interesting and nearly unlucky story from Outlaw!!

Not sure about better missile capabilities, but didn’t the USA use the MiG 29 set up from the former DDR (east Germany) after the fall of the Berlin Wall to get a better understanding of the system? That was around 89’ - 90’ possibly 91’. Didn’t seem to be a priority for the US.

Some reading on here for you:

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/how-t ... 1682723379

One thing we did when I transferred back to Nellis, since I ran all things relating to foreign materiel exploitation, was to set up an exploitation of the AA-10A and the Archer using the German MiG-29s. This exploitation became known as Project Grace and was conducted at Eglin AFB, FL in June and July 2003. The Germans island-hopped the Fulcrums to the States as they had done a few times prior. We fired 11 AA-10As and 12 Archers in varying scenarios. We learned a lot about the radar and the missiles. That we conducted this exploitation was not classified. It made the local newspapers. The results, however, are classified.

For what they had to work with, you really had to hand it to the Russians. The Mig-29 was a quantum leap over the Mig-23/25 insofar as matching the F-16, at least in a turning engagement. Throw in the off boresight Archer and there was a window of time where the Mig would have likely come out on top in any reasonable engagement.

She wasn't perfect and still isn't, but for her day I thought it a splendid design. The later models correcting deficiencies are quite interesting, but is anybody buying them?

The "Mig-35" Russia is buying doesn't have thrust vctoring, is supposed to have a lot more fuel and an AESA radar. I don't know. It just seems like Russia and foreign operators alike opt rather for the Flanker. A lot more gas, a lot heavier payload, a much bigger radar, all the agility and then some. I keep rooting for Mig to come up with something new to reclaim their past glory, but updated Mig-29's are cutting it in a 5th gen world..

At least you could produce MiG-23 in numbers and export it. The MiG-29's 2 engines prevented it from realizing the typical success of the Soviet design bureaus, and therefore marked a major 180 from how they did things with previous lightweight fighters. The MiG-21 was so proliferate, that it served with tons of different air forces, with over 11,000 built.

Quoting a former Russian AF officer, he said that the goal for the new 4th gen fighters, the Su-27 and Mig-29 was to finally achieve a 1:1 ratio against NATO.

They were very aware of the fact that their fighters had no chance against their western counterparts on a one v one scenario, which is why their tactics revolved on a 1v 8 scenario, basically send 8 Mig-21s for each F-4.

With the Mig-23 and 25, he said this was reduced to 4:1. It wasn't until the Su-27 and Mig-29 that they can make a case for a 1:1 ratio.

Some of us might argue, but in the 1980s, 2 Mig-29s for every single F-16 doesn't look like a scenario I'd like to be in, Or 2 Su-27 for every F-15 for that matter.

But the problem with that is, they could not manage to out spend the west in quantity. They did manage to get as close as possible to their 1:1 ratio but now they are the numerically inferior side.

With the F-22 and F-35 the ratio is back up again in favor of the West, with simulations putting the F-22 on 30:1 kill/loss ratio against the most advanced Flanker variants. The Su-57 is their attempt to close the ratio gap again.

How many Mig-29s have F-16s downed so far. I know there are few over Kosovo With one being a Dutch F-16AM. People who I have spoken to say that the Yugoslav Fulcrum's were in a decrepit state some flying without a working radar or RWRs. How true is this. Were any of them engaged at close range.

I believe the first AMRAAM kill against a Mig-25 was WVR because the earlier shot was from an Aim-9 that missed. Can't find the article here though.

But if the F-16 kills on Mig-29s happened to be WVR as well, hopefully we can shut the detractors from making all those, "they had no working radar" excuses.