PDA

View Full Version : F-16C Block 52 vs. Mig-29S



Praxus
03 Oct 03,, 01:26
Which is better and why?

I would think the F-16C is better at ranges over 10 miles because of the better avionics but would have one hell of a fight in a close in Dogfight.

Bill
03 Oct 03,, 03:35
All about the stick actuator man.

troung
06 Oct 03,, 04:16
ahhhh the F-16C/D vs. the MiG-29S..........

SA = F-16C
Range = F-16C
Payload = F-16C
Weapons = F-16C
Radar = F-16C
Mantianace = F-16C

I would not call the MiG-29 much of a fighter. It has so far failed and been shot down over 20 times with nothing to say for it's self. About the famous HMS people should remember that the F-16 can use the AIM-132, AIM-9X, IRIS-T and Python 4/5. In BVR it's a joke the AIM-120 has been killing MiG-29s since 1994. The MiG-29 with it's worthless avoinics will probably have no idea the F-16 is in the air much less about to kill it.



http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/19.../july2a_95.html



"Before coming here, some of our pilots may have thought of the MiG's helmet-mounted sight as an end-all to a BFM fight," explained Lt. Col. Gary West, commander of the 510th. "We have found that it is not as lethal as we had expected.

"The Fulcrum doesn't have the crisp movements of an F-16," Sparrow continued. "You need to be an octopus in the MiG-29 to work the avionics. Those German pilots have it tough. Just to get a simple lock on and fire a missile may take a half dozen hands-off switches or so. We can do the same with a flick of the thumb while we are looking at the HUD. F-16 pilots also have a significant sight advantage. A couple of hundred feet advantage can make a difference in air-to-air combat; the actual difference is more significant than that. MiG-29 pilots have a tough time checking their six o'clock. Their canopy rail is higher. They can lose sight of us even when flying BFM."

"Their visibility is not that good," agreed McCoy, one of the other two pilots who enjoyed a spin in the Fulcrum. "Their disadvantage is a real advantage for us. F-16 pilots sit high in the cockpit. All the MiG-29 pilots who sat in our cockpit wanted to look around with the canopy closed. They were impressed that they could turn around and look at the tail and even see the engine can."


"Besides visibility, I expected better turning performance," McCoy continued. "The MiG-29 is not a continuous nine-g machine like the F-16. I tried to do some things I normally do in an F-16. For example, I tried a high-AOA guns jink. I got the Fulcrum down to about 180 knots and pulled ninety degrees of bank and started pulling heavy g's. I then went to idle and added a little rudder to get the jet to roll with ailerons. The pilot took control away from me in the middle of these maneuvers because the airplane was about to snap. I use the F-16's quick roll rate like this all the time with no problem.

"I also tried to do a 250-knot loop," McCoy recalled. "I went to mil power and stabilized. As I went nose high, I asked for afterburner. I had to hamfist the airplane a little as I approached the top of the loop. I was still in afterburner at about 15,000 feet and the jet lost control. The nose started slicing left and right. I let go of the stick and the airplane righted itself and went down. It couldn't finish the loop. In the F-16, we can complete an entire loop at 250 knots."

Like Sparrow, McCoy climbed out of the MiG-29 cockpit feeling better about the F-16, especially its automation. "The biggest instrument in the MiG-29 cockpit is the clock," McCoy said. "It took me a while to understand this. But a large clock is needed to keep track of the time after launching a missile. When they launch a missile, they have to consider their shot range and the type of missile they are shooting and estimate how long it will take to impact before firing. When they take a five-mile Alamo shot, for example, they have to calculate mentally the time required for the missile to reach its target so their radar can illuminate it for the duration. They fire and watch until they know when they can turn away. That procedure is a real disadvantage if they're flying against someone who shot a missile at them at about the same time.

"F-16 pilots don't have to think about these things," McCoy continued. "We have great automation. When we launch a missile, the airplane performs all the calculations and displays a countdown on the head-up display for us. When we're within ten miles, we want our eyes out of the cockpit looking for flashes or smoke from an adversary. That's why our head-up display is focused to infinity. We can view information without refocusing our eyes to scan the horizon. Inside of ten miles, Fulcrum pilots are moving their hands around flipping about six switches, some they have to look at. I am moving one, maybe two switches, without taking my hands off the throttle and stick."

German Fulcrum pilots realize the limitations, and advantages, of their aircraft. "If you define an F-16 as a third-generation fighter, it is not fair to speak of the MiG-29 as a third-generation aircraft because of its avionics," said Lt. Col. Manfred Skeries, the deputy commander of the JG-73. "Aerodynamics, now, are something different." Skeries is the former commander of all East German fighter forces and the first German pilot to fly the MiG-29. His comments came after he received his first flight in the F-16.

"The MiG-29's avionics are a shortcoming," admitted Capt. Michael Raubbach, a Fulcrum pilot of the JG 73. "Its radar-warning and navigational equipment are not up to Western standards. The Russian idea of hands-on throttle and stick is not the same as it is in the West. It is true that we have to look in the cockpit a lot to flip switches. And the way information is provided and the accuracy with which it is provided-in the navigational equipment in particular-doesn't allow full employment in the Western concept.

"Our visibility is not as good as an F-16 or even an F-15," Raubbach continued. "We can't see directly behind us. We have to look out the side slightly to see behind us, which doesn't allow us to maintain a visual contact and an optimum lift vector at the same time. This shortcoming can be a real problem, especially when flying against an aircraft as small as the F-16. But as a German, I can't complain about the MiG's visibility. The aircraft offers the greatest visibility in our air force."

"The aircraft was not built for close-in dogfighting, though it is aerodynamically capable of it," Prunk continued. "The East Germans flew it as a point-defense interceptor, like a MiG-21. They were not allowed to max perform the airplane, to explore its capabilities or their own abilities. Sorties lasted about thirty minutes. The airplane was designed to scramble, jettison the tank, go supersonic, shoot its missiles, and go home." This relatively strict operational scenario presents its own limitations. Many of these involve the aircraft's centerline fuel tank. The MiG-29 cannot fly supersonic with the tank attached. Nor can pilots fire the aircraft's 30mm cannon (the tank blocks the shell discharge route) or use its speed brakes. The aircraft is limited to four g's when the tank has fuel remaining. The tank creates some drag and is also difficult to attach and remove. The MiG-29 can carry wing tanks that alleviate many of these shortcomings, but the Luftwaffe has no plans to purchase them from Russia.


Though aerodynamically adept, the MiG-29's performance is constrained by avionics conforming to Soviet tactical doctrine. The aircraft was designed to rely heavily on a centralized system of ground controllers, which could take control of the aircraft's radar. The system could also land the plane if necessary. "Warsaw Pact pilots were not taught to evaluate a situation as it occurs in the air," Prunk explained. "Pilots were used to a system that made many decisions for them. The aircraft's guidance system had room for only six preprogrammed steerpoints, including three targets. The radio had twenty preselected channels at frequencies unknown to the pilot.

"When our pilots first arrived here, they almost tripped over themselves because their eyes were glued to the ramp and those MiG-29s," West continued. "After a few days, though, those MiGs became just like any other aircraft. And that's the way it should be."

TopHatter
06 Oct 03,, 16:56
I have to agree with that assessment.
I'm sure the Fulcrum has some great attributes but it's kill ratio is um...well, you know.
Even the greatest pilot will find himself needing massive amounts of training time in the Fulcrum to acclimatize himself with everything he will have to do, whereas the -16 pilot has a great deal of automation to assist him, as the article pointed out.
On the flip side, the MiG will be easier to procure and support, what with the Russian defense industry practically starving for cash. Can we say "incentives"?

Mr-Ad0lf
14 Jan 05,, 16:20
Who won? The Luftwaffe Migs f***** the F-16s :tongue:

Thats also what happened during the Kargil conflict in 1999 when a lone IAF Mig-29 armed with BVRAAMs locked onto 2 PAF F-16s at maximum range sending them fleeing back to base. It was that incident that got the Fulcrums nicknamed the 'Falcon Hunters' in IAF circles. There are more Airforces around the world operating the Fulcrums than the F-16 'Fighting Chicken'. Also Russian aircraft have the ability to field better missiles than American aircraft. The MiG-29's superior speed translates to increased missile launch range which means that, coupled with the Fulcrum's BVR engagement with the IRST/R-27T combination makes it the F-16s hunter killer :eek:

MIKEMUN
14 Jan 05,, 16:41
Who won? The Luftwaffe Migs f***** the F-16s :tongue:

Thats also what happened during the Kargil conflict in 1999 when a lone IAF Mig-29 armed with BVRAAMs locked onto 2 PAF F-16s at maximum range sending them fleeing back to base. It was that incident that got the Fulcrums nicknamed the 'Falcon Hunters' in IAF circles. There are more Airforces around the world operating the Fulcrums than the F-16 'Fighting Chicken'. Also Russian aircraft have the ability to field better missiles than American aircraft. The MiG-29's superior speed translates to increased missile launch range which means that, coupled with the Fulcrum's BVR engagement with the IRST/R-27T combination makes it the F-16s hunter killer :eek:


Really? Sources Please........

Mr-Ad0lf
14 Jan 05,, 16:52
Really? Sources Please........

www.google.com :tongue: :tongue: :eek:

Tronic
14 Jan 05,, 17:58
It depends who's operating the Migs... Lets say... German Mig-29's vs. Saudi F-16's. Who would come out victorious?

Mr-Ad0lf
14 Jan 05,, 18:19
http://flugzeuginfo.aircraft-info.com/fotogalerie/jpg/mig29_luftwaffe_29+20_laage.jpg

Luftwaffe wins :) :) :)

Tronic
14 Jan 05,, 19:50
ok, Adolf, you're starting to get REALLY annoying now... How about coming up with facts???, and I mean REAL facts.

Bill
15 Jan 05,, 05:30
Eh, the US Navy would just wipe out all the Luftwaffe airbases from the Med with cruise missiles...

LOL, the US can wipe out whole air forces without even bothering to give the other guys a chance to shoot back... :biggrin:

Tronic
15 Jan 05,, 06:30
Eh, the US Navy would just wipe out all the Luftwaffe airbases from the Med with cruise missiles...

LOL, the US can wipe out whole air forces without even bothering to give the other guys a chance to shoot back... :biggrin:

What I was saying is... a German Mig-29 and a Saudi Arabian F-16... who would win???

Mr-Ad0lf
15 Jan 05,, 06:31
Eh, the US Navy would just wipe out all the Luftwaffe airbases from the Med with cruise missiles...

LOL, the US can wipe out whole air forces without even bothering to give the other guys a chance to shoot back... :biggrin:

Er, not before the German Navy subs sink the US Navy
:) :) :eek:

highsea
15 Jan 05,, 08:00
What I was saying is... a German Mig-29 and a Saudi Arabian F-16... who would win???
Saudi Arabia doesn't operate F-16's. They use F-15's.

A little reality check for Mr Adolf on the German experience with the Mig-29:

After the 1994 Farnborough Air Show there was one such description of how the MiG-29 was performing in the new Germany. Belyakov and Waldenberg gave Luftwaffe MiG-29's credit for winning "BVR duels" against USAF F-15's and F-16's despite their use of ECM. They praised the MiG-29's well maintained radar, powerful transmitter, and "long range target detection capability" with a very small radar cross section, high ECCM hardening, and more capable BVR missiles. They did admit, however, that the MiG-29 reaches a 9G capability only after the fuel volume is internal. It was also assumed, by them in their calculations, that the Sparrow missile did not get a radar semi-active midcourse update against a maneuvering target, which is wrong. In reality, the German Air Force MiG-29 experience against other NATO aircraft has been only allowed in deliberately controlled training situations, more to educate pilots then to assess superiority. The Luftwaffe feels caught between intense political pressure by the Russians to validate the MiG-29 in a NATO environment, as well as the natural desire by the NATO pilots to "fight" the Fulcrum flown by better trained pilots.

Initially the newly assimilated East German MiG-29 Wing (JG.3 changed later to JG.73), at Preschen still manned by its original cadre, proved unsatisfactory according to NATO standards, in both airmanship and tactical know-how. Only after existing Luftwaffe F-4, Tornado, and F-15 exchange pilots re-built the squadron, did a more realistic use of the MiG-29 occur.

To say that the communist trained East Germans were innovatively hampered by their own dielectric approach to training and operationally shackled by Russian authority as to "when" and "how much" to fly, would be a gross understatement. NATO pilots were quite amazed and confused over the fact that most of these East German "elite" pilots appeared not "care" about flying and had little interest in doing anything innovative with their training once they did get a chance to fly.

At the NATO F-16 Fighter Weapons Instructor's (FWIT-89) symposium, with a select gathering of Instructor Pilots (IP's), not just from NATO, but all over the world, the first face-to-face discussions were made with the Commander and tactical flight leaders of the Preschen Wing. The results were heart-breaking for those US & European trained pilots who sacrificed so much to stay on the razor's edge, although it was a relief to realize that clearly the Western approach to training was far superior. The average NATO pilot in that room had a far greater comprehension of the MiG-29's capabilities than did any of the MiG pilot's themselves. Almost all of the visitors spoke German and more than half Russian. There were no communication gaps, it was a straight forward pilot-to-pilot talk. The results were simple, the MiG pilot's perceived their flying tasks as a second or third priority to their personal agendas, which were first and foremost.

This must have impressed the Luftwaffe enough to be concerned about their security reliability. Soon after that, the decision was made to release almost all of the ex-East German pilots from the service and the units were re-organized or disbanded. But once the political decision was made to keep the MiG-29's in the German Air Force, the pressure from the Russian military and aerospace industry became intense as they tried to find any data that would support their claims of parallel or better suitability of the MiG-29 to NATO aircraft. In fact, what they are trying to do, was to take western experience with the MiG-29 and leverage it in the export marketplace. Fortunately, but not surprisingly, it has not been believed.
The IAF's ecperience with the Mig-29:

65 x MiG-29 single-seat and 5 x dual-seat trainers with 48 x spare engines (sparing factor of 0.7/aircraft) were delivered between 1986 and 1990 at a total program cost of approximately $600 million that included initial spares and support. These aircraft were the first MiG-29's to ever leave the Soviet Union and were not up to the weapons system standard of those that went later to the Warsaw Pact allies. The aircraft were sent disassembled by sea, and re-assembled, and test flown in India. By 1990 three squadrons were operational. Two Flight Data Ground Processing Units were included to help pilots debrief their utilization of flight controls and systems. Expectations were that single-seat aircraft would fly 15 hours per month (180 hrs/yr) and dual-seat aircraft 20 hours per month (240 hrs/yr).

There were extensive problems encountered in operational and maintenance due to the large number of pre-mature failures of engines, components, and systems. Of the total of 189 engines in service, 139 engines (74%) failed pre-maturely and had been withdraw from service by July 1992, thus effectively shutting down operations. 62 of these engines had not even accomplished 50% of their 300 hours first overhaul point. Thus the desired serviceability showed a steadily decreasing trend.

Engineering reports mainly attribute RD-33 failures to design/material deficiencies causing discolored engine oil (8), cracks in the nozzle guide vanes (31), and surprisingly, foreign object damage (FOD). The eight material deficient engines (discolored oil) were repaired by the contractor under warrantee provisions, but the engines had to be recycled to the manufacturer. The thirty-one engines with cracks in their nozzle guide vanes were fixed in the field by contractor teams and adjustments were made to the entire engine fleet. But even though the incidents reduced the occurrences of the cracks, they continued. But the FOD situation is the most interesting, especially after the inlet FOD doors received world press coverage, but there were other concerns about production quality control that led to problems.

Since the Indian Air Force received early model Fulcrum A's, some just after the 200th production article, there were quality control deficiencies that resulted in numerous pieces of FOD (foreign object damage) and tools being left behind after final construction inside of the aircraft. Remember that the Fulcrum skeleton is made first and then the skin is riveted over top, in the way aircraft were made in the fifties and sixties in the West. Nuts, bolts, tools, etc. all made their way to the engine bays and inlet ducts and when they were loosened up after accelerations they damaged engines and equipment.

On top of all this, it was discovered that the unique FOD doors on the MiG-29's inlets were not stopping material from getting into the engine ducts. Since the doors retracted "up" into the inlet, debris that was kicked up by the nose wheel lodged on or at the bottom of the door seal and then was ingested into the engine when the door opened during the nose gear lifted off the ground during takeoff.

This problem was known from the earliest days. After the first four MiG-29 prototypes were evaluated, the nose gear was moved further back, but nose wheel "mud-flaps" or guards were still required to protect the engine from flying debris. It took until 1988 before all delivered aircraft were so equipped, therefore the initial batch of InAF aircraft had to be locally retro-fitted with mud guards and that activity was not completed until June 1992. All costs were supposed to be re-imbursed by the contractor but Mikoyan reneged and left the InAF with $300,000 in liabilities. In subsequent MiG-29K/M models the FOD doors were replaced by screens that closed "down", forcing any debris out of the louvers repositioned to the lower side of the inlet duct..

The Indian Air Force procurement contract was concluded in September 1986, and the first engine was expected to go into overhaul in 1989. However, four engines prematurely came up for overhaul and no repair facility had been prepared. As time went on, 115 of the 122 engines (94%) prematurely failed and had to be re-cycled through engine depots in Russia at great cost. Backlogs were created and only 79 (65%) engines returned on schedule. Even when a regional Indian repair facility was completed in August 1994, the high failure rates continued and the majority of broken engines had to be sent back to Russian depots. Self-sufficiency was achieved in 1994, only after the operations tempo was significantly reduced on a permanent basis. In the process of refurbishing failed engines, the total technical life of most of the engine fleet was effectively reduced from 800 hours / 8 years to 400 hours / 4 years, at a minimum.
Lessons learned:

1. The MiG-29 had intensive problems in operation and maintenance since its induction due to premature failure of engines, components, and systems. 74% of the engines failed within five years, were out of supply pipeline for three years, and reduced aircraft availability by 15, to 20%. This led to a decision to restrict flying efforts and therefore compromised operational and training commitments.

2. There were significant shortfalls in the performance of the MiG-29 fleet resulting in operational and training inadequacies. The shortfall ranged from 20 to 65% in respect to combat aircraft availability and 58 to 84% in trainers between 1987 - 1991.

3. There was a mismatch between induction of the aircraft (1987) and the establishment of its repair facilities (end of 1994). Until that time engines had to be continually sent to manufacturers abroad at great monetary cost, reduction of one-half total life, and a significant stretch of schedule.

4. Non-availability of critical radar components and spares resulted in the grounding of significant numbers of aircraft. Five aircraft were out of action for over six months while two were in the hanger for over two years. Unserviceability of computers and the inability to fix them cost excessive amounts of money to rectify.

5. The pilot debrief Ground Data Processing Unit, imported at high cost, was left lying around unserviceable and unused since its reception in August 1990.

6. The lack of nose wheel mud guards had to be solved by importing upgrade kits and expensive local re-design after material deficiencies could not be overcome.
Mig-29 Combat Legacy:

If we examine the actual combat performance of the MiG-29, the data shows a more subdued track record despite zealous reports from MAPO-MiG. During the Gulf War, the only enemy fighter to be shot down by an Iraqi MiG-29 was another Iraqi fighter. A MiG-23 who happened to be the guy's wingman and unfortunately the MiG-29 pilot hit the ground after killing it. Meanwhile the USAF downed 4 x MiG-29's during the war (all with AIM-7 Sparrow's) and a fifth one crashed as a result of a maneuvering suicide during an engagement with an F-15. The F-15's wingman downed a MiG-29 with an AIM-7. Seven more MiG-29's were destroyed by air-to-ground munitions or coalition ground forces and four defected to Iran. After the Gulf War, during the Northern Watch patrols over northern Iraq, a USAF F-16 downed a MiG-29 with an AMRAAM (AIM-120) missile.

In other theaters, the new Federal Yugoslav Air Force (Serbia proper), designated the "RViPVO" (Ratno Vazduhoplovstovo i Protivvazdushna Odbrana), on 08 Oct 91, attacked Croatian's Presidential Palace in Zagreb with 2 x MiG-29's delivering 57mm air-to-ground rockets. This was the first report of MiG-29's being used in the air-to-ground role since fighting began against Slovenia in June 1991. Soon after that, one MiG-29 was lost to ground fire. The RViPVO assembled their MiG-29 and MiG-21 bis (Fishbed K) units at Batajnica Air Base and they represent Serbia's best air defense resources. The MiG-29's are assigned to one squadron (the 130th LAE) and are locally designated type L-18 and NL-18 aircraft. They are kept in reserve to protect the leadership in Belgrade from NATO PGM equipped aircraft.

Moldova leased 12 of its 30 x MiG-29's with pilots and maintenance crews, some Iraqi, to help South Yeman fight its civil war. Seven were shot down or destroyed on the ground with the remaining five rendered unserviceable.

Likewise, Cuban MiG-29's have also become virtually unserviceable due to spares shortages. Recent estimates note that only three Cuban Fulcrums are still operational. They did however, get one airborne in early March to shoot down two Cessna Skymasters off the coast of Cuba.

So at least 22 x MiG-29's have been downed or destroyed in combat having flown only a couple hundred missions. The only MiG-29 air-to-air victory was a fratricide and at least two pilots killed themselves maneuvering the aircraft at low altitude which could be partially attributed to the way the aircraft 's weapon system is mechanized and its "un-friendly" cockpit that features a heads-down gyro reference. Also, over the years three MiG-29's have been lost in accidents at Air Shows in France and England.
http://www.sci.fi/~fta/MiG-29-2b.htm

This doesn't take into account the experience in Serbia, where several Mig-29's were shot down by F-16's and F-15's.

I think I will have to take the F-16, thank you very much.

Tronic
15 Jan 05,, 08:41
"Saudi Arabia doesn't operate F-16's. They use F-15's."

Oh, ok. Well what about German Mig-29's vs. UAE F-16's??? lol

Mr-Ad0lf
15 Jan 05,, 13:01
FOD and Engine problems :

The IAF has overcome all the initial problems they faced with this modern Soviet fighter. But if you think about engine and FOD (foreign object damage) problems in a fighter aircraft, look first at the F-16 and look no further. The few Air Forces that operate the F-16s are well aware of hairline cracks developing in their F-16 hulls and the dreaded Pratt & Whitney engines that caused the USAF to ground nearly 400 F-16s following several engine related crashes at Luke AFB a few years back, nearly one third of the F-16 fleet the USAF has in its inventory. Like the USAF F-16 that developed engine failure, particularly the high pressure turbine post, causing the HPT blades to break free and damage the engine another example was a RNoAF F-16 departing Banak Airbase lost its engine in flight due to a turbine failure and went down in flames. Earlier on Thailand had grounded each and every F-16 they had and so did Israel after having problems with their F-16D. The main spate of these failures in the F-16s are due to various factors, not one. One cause of the crash was numerous cracks in the afterburner wall which caused fire to spread. Others speculate are weld failures in the augmentor ducts. Its such careless planning and designing of the plane itself that makes engine nozzle and entire augmentor assemblies get detached at high speeds which is why most F-16s were designed to only make it to Mach 1.9. For poorer nations like Egypt and Pakistan with no replacement of spares for third stage fan blades and disc, and retrofitting of an improved low-pressure turbine module the F-16s would become more vulnerable to crashes. As for FOD problems, the lower edge of the Falcons intake lip is only 38 inches above the ground, which is not surprising why many F-16s deployed to police Iraq and Afghanistan crashed in those countries.

Dogfighting :

Gone are the days of Korean and Vietnamese air warfare where pilots could see the whites of each others eyes before firing each other. An F-16 pilot could be seated in his bubble cockpit canopy coolly enjoying the view even unaware that a Mig-29 is tracking and targeting his plane because the Fulcrum has IRSTS which enables it to passively track the Falcon from surprisingly long range with BVRAAMs and without warning. It is no wonder then that the USAF’s motto of ‘No one ever comes close’ is quite appropriate, the Migs will just stay afar BVR and shoot
:) :) :eek:

Mr-Ad0lf
15 Jan 05,, 13:09
O well, no hard feelings but, I like making fun of the F-16 only because its a plane Pakistan is just in love with......and Pakistans 'love' has got to be India's target :biggrin:

highsea
15 Jan 05,, 18:50
Oh, ok. Well what about German Mig-29's vs. UAE F-16's??? lolUAE's F-16's are Block 60's. From a platform standpoint, they are superior to the Mig-29. But it would come down to the pilots and whatever support they had, where the encounter took place, etc.

An F-16 pilot could be seated in his bubble cockpit canopy coolly enjoying the view even unaware that a Mig-29 is tracking and targeting his plane because the Fulcrum has IRSTS which enables it to passively track the Falcon from surprisingly long range with BVRAAMs and without warning. It is no wonder then that the USAF’s motto of ‘No one ever comes close’ is quite appropriate, the Migs will just stay afar BVR and shoot Pretty lame assessment, imo. You assume that the F-16 has no situational awareness of the airspace. That's a risky assumption if you are the Mig driver.

All one needs to do is compare the actual encounters if you want to know what would happen. And what would happen is the Mig would be shot down. Time and time again that has been the result, and no Mig-29 has ever taken down an F-16.

O well, no hard feelings but, I like making fun of the F-16 only because its a plane Pakistan is just in love with......and Pakistans 'love' has got to be India's target Not only does that demonstrate childish behavior, but your OP was referring to the Block 52, which Pakistan does not have. Since India has BVRAAM capabilities and Pakistan doesn't, obviously the advantage would go to India. But your nationalism and trolling to support your hatred of Pakistan is a mark of an emotional teenager, not someone who wishes to engage in a mature discussion.

Bill
15 Jan 05,, 19:32
"Er, not before the German Navy subs sink the US Navy "

LOL, that's pretty funny.

Bill
15 Jan 05,, 19:33
"The few Air Forces that operate the F-16s"

Few?

LOL....that's even funnier.

You should be a comedian, because you suck as a military analyst. :)

Bill
15 Jan 05,, 19:36
BVR missiles are actually pretty easy to counter for a skilled pilot. USAF pilots usually use BVR shots as spoilers to set up a heater attack.

If you don't believe me, ask Mr. Mudd, former USAF F-16 and test pilot.

www.a-10.org

highsea
15 Jan 05,, 21:04
FOD and Engine problems :

The IAF has overcome all the initial problems they faced with this modern Soviet fighter. But if you think about engine and FOD (foreign object damage) problems in a fighter aircraft, look first at the F-16 and look no further.
Okay, let's compare the safety records of the two aircraft.

Mig-29
India: 24 losses per 100,000 flight hours (1992 figures, IAF)
Russia: 20 losses per 100,000 flight hours (1985-1990 figures, JDW)

F-16
3.86 losses per 100,000 flight hours (cumulative all versions, USAF)
Block 50/52: 2.3 losses per 100,000 flight hours
FY 2002: 1.37 losses per 100,000 flight hours
FY 2004: 0.57 losses per 100,000 flight hours

Tronic
16 Jan 05,, 00:10
Okay, let's compare the safety records of the two aircraft.

Mig-29
India: 24 losses per 100,000 flight hours (1992 figures, IAF)
Russia: 20 losses per 100,000 flight hours (1985-1990 figures, JDW)

F-16
3.86 losses per 100,000 flight hours (cumulative all versions, USAF)
Block 50/52: 2.3 losses per 100,000 flight hours
FY 2002: 1.37 losses per 100,000 flight hours
FY 2004: 0.57 losses per 100,000 flight hours

stop bringin Indian Mig's into this damn it... you wanna talk Indian planes, lets talk sukhoi, lol.

highsea
16 Jan 05,, 00:21
stop bringin Indian Mig's into this damn it... you wanna talk Indian planes, lets talk sukhoi, lol.Lol, it was adolf who started this up with the Mig 29's.

Definitely the SUK's are a bad-ass plane. :biggrin: I have a friend who files Su-33's. He likes'em just fine. It's actually my favorite Russian AC.

I have a lot of respect for Indian pilots, and Indians in general. I have several friends from Bangalore. I worked with them on a dot-com startup. Very bright people, though they are a little "optimistic" at times. ;)

troung
16 Jan 05,, 01:05
"No one ever comes close’ is quite appropriate, the Migs will just stay afar BVR and shoot "

With the rather worthless R-27R? MiG-29s have been shot down without knowing what hit them. The first woman jet pilot ever (Aster Tolassa in Ethiopia flying a Su-27S) to score a jet fighter air to air kill scored on a MiG-29.

"Oh, ok. Well what about German Mig-29's vs. UAE F-16's??? lol"

Hmmm an AESA APG-80 radar, AIM-120s and AIM-132s versus the N-019, R-27R and R-73E....

And let's not forget more F-16 users have the AIM-120 (Belguim, Denmark, Norway, Taiwan, Thailand, USA, UAE, Singapore, Korea, Netherlands, Portugal, Greece, Turkey, Israel, Jordan) then MiG-29 users have R-77Es (India, maybe Russia and Peru/Malaysia only have been wired). In fact more F-16 users have CFT equipped planes (Greece, Israel, UAE and soon Chile/Oman) then MiG-29 users have the R-77E in service (not just wired). So which plane is better for BVR? F-16s have killed several MiG-29s for no loss.

Mr_Aryan
18 Jan 05,, 11:41
"Saudi Arabia doesn't operate F-16's. They use F-15's."

Oh, ok. Well what about German Mig-29's vs. UAE F-16's??? lol


All F-16s variants are in no way superior to any Mig-29. Forget the UAE F-16s, it was the USAF F-16s that got a real thrashing from those Luftwaffe Mig-29As. The German pilots armed with their helmet mounted sights coupled with AA-11 Archers which gave them a kill zone greater than any aircraft serving at the time. Unlike the Mig-29, the F-16 was never designed to be an air-superiority fighter it was just designed to be an ordinary fighter/bomber much like the F-5 as a cheap export fighter to third world countries and not a multi-role interceptor for superiority/interdiction roles. Also since a high mach number capability was never designed for the F-16 its big yawning air-intake coupled with its low wing sweep didn’t allow the plane to stall easily. The F-16’s AoA limit is just 25deg where as the Mig-29 has an AoA of 45 deg.

Mr_Aryan
18 Jan 05,, 11:44
"No one ever comes close’ is quite appropriate, the Migs will just stay afar BVR and shoot "

With the rather worthless R-27R? MiG-29s have been shot down without knowing what hit them......

then MiG-29 users have the R-77E in service (not just wired). So which plane is better for BVR?

Worthless R-27R? Its not half as worthless as the AIM-9 which is the oldest and cheapest missile going, probably serving with those UAE F-16s. Aerodynamically, the R-27 is superior to the AMRAAM with a range of 130 km, while other variants have a maximum range of between 70 to 170 kilometers. Whereas the R-77RVV-AE has a range of 100 km, with the seeker locking on at around 20 km, and a maximum speed of Mach 4. Its range puts it in the long-range class and is equivalent to that of the AIM-54 Phoenix. At this rate the AIM-120 is no where near the R-77 since it has a range of only 50 km (30 miles), 50 km less than the superior R-77.

Unlike the F-16, the Mig-29 was never designed for old obsolete dog-fighting, as an air-superiority fighter it was designed for BVR engagement and to shoot from AFAR….’No one ever comes CLOSE.’

Mr_Aryan
18 Jan 05,, 11:51
stop bringin Indian Mig's into this damn it... you wanna talk Indian planes, lets talk sukhoi, lol.

That information is all bogus. Its meant for weary civilians. These are just statistics, similar to the type they had for the Space Shuttle, which was all false. Moreover, between 1991 and 1998, IAF attrition has remained at the lowest and with the induction of modern fighters is even lower now.

Mr_Aryan
18 Jan 05,, 11:53
[QUOTE=highsea]UAE's F-16's are Block 60's. From a platform standpoint, they are superior to the Mig-29. But it would come down to the pilots and whatever support they had, where the encounter took place, etc.
Pretty lame assessment, imo. You assume that the F-16 has no situational awareness of the airspace. That's a risky assumption if you are the Mig driver.

All one needs to do is compare the actual encounters if you want to know what would happen. And what would happen is the Mig would be shot down. Time and time again that has been the result, and no Mig-29 has ever taken down an F-16.
QUOTE]


Those encounters were false. Not a single Mig-29 took part in Operation “Iraqi Freedom” and before that the few Migs that were damaged were all either on the ground hidden away or holed up in a narrow column of limited airspace like Serbia where entire squadrons of NATO or USAF jets all stormed over a single Mig, like the 350-400 strong NATO fighters up against just about 15-20 Yugoslav MiG-29s. Leaving alone the Flankers and Fulcrums, let a couple of 350-400 vintage Luftwaffe Mig-21s and IAF Jaguars take on some 50-60 F-15s and F-16s within the state of California, roughly the size of Iraq and see what happens. They’d blow those US ‘Bald Eagles’ and ‘Fighting Chickens’ out of the sky!

Mr_Aryan
18 Jan 05,, 11:55
Not only does that demonstrate childish behavior, but your OP was referring to the Block 52, which Pakistan does not have. Since India has BVRAAM capabilities and Pakistan doesn't, obviously the advantage would go to India. But your nationalism and trolling to support your hatred of Pakistan is a mark of an emotional teenager, not someone who wishes to engage in a mature discussion.


I don’t have hatred for Pakistan or any other country. As a true Catholic I love all enemies, am happy with my country, the 5000 year old sacred Hindu-Aryan culture that goes with it……..and er ofcourse, Luftwaffe Migs :) ;)

Franco Lolan
21 Jan 05,, 00:59
Amen.

Franco Lolan
21 Jan 05,, 01:05
Those encounters were false. Not a single Mig-29 took part in Operation “Iraqi Freedom” and before that the few Migs that were damaged were all either on the ground hidden away or holed up in a narrow column of limited airspace like Serbia where entire squadrons of NATO or USAF jets all stormed over a single Mig, like the 350-400 strong NATO fighters up against just about 15-20 Yugoslav MiG-29s. Leaving alone the Flankers and Fulcrums, let a couple of 350-400 vintage Luftwaffe Mig-21s and IAF Jaguars take on some 50-60 F-15s and F-16s within the state of California, roughly the size of Iraq and see what happens. They’d blow those US ‘Bald Eagles’ and ‘Fighting Chickens’ out of the sky![/QUOTE]

Yes, there has not been true equally footed AA encounters; however, I must refute your statement that mig21's ans jaguars would own the F15's. Yes, most F16's are little match right now, but the F15's are a very different matter.

dtmfreak
22 Jan 05,, 21:20
Another thing you have to ponder on is the models of the opposing jets we are discussing that made it into combat. Most of the MIG-29s that were shut down were the original MIGs made during the USSR-era. The countries that had their MIGs killed cannot afford modern missiles like the R-27T1, R-73E, R-73, etc. If you really want to start comparing F-16C with a MIG, try the MIG-29SMT for grabs.



The basic MiG-29A has no air-to-ground capability beyond unguided rockets and free-fall iron bombs. The SMT upgrade provides a Zhuk radar with air-to-ground modes and the ability to deliver guided munitions.

In 1998 a decision was made by the Defense Ministry to launch a quantity-modernization program of the MiG-29 fighters. A total of 150 to 180 modernized MiG-29SMTs will be introduced in service with the Russian Air Force. Extensive modernization is planned only of the aircraft produced through the previous decade. This will provide a dramatic increase in combat capabilities of the Russian Air Force. The modernization program started in September 1998 by the Kubinka military aircraft-repair plant and the MAPO MIG. The first batch of 10 to 15 MiG-29SMTs was delivered before the end of the year. In 1999, a total of 20 to 30 MiG-29 fighters were modernized into the MiG-29SMT version, approaching fifth-generation fighters in terms of characteristics. Starting from the year 2000, the program's annual modernization rate was expected to reach 40 MiG-29SMTs. The overall plan provides for modernization of 150 recently manufactured MiG-29s, with the remainder of the older aircraft being withdrawn from service (presently there are 330 MiG-29 aircraft in Russian combat units and 130 in training units).

The MiG-29SMT fighter displays a number of essentially new capabilities to effectively destroy both air and ground (sea surface) targets with the use of high-precision “air-to-air” and “air-to-surface” missiles, thus combining the roles of air superiority fighter and strike fighter.

The MiG-29SMT is the up-to-date modification of MiG-29 multirole frontline fighter. The aircraft exhibits a long flight range due to extra capacity of integral fuel tanks and installation of in-flight refueling system (similar to that of the MiG-29SD). The aircraft and engine service life and time limits and design service life have been feasibly increased; the labor requirements and maintenance costs have been reduced.

The MiG-29 evolution program initiated in the late 80-s led to the creation of the aircraft distinguished from the basic version not only by noticeable improvement of the fighter main parameters as a weapons platform-carrier (longer operational range), but also by principally new features.

The most vital feature of this fighter is the capability to effectively operate against air and ground or sea surface targets with the use of high-precision air-to-surface missiles, thus making it a multirole combat aircraft incorporating in one air vehicle the qualities of air superiority fighter and tactical strike aircraft.

The weapon control system of the MiG-29SMT aircraft is built around the ZHUK-ME advanced multimode radar developed by the PHASOTRON-NIIR Moscow-based company. The integrated system incorporates a digital top-level computer system based on the principles of open architecture with use of multiplex data buses, meeting the MIL-STD-1553B requirements, and new information-control system employing full-color large-format liquid-crystal displays, measuring 152 x 203 mm (6 x 8 inch). The displays are developed by the Ramenskoye instruments design bureau (city of Ramenskoye, Moscow region).

The HOTAS concept is fully realized in the MiG-29SMT cockpit; the pilot controls the aircraft, performs targeting and launches weapons without removal of hands from the control stick and throttle control lever.

The MiG-29SMT aircraft six underwing and one ventral store stations can carry up to 5000 kg of external load, including the R-73E agile air-to-air missiles with a combined gas-aerodynamic control system and IR seeker with a wide off-boresight angles range, the RVV-AE medium-range air-to-air missiles with an active radar seeker and the R-27R1/ER1 medium-range air-to-air missiles with a semi-active radar seeker.

In operation against ground and sea surface targets, the MiG-29SMT is able to effectively use contemporary high-precision weapons: the Kh-29T(TE) air-to-surface missiles with a TV seeker, the Kh-31A antiship missiles, the Kh-31P antiradar missiles, the KAB-500KR guided bombs with a TV seeker and powerful warhead.

The upgraded model of batch production MIG-29SMT fighter has an additional two tanks of propellant can cover, without refueling, up to 3,500 kilometers and carry up to 5 tonnes of combat payload. The hatch design compares favorably with that of the predecessor models. The upgraded MIG can be committed to action as a fighter, interceptor, attack, reconnaissance or command post plane. It can, as a command post plane, be acting in contact with A-50 long-range radio detection and control jets. Any kind of Russian- or foreign-made air-to-air and air-to-surface launchers may be mounted aboard this plane.

A new up-to-date cockpit data display and control field, open-architecture airborne equipment complex based on highly effective computing facilities and multiplex communication channels (new navigation, ECM, communication, guidance and data recording systems) can be integrated. The aircraft can be provided with the "Zhuk-M" multimode radar boosting a longer range of air target detection and +/-90° viewing angle in azimuth. The radar is able to track a greater number of targets and engage them simultaneously; scanning in the air-to-surface modes (including those of high resolution) based on indication of moving and sea-surface targets have been incorporated. The weapons mix is widened.

At the buyer's request, radar-absorbent coatings can be applied, Western and national equipment can be installed and number of store stations can be increased. The process of in-service aircraft upgrading up to the MiG-29SMT level has been developed. Works on the aircraft further upgrading are under way.

MiG Corp. has also developed a modular system of MiG-29 upgrading to the MiG 29SMT level. This system is flexible, allowing potential clients to chose the set of aircraft upgrades what they really need. Set of upgrades includes three modules. First module is upgrading the aircraft weapons control system transforming MiG-29 into multirole fighter. A new “Zhuk-ME” radar with a terrain mapping mode is installed. Upgrade of the weapons control system allow to increase considerably the range of “air-to-air” and “air-to-ground” guided and unguided weapons.

While keeping unbeatable air combat characteristics, MiG-29 obtains strike functions, comparable with modern foreign competitors. Second module is increasing internal and drop fuel tanks capacity, upgrading fuel system and installing in-flight refueling equipment, adopted, according to customer’s demand, for usage with Russian or foreign tanker aircraft. Third module is upgrading of on-board equipment and installation digital fly-by-wire control system. Pilot’s cockpit is equipped with color LCD MFDs, modern flight navigation and communication equipment including satellite navigation of Russian or foreign origin, fully compliant with NATO and ICAO standards.

In case of MiG-29 complete upgrading to MiG-29SMT level the customer receives a generation “4+” level aircraft, close in characteristics and by set of equipment to the newest MiG-29M. It is equal, even superior in some positions, to foreign competitors, able to keep, prior to proper exploitation and maintenance, its combat effectiveness for the next 20 years. And MiG Corp. can make all upgrades on the territory of customer and on its manufacturing facilities.

The MiG-29SMT aircraft features:

· Longer range and flight endurance;
· High combat effectiveness;
· Superb agility;
· High reliability and flight safety;
· Easy operation and reduced DOC, up-to-date logistic support;
· Advanced architecture of cockpit avionics and information control system, HOTAS;
· Integrated fire-control system consisting of upgraded radar fire-control system built around the ZHUK-ME advanced radar boasting longer operating ranges, multichannel firing and up-to-date air-to-surface modes, and of IR search and track system and helmet-mounted sight;
· Up-to-date navigation, radio communication, electronic countermeasures, monitoring and recording systems as well as optronic and reconnaissance pods;
· Modified weapon system including the RVV-AE, R-27ER1, R-27ET1, R-27R1, R-27T1, R-73E air-to-air missiles, the Kh-31A, Kh-31P, Kh-29T (TE), Kh-29L air-to-surface missiles, the KAB-500KR (OD), KAB-500L guided bombs, rockets, free-fall bombs and the GSh-301 built-in gun.
Options

- the MiG-29 aircraft basic version can be upgraded to the MiG-29SMT level;
- the upgraded aircraft can be equipped with avionics and armed with weapons of non-Russian origin.



source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/mig-29smt.htm

troung
25 Jan 05,, 15:32
"Another thing you have to ponder on is the models of the opposing jets we are discussing that made it into combat. Most of the MIG-29s that were shut down were the original MIGs made during the USSR-era. The countries that had their MIGs killed cannot afford modern missiles like the R-27T1, R-73E, R-73, etc. If you really want to start comparing F-16C with a MIG, try the MIG-29SMT for grabs."

Irrevelant no one flies the MiG-29SMT...

And several of the nations that have had MiG-29 shot down did have the R-73E (Syria, Eritrea, Serbia)...

"Worthless R-27R? Its not half as worthless as the AIM-9 which is the oldest and cheapest missile going, probably serving with those UAE F-16s."

The AIM-9X is the most capable close range missle

"Aerodynamically, the R-27 is superior to the AMRAAM with a range of 130 km,
while other variants have a maximum range of between 70 to 170 kilometers."

A: The MiG-29 does not use the long burn R-27ER/ET
B: The R-27ER/ET use the same worthless seaker as the R-27R/T
C: The R-27ER is still SARH

"Whereas the R-77RVV-AE has a range of 100 km, with the seeker locking on at around 20 km, and a maximum speed of Mach 4. Its range puts it in the long-range class and is equivalent to that of the AIM-54 Phoenix."

Actually the combat range of the R-77E is about 31 miles. You are talking about the version still in "testing" which is not used by anyone.

"Unlike the F-16, the Mig-29 was never designed for old obsolete dog-fighting, as an air-superiority fighter it was designed for BVR engagement and to shoot from AFAR….’No one ever comes CLOSE."

Look at F-16 and MiG-29 fleets around the world and tell me which fleet is better equipped for the BVR combat role...

Tronic
25 Jan 05,, 16:05
troung, this thread is old, if you wanna discuss the Mig come to the newer thread...