No announcement yet.

MiG-29 ‘Falcon Hunter’ : The F-16 Killer

This topic is closed.
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    RE: MiG-29 ‘Falcon Hunter’ : The F-16 Killer

    > Mr_Vastu
    > I decided to start this thread that would lead to the final verdict after
    > a Blitzkrieg of intelligent posts.
    This website is not going to change anybody's "religeon" in competition between say, the F-16C versus the MiG.-29S!
    It is the typical high T/W fighter versus a low wing load high

    maneuverability fighter.
    The F-16C is the high T/W fighter and the MiG.-29S is the low wing loading maneuvering fighter.

    > And finally, to add the "coup de grace" to this thread the MiG-29 is the
    > ‘Falcon Hunter’ as :
    > The Mig-29 is faster than the F-16 : Mach 2.35 as compared to Mach 1.9
    ■- Yes but in the area of about 30,000 feet and speeds of 450mph to transonic

    the F-16 has the acceration. The MiG. should fight the high AOA battle.

    > The Mig-29 has better range : High-speed interception range of 410 km
    > as compared to 389 km
    ■- Incorrect, if the MiG.-29 had greater range, then the Mikoyan designers

    would not had made range increase with each modification. The F-16 as combat

    has shown can carry a good ordnance load and have good attack radius. It

    wasn't until the 1990's that the MiG.-29's were given the air to refueling


    The Mig-29 has a higher ceiling : Above 60,000 ft. as compared to 50,000 ft.
    ■- Yes, its ceiling is higher but the effective turn & burn dogfighting

    altitudes are 40,000 and lower.

    > The Mig-29 has a better climb rate : AoA for Mig = 45 deg. ; AoA for F-16
    > = 25 deg.
    ■- Yes the MiG.-29 have a high AOA capability but to offset this the F-16's

    higher T/W allows it to perform vertical maneuvers the MiG.-29 can not!

    The Mig-29 has a 30mm cannon compared to the F-16s 20mm Vulcan
    ■- This is an apples versus oranges type arguement. The MiG.-29's 30mm cannon

    by all rights should be able to kill another aircraft with just a few hits.

    (It doesn't always work that way.) The F-16's 20mm cannon that fires a great

    volumn of fire, a rate of fire between 4,000 and 6,000 rpm.

    > The Mig-29 has better Radar aerial target detection range : 80 km as
    > compared to 50-60 km
    ■- The new radar of the MiG. has improved and in some ways better than the

    F-16's in terms of range. The F-16's is more resistance to spoof/deception


    The Mig-29 has better engines and BVR AAMs than the F-16
    ■- The engines of the MiG. are more powerful but don't equate total power to

    higher quality. The F-16's engines are more fuel efficient and maintenance is

    easier. The MiG.'s engines require less maintenance BUT.... the number of

    hours of which it can fly before the engine has to be replaced is a far far

    shorter number of hours.

    > The Mig-29 has been credited with an F-117 ‘Night Hawk’ kill, so the
    > non-stealth Falcon would be too easy a kill
    ■- Noooo! The F-117 kill was done by upgraded SAM-3 after being detected by a mobile radar that was almost directly in the path of the F-117.

    This same arguement can be made in comparing the F/A-18C to either of these

    other two aircraft. This time the MiG.-29 would be the T/W fighter and the

    F/A-18 would be the low wing loading -maneuver fighter and, the same

    performance arguements can be made.

    > ajaybhutani
    > The F16 mostly have an advantage of using the AWAC radar cover which the
    > Mig29s mostly donot have
    AWACS is no more of an advantage because the MiG.'s have GCI.

    > mig 29 airframe is much more capable than f16
    Not better just different.

    > troung
    > "The Mig-29 has better engines and BVR AAMs than the F-16 "
    NO, the AA-12 has been a disappointment to the Russians. That is why the AA-10 is still in service.

    > The Mig-29 has been credited with an F-117 ‘Night Hawk’ kill
    That was the mass media that gave credit to a MiG.-29, when all the dust settled the sam site got the credit it deserved.

    > America would never build a limited plane like the MiG-29
    That is true. The MiG.-29 is to basic for US services. All the things that makes air combat effective from the "human interface/human engineering standpoint would have to be improved for a US aircraft.

    In conclusion, if combat is any judge the F-16 is the clear winner! The Mig.-29S should trying and keep the speed down, use its high AOA, keep the altitude down around 20,000 feet and, use the horizontal plane as much as possible. The F-16 should push for the higher speed -350+ mph, higher altitude and, fight in the verticle plane. The only type of aircraft the MiG.-29 has killed are; 1-Cessna, 4-Su-22M-3K's, 5-MiG.-29's, 1-Yak-40 and, an unconfirmed kill of an Ethiopian Su-27. That is 11 kills versus 28-MiG.-29's have been shot down!

    ??/92 a USAF F-16C killed an Iraqi MiG.-25. The first kill with a Slammer!

    03/24/99 Dutch F-1A MLU killed a Yugoslavian MiG.-29 with a Slammer.

    The IDF/AF and USAF have not killed an MiG.-29.
    While the MiG.-29 can do the tail slide and the cobra, it can not perform a double Emmelman, starting at 20,000 feet, at 325mph and, climbing. Just a difference in design philosophy.