Author Topic: f-16s vs Mig 29s (Read 1636 times)

Staga · « **Reply #15 on:** February 11, 2005, 06:01:07 PM »

LOL...

Jewish Task Force... Almost as good as http://www.masada2000.org

SaburoS · « **Reply #16 on:** February 11, 2005, 06:01:34 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by SunTracker
F-16 superior to Mig-29s? Yeah right! Without a helmet mounted sight, the Mig-29 has a small to modest advantage. With a helmet mounted sight, the Mig-29 has a huge advantage.

Someone dig up some of the training reports of USAF F-16s vs Luftwaffe Mig-29s.

Are we reading the same article? The following is from a IIRC the articles correctly. Too lazy to search for it.
On paper it looks to be a big advantage to the MiG29. Fights are rarely fought on paper.
The German MiG29 pilots found that out. They expected to completely wax the F16's and that didn't happen.

F16's advantages over the MiG29:
1) Automated weapons system, no need to look at the instrument panel to flip a few switches in order to fire a missile. Having to look at the instrument panel instead of your adversary is a big disadvantage in a dog fight. The F16 pilot keeps his eyes on the adversary while viewing weapons system data in perfect focus on the HUD.
2) Much better views from the cockpit.
3) BVR viewing of the other aircraft. MiG29 doesn't have it.
4) Seating ergonomics and flight control. F16 pilot is in a 40 degree incline giving a better high-G load fighting capability. The pilot's right arm gets support from the right armrest while using the stick. Throttle on the left side. The F16's pilot can sustain 9+G turn, the Mig29 pilot can't.
5) Better, more responsive engines. The F16's engines have ten times the length of service 4000 as opposed to 400 hrs between overhauls.
6) Better maneuverability over 200kts up to? (I don't recall what the upper limit was).
7) Better avionics.

MiG29's advantages over the F16:
1) Helmet mounted sight and vector thrusted missile system.
40 degree cone firing solution.
2) Better low speed maneuverability under 200kts.

I also recall watching on Wings, that the MiG29s were basically handbuilt requiring handfitting the panels to the airframe. Basically makes each plane a custom built aircraft where most panels are not interchangable from plane to plane.

SunTracker · « **Reply #17 on:** February 11, 2005, 06:22:32 PM »

Check out this thread http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-683-start-0.html

It has links to articles, videos, and commentary from F-16 and Mig-29 pilots.

The Mig-29 is more maneuverable than the F-16, having an alpha limit of 45 degrees compared to the 16's 25 degrees. It is also faster. The helmet mounted sight makes all the difference in the world. The F-16 must get the Mig in a 15 degree cone in order to fire on it. The mig can engage at up to 45 degrees.

The Migs radar allows for passive tracking also. Blasting your radar all the time makes you a huge target.

SaburoS · « **Reply #18 on:** February 11, 2005, 06:40:47 PM »

Here's the article I read (ten years old though).

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/1995/articles/jul_95/july2a_95.html

Flyboy · « **Reply #19 on:** February 11, 2005, 06:48:43 PM »

this entire thread is the biggest waste of cyberspace i have ever saw..
not to mention lada&staga constant blind hatred towards israel.

Raider179 · « **Reply #20 on:** February 11, 2005, 06:59:32 PM »

This was a fairly close engagement. Sidewinder with about 18 mile range

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/aim-9-specs.htm

And the python 4 is about 12-15 miles.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/israel/python4.htm

Not sure what the 29s were armed with but they should have at least had a version of the R-27R1 with a range of 40+km

They should not have been shot down. Manuevering is only good for missile evasion these days. Not a lot of dogfighting in the conventional sense of it. Mostly BVR.

weaselsan · « **Reply #21 on:** February 11, 2005, 07:00:41 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Flyboy
this entire thread is the biggest waste of cyberspace i have ever saw..
not to mention lada&staga constant blind hatred towards israel.

What is the score to date any way? Arab Air Forces 0 Israeli Air Force 450.

Stang · « **Reply #22 on:** February 11, 2005, 07:24:32 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Flyboy
this entire thread is the biggest waste of cyberspace i have ever saw..
not to mention lada&staga constant blind hatred towards israel.

It goes way beyond just hatred for a state, it is blatant anti-semitism. I'm not sure how, but somewhere in the past half century it became the rage to hate the Jew once again... or maybe people never really stopped. I guess most people don't realize what would happen if Israel wasn't as strong as she is. The Arab world would sweep in and kill every one of you, probably with the support of all the "enlightened" intellectuals who spew hate against Israel every day from college campuses and other mediums. God knows they've tried it and thankfully you guys kicked their collective arses... not just once but a couple times

kevykev56 · « **Reply #23 on:** February 11, 2005, 07:38:07 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Raider179

Not sure what the 29s were armed with but they should have at least had a version of the R-27R1 with a range of 40+km

They should not have been shot down. Manuevering is only good for missile evasion these days. Not a lot of dogfighting in the conventional sense of it. Mostly BVR.

The R-27 medium-range missile is a component of the MiG-29 armament. In its overall characteristics the R-27R is generally comparable to the the American AIM-7M Sparrow missile, which it is said to surpasse it in certain combat capabilities. Several versions of this missile have been produced in Russia with infrared, semi-active and active radar guidance. The AA-10 Alamo-C has a range of 130 km, while other variants have a maximum range of between 70 to 170 kilometers.

http://www.fas.org/

The link has so much info on current military technology from around the world. Do a bit of searching and you can find out for yourself which you think would be the better aircraft. I think this paragraph sums up the aircraft.

The MiG-29 has a few advantages over its more electronically advanced American counterparts. At about 40 miles apart, the American planes have the advantage because of avionics. At 10 miles the advantage is turning to the MiG. At five miles out, because of the MiG weapons sight and better maneuverability, the advantage is to the MiG. The weapons sight is a helmet-mounted system that allows the missile to follow the line of sight of the pilot's helmet. Where the pilot looks is where it goes.

What has to be taken into account with modern aircraft more so than their performance is the avonics package and especially Electronic Warfare. I will say from personal experience that hands down the U.S. has the best ECM in the world.

Its hard to hit what you cant see!

Cobra412 · « **Reply #24 on:** February 11, 2005, 09:53:41 PM »

I'm just curious but what is the MiG-29s pass/fail rate against US made military fighters in recent wars?

genozaur · « **Reply #25 on:** February 11, 2005, 10:45:38 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by john9001
mig 29's are all show and no go.

The above words are not true.

As you can see from the original article, it is not clear who engaged who, or who attacked who.
It can easily be an Israeli provocation, a lure to get those MiGs up in the air for shooting practice.
If there were no Israeli-Syrian dogfights for a decade, the Syrian pilots would not expect to be
fired upon.
So, actually this piece of information is a not fine example of propagandistic disinformation. It's a little bit too obvious that somebody is trying to paint a nice picture out of aging F-16s (even with all their modernizations). Looks like those Israeli peaceniks trying to convince the wider Israeli circles that Israel still has the AirForce superior to other countries in that neighbourhood.

genozaur · « **Reply #26 on:** February 11, 2005, 10:51:04 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by SunTracker
F-16 superior to Mig-29s? Yeah right! Without a helmet mounted sight, the Mig-29 has a small to modest advantage. With a helmet mounted sight, the Mig-29 has a huge advantage.

Someone dig up some of the training reports of USAF F-16s vs Luftwaffe Mig-29s.

I believe even without deep digging that a well-trained pilot in MiG-29 is a much greater threat than the same well-trained pilot in F-16.

genozaur · « **Reply #27 on:** February 11, 2005, 11:14:42 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by kevykev56
The R-27 medium-range missile is a component of the MiG-29 armament. In its overall characteristics the R-27R is generally comparable to the the American AIM-7M Sparrow missile, which it is said to surpasse it in certain combat capabilities. Several versions of this missile have been produced in Russia with infrared, semi-active and active radar guidance. The AA-10 Alamo-C has a range of 130 km, while other variants have a maximum range of between 70 to 170 kilometers.

http://www.fas.org/

The link has so much info on current military technology from around the world. Do a bit of searching and you can find out for yourself which you think would be the better aircraft. I think this paragraph sums up the aircraft.

The MiG-29 has a few advantages over its more electronically advanced American counterparts. At about 40 miles apart, the American planes have the advantage because of avionics. At 10 miles the advantage is turning to the MiG. At five miles out, because of the MiG weapons sight and better maneuverability, the advantage is to the MiG. The weapons sight is a helmet-mounted system that allows the missile to follow the line of sight of the pilot's helmet. Where the pilot looks is where it goes.

What has to be taken into account with modern aircraft more so than their performance is the avonics package and especially Electronic Warfare. I will say from personal experience that hands down the U.S. has the best ECM in the world.

Its hard to hit what you cant see!

Aha, now I can see what the Syrian pilots did not expect.
Two Israeli F-16s when back in the international air space over the Mediterranean (40 miles apart from the enemy) fired at two Syrian MiG-29s and successfully brought them down to the sea bottom. Both Syrian pilots survived thanks to the amazing safety of MiG-29 catapult system.

This is how that article should have been written for understanding by lay men.

kevykev56 · « **Reply #28 on:** February 11, 2005, 11:58:25 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by genozaur
I believe even without deep digging that a well-trained pilot in MiG-29 is a much greater threat than the same well-trained pilot in F-16.

The F16 is going to have a greater range to see and shoot the enemy. The Avionics are far superior. And if the Mig does get to fire his missle the Electronic Countermeasures onboard are far superior than the Mig. This fight would be all BVR and maneuverability would not even be an issue.

Cobra412 · « **Reply #29 on:** February 12, 2005, 12:18:55 AM »

To sit here and debate this subject is amusing. You can debate all day on what happenend in this excersize or that excersize but it will get you nowhere. You can bring up profiles on capabilities but the one thing that no one here can account for is what is not told to the public. That goes for both the MiG-29 and the F-16. There are so many systems capabilities on both sides of the fence that aren't made public that unless they meet in a war time situation you will never know who's better or not. There is no way to say this ones better or this ones better. It's just not possible.

The only thing that can be analyzed is engagements that have already happenend. Even then these won't tell the whole story from both sides. During Kosovo the MiG-29s that were shot down all supposedly had some failure or another. Did these planes actually have avionics issues as some have reported?

These aircraft and their capabilities are constantly advancing. The F-16 will end up having a Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System just like the F-15s are getting. They will also be getting Link 16 just as the F-15s have. ECM capabilities will keep advancing and so will the avionics packages that go with them. The testing world for combat aircraft never stops. They are always looking to make systems better. So again unless these aircraft come into a real world situation and one dies you'll never know for sure and even then it won't tell you the whole story.