Author Topic: f-16s vs Mig 29s (Read 1487 times)

Cobra412 · « **Reply #60 on:** February 12, 2005, 06:03:35 PM »

GS you'd be surprised what all we deem classified, including certain photos. Many of the films you see on CNN and such from aircraft were previously classified. Certain bits of information are always removed and if something can't be removed that the military deems sensitive they will make it a classified document. The only reason we knew about the incident so quickly is due to the fact we were stationed with the personell that took the shots. Nothing was ever said until the military made an official announcement on the incident.

Vulcan · « **Reply #61 on:** February 12, 2005, 06:29:32 PM »

Heheheh, this is fun...

In the blue corner we have the Western-fanboys gloating with a 3:0 K/D, in the red corner we have the Easternblock-fanboys still bitter from the collapse of the Union formerly know as Soviet desperately trying to defend their Mig-29.

Nilsen · « **Reply #62 on:** February 12, 2005, 06:54:19 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Vulcan
Heheheh, this is fun...

In the blue corner we have the Western-fanboys gloating with a 3:0 K/D, in the red corner we have the Easternblock-fanboys still bitter from the collapse of the Union formerly know as Soviet desperately trying to defend their Mig-29.

And in the middle they are dodging the missiles...

SunTracker · « **Reply #63 on:** February 12, 2005, 08:30:37 PM »

Its obvious that pilot training is the major deciding factor in any aerial engagement where the planes are within 30 years of each other.

But from an airframe, missle, and avionics standpoint, the Mig-29M is on par or better than the F-16. It is faster, turns better, has longer range missles, has a wider field of fire, and is capable of tracking enemy aircraft passively without giving itself away.

I have no hidden agenda here, just stating the basic facts. But the fact of the matter is, pilot training is what really counts. Heck, several months ago I posted an account of an F-14 beating a Mig-29 in a dogfight.

genozaur · « **Reply #64 on:** February 12, 2005, 10:07:31 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Vulcan
Heheheh, this is fun...

In the blue corner we have the Western-fanboys gloating with a 3:0 K/D, in the red corner we have the Easternblock-fanboys still bitter from the collapse of the Union formerly know as Soviet desperately trying to defend their Mig-29.

MiG-29 (Mikoyan&Gurevich) is one of several best fighter aircraft in the world. (Will you, guys, please use its correct abbreviation 'MiG'.)
In actual air combat there are two other major components - early warning system and pilot's skills. The importance of these two components became obvious during WWI and WWII. So, all this discussion looks very much pointless.

Glasses · « **Reply #65 on:** February 13, 2005, 03:54:25 AM »

They're all fugle cus Kurt Tank didn't build them! so there!

Replicant · « **Reply #66 on:** February 13, 2005, 04:35:53 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by SunTracker
Its obvious that pilot training is the major deciding factor in any aerial engagement where the planes are within 30 years of each other.

But from an airframe, missle, and avionics standpoint, the Mig-29M is on par or better than the F-16. It is faster, turns better, has longer range missles, has a wider field of fire, and is capable of tracking enemy aircraft passively without giving itself away.

I have no hidden agenda here, just stating the basic facts. But the fact of the matter is, pilot training is what really counts. Heck, several months ago I posted an account of an F-14 beating a Mig-29 in a dogfight.

Very true, several years ago during Red Flag, Tornado F.3s were getting kills against the F16 and F15. (had advantage through use of Link 16 from AWACs, which the US weren't using in the same way back then).

Furball · « **Reply #67 on:** February 13, 2005, 05:32:25 AM »

Typhoon will kick all their arses anyway