Brother, I don't seem to see the same stats you do with the page you sent. In terms of actual performance on the page you sent,
Mig29 has
- better max speed at low-level and altitude
- higher thrust to weight ratio
- higher rate of climb
- faster turn-rate
- higher maximum AAM launch distance
- lower maintenance hours
- higher mean time between failures
(anyway, who trusts these kind of statistics anyway?)
Never underestimate your adversary or your potential adversary (see how the US did with Pearl Harbour). We have to view comparison in a holistic, system-wise manner and that includes anything from aircraft performance to pilot performance, to maintenance and cost issues and integration with other systems (AWACS, C3, intelligence, air defence) Overall, on a systems comparison, I'd say Singapore wins but you never know what will happen in a shooting war, AWACS aircraft might be down, runways might be destroyed, pilots might have gone on a drinking binge the night before.
To base assumptions on national pride or on Mr Ah Beng telling you how cock-up the adversary is, is the road down to military failure.
Originally posted by zenden9:
I believe F-16 is no match compare to Mig-29 in terms of aircraft performance! That is a big reason why our neighbour bought 18 Mig-29 from Russian few years ago! Sensor, technnology and fighter pilot skill will be the one to counter inferior performance as u all know RSAF has upgraded F-16A/B to F-16C/D version and we have acquired AIM-120 AAM! Our pilot also have gone through intense training in US. Unlike our neighbour who will train locally.
Below is a link to show F-16 lose out to Mig-29 in terms of performance
http://www.hostultra.com/~migalley/comparison_data.html