F16 vs Mig 29
-
When the Berlin Wall fell, NATO air forces obtained access to a couple of Mig 29 from the former East Germany.
The Migs were pitted against NATO F16s in a few simulated dog fights. F16s lost 90% of such aerial battles against the Migs. However, one of the NATO pilots commented that he will still go with the F16 due to its agility in tight turns.
Pilots from both ends exchange planes to eliminate the "skill" factor, in deciding which is the best.
My money now is still on the F16. Your take? -
mines on the commies.
-
It's in the skill of the pilot, you can have the best plane in the world but if its piloted by a half-baked hamburger you are still toast.
-
"It's not the crate, it's the man in the crate"
-Baron Manfred von Richtoffen, aka "the Red Baron" -
F-16s still has my buck
-
aiya, I know this comment always appear that it is how good the pilot is that counts. But given the "same calibre" for the both the pilots and employing the best tactics for their respective plane, Mig 29 should eat F16 any day, that this comes from a Lockheed Martin research studies. I still have the article about this topic.
This is the very reason why Vipers need to be equipped with Helmet Mounted Sight and a 4th Gen WVR missiles to counter Mig 29 with AA-11 Archer to level the playing field.
You guys may ask why say the Mig 29 is better at dogfight, that's because it has got higher thrust to weight ratio and a lower wing loading ratio.
However, its 7G limit as compare to the F16 9G is a disadvantage. If Viper pilots can force a fight at the transonic region pulling high Gs, then Vipers will have a definite advantage. With HMS and Python, the envelope will increase even more. It will then become first look win situation. -
The same way Harriers win an amazing amount of dogfights against "superior", high preforming aircraft when they are forced to fight in its realm.
-
I'll go for F16, slightly smaller, agile, better pilot view, probably more manouvarable, ability to pull extra 'gs' compared to MIG, ...
-
mig 29 is far better than f-16 due to 1.f-16 is a single jet fighter as mig 29 is twin jet engine speed is superior to f-16 by is guess is 0.3 mach .... mig29 have a up and down radar for target but f-16 only have one standard radar don t have the up and down radar maybe latest f-16 have . of course mig 29 can carry a wide weapons then f-16 ....... for dogfighter mig29 is design as a high speed interceptor to counter f-18 .......
-
Well,my money is on the F-16 if they are fighting dog-fights.Reason being that in dogfights,the aircrafts have to rely on tight turns and are constantly pulling Gs.Given the F-16 manoeuverbility it will beat the MiG-29.But if it is long range engagement,MiG-29 will win,due to its ability to rapidly close the gap and engage from afar.
But ever thought of Su-27 Flanker going hed to hed with F-16?That would be a hard one -
when top gun was started back in 68/69 one of the instructors got into a shouting match with John Boyd(he is part of the "Fighter Mafia" group that created the F-16) at a conference. John was famous during that time when he came up with Energy-Maneuverability Theory, which apply the thermo laws about the conservation and dissipation of energy into fighter tactics. during the talk he gave, he tried to convince the instructor that a MiG-17 will always out maneuver a Phantom. Mathematically, a Phantom can never win a MiG-17 according to Boyd. But Top Gun proved otherwise.
-
the F-16 vs Mig-29 thing was covered in a 1995 issue of CODE ONE, the lockheed martin mag. i lost tt issue some time ago... but IIRC it all started when a USAF F-16 sqn went to play DACT in decimomannu, italy vs luftwaffe Mig-29s.
of course, the article was biased towards the F-16 (it was a LM publication after all). but the general tone was that F-16 was superior in almost all practical aspects: radar, avionics, ergonomics, HOTAS, cockpit visibilty, turn rate, agility, engine life, efficiency etc etc... but its big handicap was the lack of an off-boresight HMS-aided WVRAAM. R-73 simply thrashed AIM-9M. one quote i remember was from an F-16 pilot: "everytime we got close to a fulcrum, we'd be banking hard and dumping flares...."
that was a very interesting issue... it also had a pretty comprehensive article on the early development of the missile we know today as the AIM-9X. it was called the Boxoffice program back then... they actually had a thrust-vectored, off-boresight, HMS-aimed AIM-9 prototype back in 1995, took them so long to put it in production. -
Someone mentioned the higher thrust to weight ratio of the Mig-29 vs the F-16. Got me wondering how these 2 fighters compare when maneuvering in the vertical plane (assuming a guns only engagement, heading towards each other). Also how does the laser-ranging auto-shoot guns for the Mig-29 compare with the F-16s put-plane-in-pipper-and-fire-trigger rotary cannon?
-
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 -
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 -
When u talk abt the cock-up part,it did remind me of the purchase of 18 Mig-29 which was indeed a cock up! First was the accident rate of the Mig-29 which 2 were lost by their pilot and then was the spare part problem.I heard only 9 were working out of the remaining 16 Mig-29 but they recently solve the spare part problem with russian supplying them again! Now our neighbour is planning to buy Su-30MMK! Once bitten and not shy! Want to try again? Don't know how they think?
-
MiGs anyday.
but anyone has an eye on the Sukhois and especially, the Yak-141? -
RMAF MiGs rely on Indian Technicians to maintain it. In time of war, you think these Indians will be around to fight for malaysian?
-
Am not too familiar with the Yak-141, do you have any good references I can find online?
As for the Sukhois, yes I do prefer the Su-27/30s family of aircraft rather than the Mig-29s. There was one interesting article in FLIGHT JOURNAL written by retired Rear USN Admiral Paul Gilchrist in 1998/99.
The premise is that the U.S. Navy should purchase the production rights for the SU-27/33 FLANKER and, equipped with US engines & electronics, put them into squadron service. This would provide the long-range & heavy payload capability of the dearly departed A-6 with the soon to be VERY dearly departed F-14's multi-role fighter qualities at a much better price than current plans for the E/F-model Hornet. Included in the article were several charts showing the inferiority of all the Hornets to the big boys like the F-14D and FLANKER in the range/payload/capability issues.
Finally found the article and here it is
http://www.flightjournal.com/articles/su27/su27.aspOriginally posted by HENG@:MiGs anyday.
but anyone has an eye on the Sukhois and especially, the Yak-141? -
Pls cite evidence.
If there is to be a war, our vaunted expatriate professionals and international investment will leave in droves too (i.e. any war with SG will destroy SG economically even if we win, I'd call that a Phyrric victory). If I wanted to have a good chance at wiping out SG, I'd go out of my way to take out key industrial targets like oil refineries and port facilities, all very nice centralised for maximum bang for the buck. It'll take bloody years to recover from that.Originally posted by cavsg:RMAF MiGs rely on Indian Technicians to maintain it. In time of war, you think these Indians will be around to fight for malaysian?