Mig-29 Deterrence

[Tiger Shark]

Both the F-16 and the MiG-29 were designed to correct mistakes and shortcomings of previous aircraft. With the USAF it was the low kill ratios over Vietnam as well as the lack of complete air superiority over the battle field a feat that was achieved with great success both over the battlefield's of Europe and Korea where the US Army was able to operate under little threat of air attack. With the Russians they wanted an aircraft that would perform the same roles as the MiG-25 and the Su-27 but at a shorter range. As well as an aircraft that for the first time could match Western fighters in ACM, while maintaining the ability to operate as an interceptor. Thus the MiG-29 became a smaller and shorter range F-15 while the F-16 became a larger and longer range F-5.
Both teams designed craft that were cleared to operations of 9g and made use of wing-body blending to increase internal volume , reduce weight and improve maneuverability. They both located the intakes close to structures to reduce the AoA (angle of attack) sensed at the face of the intake/s thus increasing the AoA that the aircraft could take in comparison to other aircraft of their day. With the F-16A the AoA limit is 25deg where as the MiG-29 has been cleared of an AoA of up to 45deg.

One of the major differences was in the engine arrangement with the General Dynamics team choosing a single P&W F100 this gave commonality with the F-15 and lower fuel consumption. In contrast the Mikoyan team choose a twin arrangement of the RD-33 with no thought give to using the Saturn/Lyulka AL-31F as used in the Su-27. The reasoning being that the use of two engines gave the aircraft greater survivability as the MiG-23/27's suffered a greater attrition ratio then the MiG-25. With the intakes the GD team adopted a fixed geometry intake as high mach number capability was not required for the role that the F-16 was to fill, while the requirement for a dash speed of mach 2.3+ led Mikoyan to adopt a two dimensional , four shock , variable geometry intake with one fixed ramp and two moving ramps.

In regard to FOD (foreign object damage) the GD team took the position that FOD would not be a problem as the F-16 would operate form swept, paved runways. Where as the Russians felt that a rough field capability was an important capability and as such devised two movable ramps over the intakes to prevent FOD while on the ground or at low speed at low level. When the intakes are closed the engines breath via auxiliary intakes on the upper surface of the wing.

The F-16 has incorporated a number of features that are intended to enhance combat effectiveness. The pilot's seat is inclined at 30deg rather than the normal 13deg , he also has a side stick controller which allows the pilots arm to be supported this has not met with universal approval as some pilots prefer to be able to fly with either hand. The F-16 also for the first time incorporated a Fly-By-Wire flight control system, this allowed the aircraft to be made inherently unstable and would greatly improve maneuverability in air-combat. While the MiG introduced the first HMS (helmet-mounted sight) and IRST (infra-red search and track) sensor with a laser range finder for passive attacks and missile engagements up to 45deg off-borsight but maintained a conventional flight control system and achieved high maneuverability mainly due advanced aerodynamics. i.e. The tail of the MiG-29 is said to have been positioned to take advantage of the four vortices by the wing and fuselage.

In combat provided that the MiG-29's 7.5g above 0.85 mach can be avoided it should beat any F-16 due to its BVR capability , higher thrust/weight ratio and lower wing loading. While in recent exercises between USAF F-16 and German MiG-29A's showed that in ACM the greatest advantage the MiG-29 had was it's helmet mounted sight coupled with the AA-11 Archer which gives it a kill zone greater than any aircraft serving. F-16 pilots found that any aircraft within 45deg's of the nose of a MiG-29 was always under grave threat. The ability to target aircraft well of boresight has proved to be such a success that helmet mounted sights have become requirements on any new fighter program.

While both aircraft have short-commings those of the MiG-29 have effectively been solved with newer versions ( MiG-29 S/M/K and MiG-33 ) which have increased the fuel capacity of the MiG as well as adding an in-flight refueling system. The number of hard points has also been increased by two and the max warload has been doubled, along with the inclusion of a fly-by-wire flight control system and a new radar that allowed two targets to be engaged simultaneously with the new AA-12 Adder active radar missile as well as full clearance for flight at 9 g's . Most of these upgrades have been offered to current users of the MiG-29 with the Russian and Indian airforces conducting some upgrades.

The F-16 by comparison has had few of it's problems solved in the past few years. One of it's greatest drawbacks the lack of a BVR capability was solved with the clearance of the AMRAAM for use on the F-16 but the second major problem of insufficient wing area on the F-16C has never been solved.

 

[Tiger Shark]

I think the MiG-29A is better than the F-16A/B. It has some BVR capabilities, and R-73 missles when we have dogfight.

But when we put AMRAMM on F-16 (I am speaking about either older C/D versions, or A/B ADF, or A/B MLU), Viper will always beat MiG-29A. But newer MiGs (for example MiG-29SMT) are comparable to older F-16C/D (Block 20/25/30/32) and SMT2 with Zuk-M radar is significantly better that some F-16C/D. Only the F-16C/D with APG-68V9XM can beat every Fulcrum. F-16 has also got more A2G abilities (larger number of weapons etc.)

Regards

HappyBirthDaytoYou

 

[EagleEyes]

Well i believe that F-16 is better than Mig-29, not because Pakistan has it, but in reality. F-16 has better capablity of acting as a multirole fighter. However recent upgrade of Mig-29 to SMT standard is a good way to make it a true multirole fighter, and a fighter very close to be comparable to F-16.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/wor...a/mig-29smt.htm

SMT has changed the whole ball game, but i have a trust in American tech so i guess F-16s are better than Mig-29 as they are suppose to be multirole aircraft not upgrade to be a mutirole aircraft, besides like Tiger mentioned. F-16 do have an advantage of better weaponry, but SMT is not that behind.

The most vital feature of this fighter is the capability to effectively operate against air and ground or sea surface targets with the use of high-precision air-to-surface missiles, thus making it a multirole combat aircraft incorporating in one air vehicle the qualities of air superiority fighter and tactical strike aircraft.

 

[Tiger Shark]

actualy the f-16 will win the ACM (dog-fight) at nearly every speed and alt. except for below 250knots where the mig-29 has the advantage. The mig-29 can outpoint a F-16C Block50/52 below 250 knots. This is due to limits employed on the 16s AOA. if AOA limits wernt employed then the 16 would dominate the whole flight regime. But this isnt good because then the 16 would lose its turn rates. This is because the AOA limits were put there to give it good nose pointing capability but not too good that it would deplete the 16's energy to fast. This combined with the very good thrust to weight ratio and airframe gives the 16 ist outstanding dog-fighting capability.

Regards

Tiger

 

[Tiger Shark]

As far as My opinion

F-16D Block 50+/60 vs Mig-29SMT. Avionics wise the F-16 wins, and performance goes to the Fulcrum. As for weapon it depends, the AIM-120C has been proven it can hit a fast moving target at a range of 40km. The R-77 is only on paper and have been tested by China but achieved 68km on not so fast targets. I would say at rouglhy 35-50km the R-77 can achieve 150 degrees turns which the Russians claim. Therefore the AIM-120C and R-77 are roughly the same but the R-77 could be better. The only prob I have with it, is the missile is so damn big wouldn't it mean more Gs when it manuevers like that especially at high AOA hence lower range.

In a realistic world, the F-16 will be supported with AWACS, and would eat the Mig-29 even if it was supported by A-50 Beriev.

Unfortunately, the F-16 consistantly outpreforms the MiG in every practice and real world engagement


Regards

Tiger

 

[Tiger Shark]

The aerodynamic configuration including LERX are needed for these manoeuvers. But you still need a FBW system to keep the aircraft controlable for the pilot, so he can recover from it without stalling or entering a spin. The FBW's pitch controls ensures the aircraft from entering negative AoA. Pushing the aircraft to its limits like this, really requires a computer to detect the boundaries for the pilot. The computer knows when it is about to cross them, the pilot only knows when he has crossed them. Although test pilots can probably better judge control the aircraft, normal pilots have to focus on their enemy as well.

Another thing I am concerned about are the engines. When the speed has been reduced to zero, the airflow into the engines has dramatically decreased. At those altitudes the air is much thinner. Also the oil system needs to be able to cope with these changes in vertical speed and extreme angles. I am not sure they had these extreme AoA in mind when designing the RD-33. I know that for the Su-37's TVC engines, they had to change some things to enable smooth operation by the engines in these angles of attack...

Other from the differences in radar and weapons. The MiG-29 had at least two big advantages over the F-16, it has two engines and the HMS for the off-boresight IR guided missiles. The latter is now also being introduced to the F-16. The F-16 had the advantage of FBW, although this might limit the abilities, and is lighter. The FBW is now also available on the MiG-29. Pilot workload in the MiG-29 is much higher though, with less sophisticated system and less cockpit ergonomics. The F-16 has the declined seat which helps the pilot to cope better with the G-forces. Also the F-16's canopy allows much better visibility.

I would prefer the F-16, unless my mechanic cannot be trusted with the single engine

Regards


Tiger

 

[Tiger Shark]

Some Interesting Information

First off, there is no MiG-33 and there never will be. There are two versions of the MiG-29 in service, one that might be in (VERY) limiter service and one more to come. These are:

MiG-29 9.12 - lots - basic MiG-29
MiG-29 9.13 - lots - adds a rear hemisphere radar jammer
MiG-29SMT2 - few (8?) - more fuel, better avionics, may not exits
MiG-29K-2002 - 12ish ordered - carrier derivative of SMT2

Peruvian and Malaysian aircraft were upgraded for R-77. I'm not aware of anyone else receiving this feature.

The R-73 in service has a 45 degree off-boresight capability. A 60 degree off-boresight version may be available in limited quantities. the 75 degree off-boresight version never made it to market. [In-service Python 4 and AIM-9X are 90 degree off-boresight and forthcoming versions are 180 degree off boresight capable].

In service firing of R-73 is less than impressive. It has failed to hit maneuvering targets and only succeeded in a tail-chase situation, pursuing aircraft running from a dog-fight. The other MiG-29 weapon, R-27, has failed in every combat firing. Similarly, the MiG-29 has lost every combat it entered.

The MiG-29 radars are so awful that their own development team believed US spies had sabotaged the design. It reportedly only can hold a lock for a moment before it break-locks itself. (This was recounted by noted Russian aviation proponant, Yefim Gordon). The MiG-29 human interface is also described as "useless in BVR combat".

It is nice that people are interested in the multitude of half-baked proposals the Russians have shown. So few of these ever see the light of day. We should focus on the aircraft that exist (and perhaps the one or two that have any chance of entering service). Also, please understand that the Russian manufacturers have a long history of GROSSLY overclaiming the capabilities of their systems and of delivering poorly designed and poorly manufactured product.

I would pick the F-16 over the MiG-29 every day of the week. Particularly the Israeli modified birds (DASH HMS plus Python) or the new Block 52+ and Block 60 aircraft (JHMCS HMS and AIM-9X). They have superior systems, superior reliability and superior weapons.

From Shaken A friend of Mine

Regards
Tiger

 

[Owais]

I think the MiG-29A is better than the F-16A/B. It has BVR capabilities with R-73 missles.
But when we put AMRAMM on F-16 (I am speaking about either older C/D versions like 30/32, 40/42, or MLU), Viper will always beat MiG-29A. But newer MiGs (for example MiG-29SMT) are comparable to older F-16C/D (Block 20/25/30/32/40) and SMT2 with Zuk-M radar is significantly better that some F-16C/D.
Only the F-16C/D with AN/APG-68 V(8) Radar like The F-16CJ/DJ Block 50D/52D(Wild Weasel) can beat every Fulcrum.

 

[Hammad]

Good posts Tiger!

Glad to read the capablity of both fighters. After reading Tiger's post looks like F-16 is much better than Mig-29, though i cannot say that it will perform at the zero level in the air warfare. It will sure give a good fight and we shouldn't forget that.

Though in the paper comparision of which this topic is really about. Mig-29 looses in BVR capablity, RCS, but i hate the fact that Mig-29 is capable of HMS off-boresight stand out IR guided missiles. It also has two engines.....

Why are we comparing Mig-29 with F-16? Isn't F-15 much better aircraft to compare with, though we obviously know that it will rip Mig-29 apart. LOL!

 

[Owais]

Originally posted by hammad@Dec 31 2005, 01:08 AM
Why are we comparing Mig-29 with F-16? Isn't F-15 much better aircraft to compare with, though we obviously know that it will rip Mig-29 apart. LOL!

[post=4927]Quoted post[/post]​

F15E is of su30MKI/MKK/MK2 category where as F16 and Mig29 are of same category but Indian AirForce MKI is better than F15C.


SU-30MKI FIGHTERS HAS MANUFACTURED FOR INDIA HAVE DISPLAYED THEIR OVERWHELMING SUPERIORITY OVER F-15C EAGLE U.S. FIGHTERS IN A TRAINING FIGHT

The Pentagon announced results of the joint war games of the U.S. and Indian air force . India's Su-30MKI fighters manufactured in Russia and Jaguar assault planes will fly to the Anchorage Point airbase in Alaska on June 4; in late 2004 F-16 fighters of the United States will pay a visit to the Gwalior base in the State of Madhya Pradesh, India. The joint war games, which were recently conducted in India, when the best Russian and U.S. fighters met in an air combat for the first time, encouraged the cooperation between the Indian and U.S. air forces. The outcome of the first dogfight shocked the Americans - Su fighters displayed their overwhelming superiority.

 

[Tiger Shark]

The F-16 carries the AN/APG-66 (latest version) Radar, ALQ-119 Electronic Jamming Pods, AN/ALR-74 RWR, AN/ALE-47 chaff dispenser, and a AIM-120B AMRAAM. It also has greater range, new cockpit displays, an internal sensor suite, a new mission computer, new agile beam radar, etc. The F-16 Block 50/52 IMO has significant changes leading to better perfomance and it weaknesses to the earlier Mig-29s were eliminated. The F-16 Block 60 will host the new F110-132 engine that will provide it a greater T/W ratio hence better manueverability.

The Mig-29SMT now has a hunchback, and overwing air intakes and associated air ducts were removed which results to a greater range. The regular Rd-33 which is a very good radar IMO isn't good enough and the Rd-43 when developed would bring this Fighter's thrust/weight ratio to the Eurofighters level not to mention being more fuel effecient. The Fulcrum includes a Zhuk-M radar, advanced cockpit, advanced ECM, etc. The avionics of the SMT is clearly advanced and it also FCS is quite advanced. Do note that the Zhuk-M has a 245 km search range and it quite a powerful radar. There is an option of it carrying Western avionics suite and this includes a PDLCT target designation pod, RC-400 radar, ECM equipment and NATO standard IFF and communications equipment.

I listed equipment that will be need in a F-16 Block 60 vs Mig-29SMT battle. Don't get me wrong the Mig-29SMT is more manueverable all round but in high altitude dog fighting or energy fights the F-16 will clearly be the winner and all American fighters have this edge. The SMT will be superior in low and medium altitude while in the BVR field it's anyone's game. The R-77 IMO isn't much proven hence I don't like to hype it up like the AIM-120B but if the Mig-29SMT is 40km away from the Falcon it's chance of surviving will be low. Therefore a Falcon will fire the AIM-120 and when it misses will try to get into energy fights with the Fulcrum. The Fulcrum would want to fight at lower altitude. . As for avionics even a minor avionics edge would change the situation therefore the Mig-29SMT would have to carry the best. The Russian SMT is powerful but I doubt it will have a edge over the latest Block 60.

 

[Zeeshan S.]

Why does Fulcrum needs to get lower to fight with F-16, and why does F-16 has an advantage when fighting over high altitude?

Thanks.

 

[Tiger Shark]

The MiG-29 has 7 external loading points while the F-16 has 9, two more in other words and that is not including the "chin" points which are used for LDPs like the Sharpshooter/Pathfinder, ATLIS II, LITENING II, Lantrin and others.

F-16s have dropped 2000lb laser guided bombs in live combat along with being able to carry 4 AIM-120s, 2 fuel tanks, an external jammer and the LITENING II. The F-16 is able to carry a payload of over 12,000lbs of dispobable equipment. which includes JDAMs, GBU-10/12/22/24s, Popeyes, AS-30Ls, AGM-65s, AGM-84s, AGM-88s, SPICE, Opher, Lizard, Griffin laser guided bombs and many other types of weapons.

The MiG-29 can only do 8000lbs on its 7 external hardpoints and can at best currently (we are only talking operational models) carry rockets and dumb bombs.

The MiG-29 with R-27s can only carry 2 and could in theory take up 4 R-77Es the balance of R-73Es would be 4 and 2 respectively. And F-16 could carry up 6 AIM-120s and still out CAP the MiG-29.

And of course the F-16 is a far more offensive plane with the range, payload and SA to carry the war into enemy air space.

Russians need money bad so they sell to countries who can't affors all the advanced avionic and EW suites that America sells to."
The bottom line is that the Mig-29 is capable of BVR engagements..."

Rather limited compared to the fact most F-16s carry around the AIM-120. The R-27R has a PK similar to the AIM-7E-2 from the Vietnam War.

"Easy to Jam??? I believe you're talking about users again... Only easy to jam for users that have the jamming capability opposed to users that don't have anti-jamming devices... The bottom line is that you need to have your jammers set at the same band as the planes radar to jam... which the Americans can do with ease because of AWACS support and advanced EW... "

Iran did it to Iraq in the 1980s. We are talking F-4s going on a mission jamming the MiG-29s, bombing the target then flying under the same MiG-29s on the way home.

"they are developing HMS, they don't have it at present. Now these are future F-16's, if you look back, the first Mig-29's that rolled out had HMS..."

The IDF/AF has had a HMS for quite a while. The HAF has a HSM.

"India has just ordered the Mig-29K's to operate on their carriers..."

And zero are in service...

"No not in comparing the users...if you take an upgraded F-16 facing an old, ruting Mig-29, that is being very unfair... "
Ok you know nothing about modern combat. And of course seeing as practically every MiG-29 that one will see is old... even Russian ones...

"To compare the planes, an equally upgraded Mig-29 has to be in combat with an equally upgraded F-16 with no outside support like AWACS..."

Maybe because you are repping a nation with a primative air force, real air wars are decided by AWACs, jamming, EW at stand off and BVR ranges.

" America has built much sh*ttier planes like the F-104 and the F-4 (which got raped in Vietnam). And besides if the Russians had the money like the Americans do, the Mig would've been much more advanced electronically than present..."

More MiGs have been shot down then anyother type of plane in the world since the end of WW2. The USAF/USN actually had a kill ratio in thier favor in Vietnam. Russian planes have been generally low tech, hard to maintain and prone to failure.

Syria refused to pay Russia because they thought rather correctly that Russian equipment was junk compared to the high standard American equipment the Israelis get.

"Example, Iranian F-14's..."

Bad example. The Iranians scored over 100 kills in the Iran Iraq war. 58 are still in service and fully combat ready and can use the AIM-54A. Iran scored the first F-14 kills and the only ones with AIM-54s. The majority of thier victims were Russian planes (Tu-22, MiG-25, MiG-23, MiG-21, Su-22, MiG-27 (flown by Russians), Su-20, Su-7). And they had an exllecent kill when one shot down a C-601 missile and then the H-6D which fired it within seconds of each other.

"It seems you keep comparing obsolete old Mig-29's with upgraded block50 F-16's... comparing an F-16 block 50 and a Mig-29 Fulcrum A Is not really a fair comparison..."
This is the real world the majority of MiG-29s flying around are old MiG-29A/UBs.

"The Mig pilots can target enemy planes just by turning their heads in the direction of the enemy plane and locking on... something the F-16 doesn't have..."

Several F-16s already have it but the most important thing is the fact so many F-16s have an ARH BVR missile which kinda means you don't have to get up close. In air combat one does not want to get up close and turn.

"i'd like to point out to you from your own article... also, I already said that the F-16 has a more user-freindly cockpit, better view, than the Mig-29."

 

[Tiger Shark]

Originally posted by WebMaster@Dec 29 2005, 08:37 PM
Well i believe that F-16 is better than Mig-29, not because Pakistan has it, but in reality. F-16 has better capablity of acting as a multirole fighter. However recent upgrade of Mig-29 to SMT standard is a good way to make it a true multirole fighter, and a fighter very close to be comparable to F-16.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/wor...a/mig-29smt.htm

SMT has changed the whole ball game, but i have a trust in American tech so i guess F-16s are better than Mig-29 as they are suppose to be multirole aircraft not upgrade to be a mutirole aircraft, besides like Tiger mentioned. F-16 do have an advantage of better weaponry, but SMT is not that behind.

[post=4880]Quoted post[/post]​

The Mig-29 has, of course, huge upgrade capabilities like the OVT wich berkut mentioned. the SMT/UBT, the M/M2 and the K/KUB are very good upgrades as well. But this new Mig-29-generation hasn't very much success yet. the Russian AirForce is not sure about upgrading their Mig-29. the modernisation of the Su-27 is more important. There were some rumours, but in fact Algeria and Venezuela are not ordering the Mig-29. Only the Mig-29K/KUB had an export success with the Indian Navy. The oder from Sudan was only for the less upgraded Mig-29S (I' not sure, is this information correct?, was it the S-version?)
So overall, the future of the Mig-29 doesn't look very bright. The F-16 in comparison is far more successful (with orders form Poland, Chile, UAE, Israel and so on. And now there is even the possility of purchases by Pakistan and India.).


The comparison of the capabilities

F-16 vs. Mig-29 in a dog-fight:
The Mig-29 is extremely agile and has R-73 with hmcs(helmet mounted cueing system). The F-16 is less agile and the old versios didn't have hmcs and the inferior AIM-9. The modern F-16 will have the AIM-9X , wich is even better than the R-73 and will have a hmcs. The modern F-16 will still be less agile.
F-16 vs. Mig-29 in a BVR(beyond visual range) engagement:
The old Mig-29 had no fire and forget missiles for BVR-ranges, only the R-27. This was clearly inferior to the F-16s AIM-120 AMRAAM. Their fire and forget R-27R (IR-guided) wasn't as accurate as the AIM-120. The modern Mig-29 has the R-77 Adder (sometimes called "Amraamski"), wich is comparable to the AIM-120.
Air to Ground:
The old Mig-29 could only fire unguided bombs and rockets, whereas the F-16 was a mulitrole aircraft from the beginning. Modern Mig-29 have a simiar equipment of AG Weapons as the F-16.
Support and Range:
The Mig-29 has a very limited range. Even with the upgrades, the range remains inferior to other combat aircraft. The F-16 has a very good range comparised to its size. The F-16 has AWACS and Tankers for support, wich have a so called "Force Mulitiplication Effect". This means that the efficiency of the F-16 is mulitiplied. The old Mig-29 had no connection to AWACS and no refuelling capability. Modern Mig-29 do have these supports.

As a result of the comparison, I can say that the F-16 is "better" than the Mig-29. Even if I personally like the design of the Mig-29 better than the one of the F-16, the F-16 is more successfull. The current F-16 has a better equipment. The modern Mig-29 are as good as the F-16, but they aren't produced (Only in small numbers). If a Russian Mig-29 (9.13) would encounter a F-16C Block 50 with well trained pilots, I would bet for the F-16.

Regards
Tiger Shark

 

[miroslav]

I would like to mark out few points in this discussions.

1) Comparing MiG29 A/B with F-16.

Fella's ,

Many members are comparing MiG-29 A/B (IAF) with F-16 and coming up with conclusion by comparing the hard points and Multirole capability of F-16.

MiG-29A/B of IAF is a air superiority fighter so just b'coz F-16 has more hardpoints and ability to carry all kind of weapons dosent makes it superior than the IAF MiG-29.

In war scenario IAF MiG-29's will try to intercept and shoot down the enemy F-16's and they are very capable to do that with the Upgraded Avionics and the state of art missiles like R-73 and R-77.

Not to forget that IAF MiG-29's has already test fired R-77's.

So what is the point in saying that F-16 carry more armament.

Obviously since F-16 is a multirole fighter it carries more armament. MiG-29 is Air Superiority fighter so 6 Missiles (Medium and BVR) are more than enough for it's role as the air-superiority fighter.

So that dosent make any plane superior or inferior.

2) MiG-29K

IN has ordered 12(Single Seat)+4(Twin Seat) MiG-29K for the navy.

Surprisingly the IN pilots are being trained on the USN T-50 trainers (Advance version of Bae HAWK) on the US carriers.

Also weaponary for MiG-29K of IN is not decided yet so it is premature to compare this type with F-16 again.

3) F-16 has always proved itself against the moronic arab airforces so by the results of the F-16 against the Arab airforces again we can't come to any conclusion.

Thanks,

Miro