What's new

MiG-29 Fulcrum Vs F-16 Falcon

No technical barrier.
That was in reference to Aim9l and R-27s.

Low radar reflectivity have always been a consideration, but until Ufimtsev and Lockheed came along, low radar reflectivity was not given the high priority like today. The F-16's clean one meter square at 200km was incidental, not purposely designed, due to its planforming for high maneuverability. Three meters square at the same distance because of two external fuel and bombs is not incredible.
Incidental? With bubble canopy, engine inlets and a 1970's design it's very hard to believe. PAF F-16A/B don't have the colored canopy or slight design changes.

Edit:
# F-16 Fighting Falcon C/D and E/F - from Block 30 has got reduced RCS to about 1 m2
http://www.answers.com/topic/stealth-aircraft

PAF F-16s are A/B block 10 or 20.

In war, continuous high-G loads are to be expected. But in peace, not every sortie will have high-G maneuvers. Some will be for air refuel training. Some will be for ground attack training. Functional check flights (FCF) does maneuver the aircraft but not for high-G loads and FCFs are usually done after major maintenance, such as exiting depot level, to verify if basic maneuvers can be performed, except if maintenance was on an item that is critical for high-G loads. Adversary air aircrafts often have twice the time they spent at high-G loads than the opponents they faced.
It was strengthened compared to regular F-16s taking into account the role they were to be employed. They don't even carry ordinance. The Navy has retired its 1987 F-16Ns but fly their F-18 in the roles F-16 played previously. Are F-18s retired as well? Anyway, 1987 to 1991 is an awfully short time to be temporarily grounded, and responsibilities gradually shifted to F-18s.
 
Last edited:
Thank u all 4r giving ur precious opinions on this topic raised by me. I'm glad 2 find u all people taking interest in a novice user's rather complicated question.
I'm sorry if I haven't told u about this, bt the main purpose of me posting this thread is as follows:-
We all know tht there was a war between India and Pakistan in 1999, better known as the Kargil War and the both the countries had dragged in their Air Forces to help their ground forces struggling in this rather uncomfortable and unacceptable terrain 2 win this territory.
(taken 4rm wikipedia)
According to Indian sources, MiG-29s from the IAF's No. 47 squadron (Black Archers) gained missile lock on two F-16s of the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) which were patrolling close to the border to prevent any incursions by Indian aircraft, but did not engage them because no official declaration of war had been issued. The Indian MiG-29s were armed with beyond-visual-range air-to-air missiles whereas the Pakistani F-16s were not.

I don't know most of u know or don't know this fact bt the MIG-29, even though is such an amazing fighter aircraft on paper and specs, is actually a failure having participated in 3 conflicts and failing against those aircrafts 4r countering which it was designed.

Yet the IAF MIG-29s proved their worthiness in right hands.

So my concern is tht was this incident a mere luck, or the IAF MIGs r better than the ones owned by other countries. If yes, then 2 what extent is it better and keeping the demands and necessities of current air warfare, 2 what level maintaining them is justified. Also, what r the most recent developments and upgrades applied to the MIGs of the IAF and the Falcons of the PAF, and is the current MIG-29 capable enough 2 counter 2days F-16s of the PAF???????
Plzzz answer so as 2 sort out this problem which has been rather neglected through time..........
 
I don't know most of u know or don't know this fact bt the MIG-29, even though is such an amazing fighter aircraft on paper and specs, is actually a failure having participated in 3 conflicts and failing against those aircrafts 4r countering which it was designed.

Yet the IAF MIG-29s proved their worthiness in right hands.

So my concern is tht was this incident a mere luck, or the IAF MIGs r better than the ones owned by other countries. If yes, then 2 what extent is it better and keeping the demands and necessities of current air warfare, 2 what level maintaining them is justified. Also, what r the most recent developments and upgrades applied to the MIGs of the IAF and the Falcons of the PAF, and is the current MIG-29 capable enough 2 counter 2days F-16s of the PAF???????
Yes, that incident is well known, and that is not a fluke.
May99 223 Sqn MiG-29 G.Chibber Lock-on 2xF-16 ?Sqn/PAF
Indian Air-to-Air Victories since 1948

In the other conflicts, you had an adversary along with a vast coalition of other countries with numerous support and force multipliers, who had both numbers and up-to-date technology, battling against low quantity, export downgraded model Mig-29s, without GCI(obviously no awacs), flown by pilots who are so inexperienced that A-10s were said to have maneuver kills, and in another incident a Mig-29 shot down another Mig-29 and seconds later that too crashed to the ground immediately after shooting his comrade down... extremely sad and pathetic. A fighter jet is only the part of the equation, not the whole equation.
The current IAF (downgraded model)Mig-29s are capable to counter the current old BVR-less F-16A/B, but not the future F-16s. The Upgraded Mig-29s are capable. An 888 million dollar deal has already been signed and Mig-29 upgrade is being carried out as we speak.
 
The above lock-on stuff at ACIG is rubbish! Since when do Lock-on counts? Given by what you have stated and is being tracked, I know first-hand about lock-ons against both the IAF Fulcrums and Mirage 2000s by the PAF during the Kargil conflict. Nobody on the PAF side is gloating over it since its quite normal in such situation. When the Mig-29 draws blood against the PAF then you can record it. Until then its best left ignored.

The situations in which the lock-ons happened were in quite a few cases very benign I.E. no aggressive maneuvers were conducted by either side to avoid them as the aircraft were flying on own side of the IB/LoC.
 
Last edited:
МиГ-29;584391 said:
In the other conflicts, you had an adversary along with a vast coalition of other countries with numerous support and force multipliers, who had both numbers and up-to-date technology, battling against low quantity, export downgraded model Mig-29s, without GCI(obviously no awacs), flown by pilots who are so inexperienced that A-10s were said to have maneuver kills, and in another incident a Mig-29 shot down another Mig-29 and seconds later that too crashed to the ground immediately after shooting his comrade down... extremely sad and pathetic. A fighter jet is only the part of the equation, not the whole equation.

Be that as it may, there are differences in the aircraft and F-16 is better. Yougoslav AF pilots were not as ill-trained as you assume them to be. Why is the assumption that only IAF can fly the Mig-29 better than anyone else? You may not say so clearly but it comes across as that.

The current IAF (downgraded model)Mig-29s are capable to counter the current old BVR-less F-16A/B, but not the future F-16s. The Upgraded Mig-29s are capable. An 888 million dollar deal has already been signed and Mig-29 upgrade is being carried out as we speak.

F-16A/Bs are more than capable of handling the Mig-29s if both are equipped with BVR weapons. The F-16 is a better aircraft overall. I do not say this, rather folks who have flown both have said the same. What I am posting is an excerpt of a MS in Aerospace engineering paper written by a USAF pilot who was on exchange with the Luftwaffe. This pilot had 500 hours on the Mig-29 Fulcrum and 2000+ on the F-16. He has also flown F-15. I can provide more information on the pilot if need be. More so then hypothetically thinking about the absolute ranges of the BVR missiles, consider the points about the rigidity of the airframe, ease of handling, sustainability of the airframe through very hard maneuvering etc. and you come to realize that there is a qualitative difference between the two. The Russians realized that a rugged aircraft is all fine and dandy but does not fit in the current air warfare scenario thus the push to churn out one version over the other. You disregarded the gun on the F-16 by giving the points to the Mig-29 simply on the basis of the 30mm caliber and the oft-repeated point of the gun being very hard hitting, however the F-16 not only carries more ammo, its rounds have a greater velocity and match the range of the Fulcrum. One obvious defence to the points being raised by the pilots is to say well the new version of the Mig-29 fixes a lot of these issues, well that may as well be the case, however the vast majority of the Fulcrums flying are older and still based on an airframe that has limitations. New avionics will help with better situational awareness, however the aircraft has very many other limitations as well. The comparison is between a blk 40 (keep in mind that blk 40 had upgrades in avionics for night and precision attack over the blk-15, otherwise the airframe and propulsion is the same) and the Mig-29A.

Take a read:

MiG-29 Fulcrum Versus F-16 Viper

The baseline MiG-29 for this comparison will be the MiG-29A (except for 200 kg more fuel and an internal jammer, the MiG-29C was not an improvement over the MiG-29A), as this was the most widely deployed version of the aircraft. The baseline F-16 will be the F-16C Block 40. Although there is a more advanced and powerful version of the F-16C, the Block 40 was produced and fielded during the height of Fulcrum production.

A combat loaded MiG-29A tips the scales at approximately 38, 500 pounds. This figure includes a full load of internal fuel, two AA-10A Alamo missiles, four AA-11 Archer missiles, 150 rounds of 30mm ammunition and a full centerline 1,500 liter external fuel tank. With 18,600 pounds of thrust per engine, this gives the Fulcrum a takeoff thrust-to-weight ratio of 0.97:1. A similarly loaded air-to-air configured F-16 Block 40 would carry four AIM-120 AMRAAM active radar-guided missiles, two AIM-9M IR-guided missiles, 510 rounds of 20mm ammunition and a 300 gallon external centerline fuel tank. In this configuration, the F-16 weighs 31,640 pounds. With 29,000 pounds of thrust, the F-16 has a takeoff thrust-to-weight ratio of 0.92:1. The reader should be cautioned that these thrust-to-weight ratios are based on uninstalled thrust. Once an engine is installed in the aircraft, it produces less thrust than it does on a test stand due to the air intake allowing in less air than the engine has available on the test stand.
The actual installed thrust-to-weight ratios vary based on the source. On average, they are in the 1:1 regime or better for both aircraft. The centerline fuel tanks can be jettisoned and probably would be if the situation dictated with an associated decrease in drag and weight and an increase in performance.

Speed

Both aircraft display good performance throughout their flight regimes in the comparison configuration. The MiG-29 enjoys a speed advantage at high altitude with a flight manual limit of Mach 2.3. The F-16’s high altitude limit is
Mach 2.05 but this is more of a limit of inlet design. The MiG-29 has variable geometry inlets to control the shock wave that forms in the inlet and prevent supersonic flow from reaching the engine. The F-16 employs a simple fixed-geometry inlet with a sharp upper lip that extends out beyond the lower portion of the inlet. A shock wave forms on this lip and prevents the flow in the intake from going supersonic. The objective is to keep the air going into the engine subsonic unlike a certain ‘subject matter expert’ on this website who thinks that the air should be accelerated to even higher speeds than the aircraft is traveling. Supersonic air in the compressor section? That’s bad.

Both aircraft have the same indicated airspeed limit at lower altitudes of
810 knots. This would require the centerline tanks to be jettisoned. The placard limits for the tanks are 600 knots or Mach 1.6 (Mach 1.5 for the MiG-29) whichever less is. It was the researcher’s experience that the MiG-29 would probably not reach this limit unless a dive was initiated. The F-16 Block 40 will easily reach 800 knots on the deck. In fact, power must be reduced to avoid exceeding placard limits. The limit is not thrust, as the F-16 has been test flown on the plus side of 900 knots. The limit for the F-16 is the canopy. Heating due to air friction at such speeds will cause the polycarbonate canopy to get soft and ultimately fail.

Turning Capability

The MiG-29 and F-16 are both considered 9 G aircraft. Until the centerline tank is empty, the Fulcrum is limited to four Gs and the Viper to seven Gs. The
MiG-29 is also limited to seven Gs above Mach 0.85 while the F-16, once the centerline tank is empty (or jettisoned) can go to nine Gs regardless of airspeed or Mach number. The MiG-29’s seven G limit is due to loads on the vertical stabilizers. MAPO has advertised that the Fulcrum could be stressed to 12 Gs and still not hurt the airframe. This statement is probably wishful and boastful. The German Luftwaffe, which flew its MiG-29s probably more aggressively than any other operator, experienced cracks in the structure at the base of the vertical tails. The F-16 can actually exceed nine Gs without overstressing the airframe. Depending on configuration, momentary overshoots to as much as 10.3 Gs will not cause any concern with aircraft maintainers.

Handling

Of the four fighters I have flown, the MiG-29 has by far the worst handling qualities. The hydro-mechanical flight control system uses an artificial feel system of springs and pulleys to simulate control force changes with varying airspeeds and altitudes. There is a stability augmentation system that makes the aircraft easier to fly but also makes the aircraft more sluggish to flight control inputs. It is my opinion that the jet is more responsive with the augmentation system disengaged. Unfortunately, this was allowed for demonstration purposes only as this also disengages the angle-of-attack (AoA) limiter. Stick forces are relatively light but the stick requires a lot of movement to get the desired response. This only adds to sluggish feeling of the aircraft. The entire time you are flying, the stick will move randomly about one-half inch on its own with a corresponding movement of the flight control surface. Flying the Fulcrum requires constant attention. If the pilot takes his hand off the throttles, the throttles probably won't stay in the position in which they were left. They'll probably slide back into the 'idle' position.

The Fulcrum is relatively easy to fly during most phases of flight such as takeoff, climb, cruise and landing. However, due to flight control limitations, the pilot must work hard to get the jet to respond the way he wants. This is especially evident in aggressive maneuvering, flying formation or during attempts to employ the gun. Aerial gunnery requires very precise handling in order to be successful. The MiG-29’s handling qualities in no way limit the ability of the pilot to perform his mission, but they do dramatically increase his workload. The F-16’s quadruple-redundant digital flight control system, on the other hand, is extremely responsive, precise and smooth throughout the flight regime.

There is no auto-trim system in the MiG-29 as in the F-16. Trimming the aircraft is practically an unattainable state of grace in the Fulcrum. The trim of the aircraft is very sensitive to changes in airspeed and power and requires constant attention. Changes to aircraft configuration such as raising and lowering the landing gear and flaps cause significant changes in pitch trim that the pilot must be prepared for. As a result, the MiG-29 requires constant attention to fly. The F-16 auto-trims to one G or for whatever G the pilot has manually trimmed the aircraft for.

The MiG-29 flight control system also has an AoA limiter that limits the allowable AoA to 26°. As the aircraft reaches the limit, pistons at the base of the stick push the stick forward and reduce the AoA about 5°. The pilot has to fight the flight controls to hold the jet at 26°. The limiter can be overridden, however, with about 17 kg more back pressure on the stick. While not entirely unsafe and at times tactically useful, care must be taken not to attempt to roll the aircraft with ailerons when above 26° AoA. In this case it is best to control roll with the rudders due to adverse yaw caused by the ailerons at high AoA. The F-16 is electronically limited to 26° AoA. While the pilot cannot manually override this limit it is possible to overshoot under certain conditions and risk departure from controlled flight. This is a disadvantage to the F-16 but is a safety margin due its lack of longitudinal stability. Both aircraft have a lift limit of approximately
35° AoA.

Combat Scenario

The ultimate comparison of two fighter aircraft comes down to a combat duel between them. After the Berlin Wall came down the reunified Germany inherited 24 MiG-29s from the Nationale Volksarmee of East Germany. The lessons of capitalism were not lost on MAPO-MiG (the Fulcrum’s manufacturer) who saw this as an opportunity to compare the Fulcrum directly with western types during NATO training exercises. MAPO was quick to boast how the MiG-29 had bested F-15s and F-16s in mock aerial combat. They claimed a combination of the MiG’s superior sensors, weapons and low radar cross section allowed the Fulcrum to beat western aircraft. However, much of the early exploitation was done more to ascertain the MiG-29’s capabilities versus attempting to determine what the outcome of actual combat would be. The western press was also quick to pick up on the theme. In 1991, Benjamin Lambeth cited an article in Jane’s Defence Weekly which stated that the German MiG-29s had beaten F-16s with simulated BVR range shots of more than 60 km. How was this possible when the MiG-29 cannot launch an AA-10A Alamo from outside about 25 km? Was this a case of the fish getting bigger with every telling of the story? The actual BVR capability of the MiG-29 was my biggest disappointment. Was it further exposure to the German Fulcrums in realistic training that showed the jet for what it truly is? It seems that MAPO’s free advertising backfired in the end as further orders were limited to the 18 airplanes sold to Malaysia.

If F-16Cs and MiG-29s face off in aerial combat, both would detect each other on the radar at comparable range. Armed with the AIM-120 AMRAAM, the F-16s would have the first shot opportunity at more than twice the range as the Fulcrums. A single F-16 would be able to discriminately target individual and multiple Fulcrums. The MiG-29’s radar will not allow this. If there is more than one F-16 in a formation, a Fulcrum pilot would not know exactly which F-16 the radar had locked and he can engage only one F-16 at a time. A Viper pilot can launch AMRAAMS against multiple MiG-29s on the first pass and support his missiles via data link until the missiles go active. He can break the radar lock and leave or continue to the visual arena and employ short range infrared guided missiles or the gun. The Fulcrum pilot must wait until about 13 nautical miles (24 kilometers) before he can shoot his BVR missile. The Alamo is a semi-active missile that must be supported by the launching aircraft until impact. This brings the Fulcrum pilot closer to the AMRAAM. In fact, just as the the Fulcrum pilot gets in range to fire an Alamo, the AMRAAM is seconds away from impacting his aircraft. The advantage goes to the F-16.

What if both pilots are committed to engage visually? The F-16 should have the initial advantage as he knows the Fulcrum’s exact altitude and has the target designator box in the head-up display (HUD) to aid in visual acquisition. The Fulcrum’s engines smoke heavily and are a good aid to gaining sight of the adversary. Another advantage is the F-16’s large bubble canopy with 360° field-of-view. The Fulcrum pilot’s HUD doesn’t help much in gaining sight of the F-16. The F-16 is small and has a smokeless engine. The MiG-29 pilot sets low in his cockpit and visibility between the 4 o’clock and 7 o’clock positions is virtually nonexistent.

Charts that compare actual maneuvering performance of the two aircraft are classified. It was the researcher’s experience that the aircraft have comparable initial turning performance. However, the MiG-29 suffers from a higher energy bleed rate than the F-16. This is due to high induced drag on the airframe during high-G maneuvering. F-16 pilots that have flown against the Fulcrum have made similar observations that the F-16 can sustain a high-G turn longer. This results in a turn rate advantage that translates into a positional advantage for the F-16.

The F-16 is also much easier to fly and is more responsive at slow speed.
The Fulcrum’s maximum roll rate is 160° per second. At slow speed this decreases to around 20° per second. Coupled with the large amount of stick movement required, the Fulcrum is extremely sluggish at slow speed. Maneuvering to defeat a close-range gun shot is extremely difficult if the airplane won’t move. For comparison, the F-16’s slow speed roll rate is a little more than 80° per second.

A lot has been written and theorized about the so-called “Cobra Maneuver” that impresses people at airshows. MAPO claimed that no western fighter dare do this same maneuver in public. They also claimed that the Cobra could be used to break the radar lock of an enemy fighter (due to the slow airspeed, there is no Doppler signal for the radar to track) or point the nose of the aircraft to employ weapons. Western fighter pilots were content to let the Russians brag and hope for the opportunity to see a MiG-29 give up all its airspeed. The fact that this maneuver is prohibited in the flight manual only validates the fact that this maneuver was a stunt. Lambeth was the first American to get a flight in the Fulcrum. Even his pilot conceded that the Cobra required a specially prepared aircraft and was prohibited in operational MiG-29 units

Another maneuver performed by the Fulcrum during its introduction to the West is the so-called “Tail Slide”. The nose of the jet is brought to 90° pitch and the airspeed is allowed to decay. Eventually, the Fulcrum begins to “slide” back, tail-first, until the nose drops and the jet begins to fly normally again. The Soviets boasted this maneuver demonstrated how robust the engines were as this would cause western engines to flameout. The first maneuver demonstrated to me during my F-15 training was the Tail Slide. The engines did not flameout. :-)

The MiG-29 is not without strong points. The pilot can override the angle of attack limiter. This is especially useful in vertical maneuvering or in last ditch attempts to bring weapons to bear or defeat enemy shots. The HMS and AA-11 Archer make the Fulcrum a deadly foe in the visual arena. The AA-11 is far superior to the American AIM-9M. By merely turning his head, the MiG pilot can bring an Archer to bear. The one limitation, however, is that the Fulcrum pilot has no cue as to where the Archer seeker head is actually looking. This makes it impossible to determine if the missile is tracking the target, a flare, or some other hot spot in the background. (Note: the AIM-9X which is already fielded on the F-15C, and to be fielded on the F-16 in 2007, is far superior to the AA-11)

Fulcrum pilots have enjoyed their most success with the HMS/Archer combination in one versus one training missions. In this sterile environment, where both aircraft start within visual range of each other, the MiG-29 has a great advantage. Not because it is more maneuverable than the F-16. That is most certainly not the case regardless of the claims of the Fulcrum’s manufacturer and numerous other misinformed propaganda sources. The weapon/sensor integration with the HMS and Archer makes close-in missile employment extremely easy for the Fulcrum’s pilot. My only one versus one fight against a MiG-29 (in something other than another MiG-29) was flown in an F-16 Block 52. This was done against a German MiG-29 at Nellis AFB, Nevada. The F-16 outturned and out-powered the Fulcrum in every situation.

The Fulcrum’s gun system is fairly accurate as long as the target does not attempt to defeat the shot. If the target maneuvers, the gunsight requires large corrections to get back to solution. Coupled with the jet’s imprecise handling, this makes close-in maneuvering difficult. This is very important when using the gun. Although the Fulcrum has a 30 mm cannon, the muzzle velocity is no more than the 20 mm rounds coming out of the F-16’s gun. The MiG’s effective gun range is actually less than that of the F-16 as the 20 mm rounds are more aerodynamic and maintain their velocity longer.

If the fight lasts very long, the MiG pilot is at a decided disadvantage and must either kill his foe or find a timely opportunity to leave the fight without placing himself on the defensive. The Fulcrum A holds only 300 pounds more internal fuel than the F-16 and its two engines go through it quickly. There are no fuel flow gauges in the cockpit. Using the clock and the fuel gauge, in full afterburner the MiG-29 uses fuel 3.5 to 4 times faster than the Viper. My shortest MiG-29 sortie was 16 minutes from brake release to touchdown.

It should not be forgotten that fights between fighters do not occur in a vacuum. One-versus-one comparisons are one thing, but start to include other fighters into the fray and situational awareness (SA) plays an even bigger role. The lack of SA-building tools for MiG-29 pilots will become an even bigger factor if they have more aircraft to keep track of. Poor radar and HUD displays, poor cockpit ergonomics and poor handling qualities added to the Fulcrum pilot’s workload and degraded his overall SA. It was my experience during one-versus-one scenarios emphasizing dogfighting skills, the results came down to pilot skill.

In multi-ship scenarios, such as a typical four versus four training mission, the advantage clearly went to the side with the highest SA. Against F-15s and F-16s in multi-ship fights, the MiG-29s were always outclassed. It was nearly impossible to use the great potential of the HMS/Archer combination when all the Eagles and Vipers couldn’t be accounted for and the Fulcrums were on the defensive. The MiG-29’s design was a result of the Soviet view on tactical aviation and the level of technology available to their aircraft industry. The pilot was not meant to have a lot of SA. The center of fighter execution was the ground controller. The pilot’s job was to do as instructed and not to make independent decisions. Even the data link system in the MiG-29 was not meant to enhance the pilot’s SA. He was merely linked steering, altitude and heading cues to follow from the controller. If the MiG-29 pilot is cut off from his controller, his autonomous capabilities are extremely limited. Western fighter pilots are given the tools they need to make independent tactical decisions. The mission commander is a pilot on the scene. All other assets are there to assist and not to direct. If the F-16 pilot loses contact with support assets such as the E-3 Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft, he has all the tools to complete the mission autonomously.

The combat record of the MiG-29 speaks for itself. American F-15s and F-
16s (a Dutch F-16 shot down a MiG-29 during Operation Allied Force) have downed MiG-29s every time there has been encounters between the types. The only known MiG-29 “victories” occurred during Operation Desert Storm when an Iraqi MiG-29 shot down his own wingman on the first night of the war and a Cuban MiG-29 brought down 2 “mighty” Cessnas. Are there more victories for the Fulcrum? Not against F-15s or F-16s.

Designed and built to counter the fourth generation American fighters, The MiG-29 Fulcrum was a concept that was technologically and doctrinally hindered from the beginning. Feared in the west prior to the demise of the Soviet Union, it was merely an incremental improvement to the earlier Soviet fighters it replaced. Its lack of a market when put in direct competition to western designs should attest to its shortcomings. The German pilots who flew the aircraft said that the MiG-29 looked good at an airshow but they wouldn’t have wanted to take one to combat. Advanced versions such as the SMT and MiG-33? Certainly better but has anyone bought one?

Lt. Col. Johann Köck, commander of the German MiG-29 squadron from
September 1995 to September 1997, was outspoken in his evaluation of the Fulcrum. “It has no range, its navigation system is unreliable and the radar breaks often and does not lend it self to autonomous operations”, he said. He added that the best mission for NATO MiG-29s would be as a dedicated adversary aircraft for other NATO fighters and not as part of NATO’s frontline fighter force.
 
Last edited:
МиГ-29;583757 said:
Incidental? With bubble canopy, engine inlets and a 1970's design it's very hard to believe. PAF F-16A/B don't have the colored canopy or slight design changes.

Edit:
# F-16 Fighting Falcon C/D and E/F - from Block 30 has got reduced RCS to about 1 m2
Stealth aircraft: Definition from Answers.com

PAF F-16s are A/B block 10 or 20.
Yes...Incidental. The 'bubble' canopy was designed to have pilot visibility as primary consideration, not radar reflectivity. The blended body-wing planform that resulted in mostly curves for the aircraft induces the 'creeping wave' behavior for EM waves but this was also in secondary consideration to high maneuverability. Any later modifications that further reduces the overall RCS came after improved understanding of how to reduce surface reflectivity from the F-117.

Your source reads...
The first true “stealth” airplane—an aircraft designed primarily to defeat radar–was the Lockheed Have Blue technology demonstrator.
The reason why this was the first 'true' low observable design was because Lockheed subverted the conventional wisdom for planforming. They put radar reflectivity as primary consideration, at the expense of maneuverability and weapons load if necessary.

МиГ-29;583757 said:
It was strengthened compared to regular F-16s taking into account the role they were to be employed. They don't even carry ordinance. The Navy has retired its 1987 F-16Ns but fly their F-18 in the roles F-16 played previously. Are F-18s retired as well? Anyway, 1987 to 1991 is an awfully short time to be temporarily grounded, and responsibilities gradually shifted to F-18s.
Yes...And the role ended the aircraft with being in the high-G loads regime more often and longer time than the 'regular' units. In war, most safety regulations and airframe longevity considerations will be discarded. A missile or a cannon round will render those considerations pointless. So adversary air aircrafts will fly as if they are at a war time footing every time they meet the visiting team. This is in no way a negative point against the F-16's basic airframe. Adversary air should be considered outliers.
 
Of the four fighters I have flown, the MiG-29 has by far the worst handling qualities. The hydro-mechanical flight control system uses an artificial feel system of springs and pulleys to simulate control force changes with varying airspeeds and altitudes. There is a stability augmentation system that makes the aircraft easier to fly but also makes the aircraft more sluggish to flight control inputs.
We should be very careful about interpreting this statement. Stab-aug, including artificial feel, are essential in every pneudraulics FLCS. The intention is to give the pilot force feedback but as uniform throughout all the maneuvers the aircraft is capable. He should have the same progressive resistance feel through the control stick whether he is inducing a 3-g or 9-g turn. A poorly designed stab-aug system will make the aircraft an inferior tool for the pilot. The more the pilot has to concentrate on the actual mechanics of flight, the less capable he will be as a killer when the time comes. We could say that great pilots are created by necessity when they have to deal with the products of inferior designers.

If F-16Cs and MiG-29s face off in aerial combat, both would detect each other on the radar at comparable range. Armed with the AIM-120 AMRAAM, the F-16s would have the first shot opportunity at more than twice the range as the Fulcrums. A single F-16 would be able to discriminately target individual and multiple Fulcrums. The MiG-29’s radar will not allow this. If there is more than one F-16 in a formation, a Fulcrum pilot would not know exactly which F-16 the radar had locked and he can engage only one F-16 at a time.
Here is why...

http://www.its.bldrdoc.gov/fs-1037/dir-029/_4335.htm
radar resolution cell: The volume of space that is occupied by a radar pulse and that is determined by the pulse duration and the horizontal and vertical beamwidths of the transmitting radar. Note: The radar cannot distinguish between two separate objects that lie within the same resolution cell.
This tactic is well known throughout the F-16 community, for US at least. The F-16's small size, even when loaded with external stores, make it very difficult for many Soviet/Russian/Chinese radar systems to separate multiple F-16s inside any single resolution cell. Resolution cell is a property of radar detection. It cannot be 'bypassed', only dealt with and this rests upon technology and engineering talent. Absent one and the other cannot make it up.

A lot has been written and theorized about the so-called “Cobra Maneuver” that impresses people at airshows. MAPO claimed that no western fighter dare do this same maneuver in public.
MAPO is full of sh!t.

http://www.aviation-history.com/airmen/boyd.htm
Boyd was famous for a maneuver he called "flat-plating the bird." He would be in the defensive position with a challenger tight on his tail, both pulling heavy Gs, when he would suddenly pull the stick full aft, brace his elbows on either side of the cockpit, so the stick would not move laterally, and stomp the rudder. It was as if a manhole cover were sailing through the air and then suddenly flipped 90 degrees. The underside of the fuselage, wings, and horizontal stabilizer became a speed brake that slowed the Hun from 400 knots to 150 knots in seconds. The pursuing pilot was thrown forward and now Boyd was on his tail radioing "Guns. Guns. Guns."
May be Boyd in his ancient F-100 in this maneuver was not as elegantly done as the -29 can do, but the basics of the maneuver are still the same. So is the result, which is to radically slow the aircraft's forward momentum as rapidly as possible.
 
Last edited:
I have to agree with blain. On F16/52 versis Mig29.

I m no expert, but my guess is the quaruplex digital fbw lower rcs and better electronics and better bvr missle amraam c5 will mean 80% of any 1-1 engagements wll be won by falcons

I actually think the IAF are wasting $1 billion updating the mig29 to smt i wud have acquired more flankers or the uae mirage 2000-5
 
МиГ-29;583757 said:
It was strengthened compared to regular F-16s taking into account the role they were to be employed. They don't even carry ordinance. The Navy has retired its 1987 F-16Ns but fly their F-18 in the roles F-16 played previously. Are F-18s retired as well? Anyway, 1987 to 1991 is an awfully short time to be temporarily grounded, and responsibilities gradually shifted to F-18s.

None of the F-16Ns diverted from PeacegateIII have been retired from the USN aggressor service.

PAF F-16s are A/B block 10 or 20.

PAF F-16s are neither blk 10 or 20s. They are blk-15/OCUs.
 
Last edited:
Although the MIG-29 had it's fair share of misfortunes, but the second engine should provide that little bit extra security.!! ???



 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thank goodness the pilot survived in the last one. Seemed like a very good pilot.
 
The above lock-on stuff at ACIG is rubbish! Since when do Lock-on counts? Given by what you have stated and is being tracked, I know first-hand about lock-ons against both the IAF Fulcrums and Mirage 2000s by the PAF during the Kargil conflict. Nobody on the PAF side is gloating over it since its quite normal in such situation. When the Mig-29 draws blood against the PAF then you can record it. Until then its best left ignored.

The situations in which the lock-ons happened were in quite a few cases very benign I.E. no aggressive maneuvers were conducted by either side to avoid them as the aircraft were flying on own side of the IB/LoC.
The lockon story was confirmed by ACIG staff on the PAF side, but the PAF lockon story isn't. That why it's on the site.


Be that as it may, there are differences in the aircraft and F-16 is better. Yougoslav AF pilots were not as ill-trained as you assume them to be. Why is the assumption that only IAF can fly the Mig-29 better than anyone else? You may not say so clearly but it comes across as that.
Those were documented war time incidents reported on Iraqi pilots. The Serb pilots had 20 hours of flying time each year and they were operated only a dozen export model downgraded fulcrums which were falling apart.

F-16A/Bs are more than capable of handling the Mig-29s if both are equipped with BVR weapons. The F-16 is a better aircraft overall. I do not say this, rather folks who have flown both have said the same. What I am posting is an excerpt of a MS in Aerospace engineering paper written by a USAF pilot who was on exchange with the Luftwaffe. This pilot had 500 hours on the Mig-29 Fulcrum and 2000+ on the F-16. He has also flown F-15.
The Germans were using their fulcrums sparingly and even de-rated to give atleast 10% lower thrust to give longer life and even pulled less Gs as a precaution. The Engines smoked a lot than they usually do becasue of de-rating. The pilot you are referring to posts on above top secret forum and is well known fan of F-16, infact pilots will be fans of their own planes. I have talked to Fulcrum pilots(one a former Mirage pilot) of IAF and they wouldn't trade their Mig-29s for MKIs nor Mirage-2000s! The pilot said, the learning curve for a Mig-29 is much more than a Mirage but once you get to know the machine like the back of your hand you wouldn't let get go of it. The Indian Navy pilots flew and knew about IAF fulcrums before they went for fulcrums themselves. Infact, there is a new order of additional 29 Mig-29s apart from the ones on Gorshkov, which will be placed on Indigenous AC which is being built as we speak... this after Boeing and the Navy were talking about F-18. Getting back to the post, the pilot gleefully jumps to quote Col Johanns negative comments, but doesn't bother to quote his positive quote- he termed Mig-29 in close combat dogfights as "the best of the best". That is from a west german pilot, and East German pilots regarded their Mig-29s in esteem despite its poor maintenance and poor radar.

I never once said, 30mm is superior to guns. I generally say cannon to both guns and cannon.



Another maneuver performed by the Fulcrum during its introduction to the West is the so-called “Tail Slide”. The nose of the jet is brought to 90° pitch and the airspeed is allowed to decay. Eventually, the Fulcrum begins to “slide” back, tail-first, until the nose drops and the jet begins to fly normally again. The Soviets boasted this maneuver demonstrated how robust the engines were as this would cause western engines to flameout. The first maneuver demonstrated to me during my F-15 training was the Tail Slide. The engines did not flameout.
And how often has western fighters performed that? I've seen that maneuver in Aero India 2003 in which it did it 3 times. How will the western engines behave if that maneuver is performed often?

Yes...Incidental. The 'bubble' canopy was designed to have pilot visibility as primary consideration, not radar reflectivity. The blended body-wing planform that resulted in mostly curves for the aircraft induces the 'creeping wave' behavior for EM waves but this was also in secondary consideration to high maneuverability. Any later modifications that further reduces the overall RCS came after improved understanding of how to reduce surface reflectivity from the F-117.
Yes, which is why I said, a 1970's design with emphasis on maneuverability and dogfighting than radar reflection was hard to believe. The RCS fig(unofficial?) is 1.2 for block 30 & onwards which took radar reflectivity into account in design changes. The earlier block's RCS is more than block 30s.

Yes...And the role ended the aircraft with being in the high-G loads regime more often and longer time than the 'regular' units. In war, most safety regulations and airframe longevity considerations will be discarded. A missile or a cannon round will render those considerations pointless. So adversary air aircrafts will fly as if they are at a war time footing every time they meet the visiting team. This is in no way a negative point against the F-16's basic airframe. Adversary air should be considered outliers.
Yes, they will be operating that machine in mainly Air-Air tactics, and they were strengthened taking into account that adversary squadron will be constantly flying them in war mode. 1987 to 1991 is too short, and F-16 is not the only Aircraft they fly. There were reports that Hellenic AF which operates Mirage-2000s & F-16s had F-16's frame fatigue but none on Mirage-2000s.

I actually think the IAF are wasting $1 billion updating the mig29 to smt i wud have acquired more flankers or the uae mirage 2000-5
lol...
 
Last edited:
Yes, which is why I said, a 1970's design with emphasis on maneuverability and dogfighting than radar reflection was hard to believe. The RCS fig(unofficial?) is 1.2 for block 30 & onwards which took radar reflectivity into account in design changes. The earlier block's RCS is more than block 30s.
Even if the RCS for the first generation is higher it still does not affect the fact that the F-16's planform was primarily for maneuverability instead of radar reflectivity. From a head-on perspective, the A and C model in clean configurations, have practically no significant differences.

Yes, they will be operating that machine in mainly Air-Air tactics, and they were strengthened taking into account that adversary squadron will be constantly flying them in war mode. 1987 to 1991 is too short, and F-16 is not the only Aircraft they fly. There were reports that Hellenic AF which operates Mirage-2000s & F-16s had F-16's frame fatigue but none on Mirage-2000s.
What is 'too short'? Based upon what previous criteria? The C is based upon the A and I worked on both. You are making a grossly wrong assumption that the C model is a redesign of the aircraft. It is not. The most signifinicant differences are in the avionics and some engine bay modifications to accommodate a more powerful engine from a different manufacturer. But the C body is still based upon the A model. I worked on some of the Navy's N aircrafts and they were essentially C models and some hand-me-down A models. What happened was they underestimated the intensity of the adversary air program the US Navy subjected their N versions.

The question is why should there be a need to strengthened some areas of the airframe in the first place? Metal fatigue is a fact. Adversary air flying, especially with limited quantity of aircrafts, inevitably accelerated the progression of airframe fatigue and that is why the N models had those airframe reenforcements. That mean the original airframe design and manufacturing were sound to start. I know you are desperately trying to salvage some face for the -29 but you are doing it at the expense of facts and common sense.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom