Russia is seriously concerned over JF-17's take over on MiG-29

[DESERT FIGHTER]

There is nothing wrong with the design of the mig-29, it can acheive the same tasks of many other aircraft and in many cases do them better, as for flaws, Mig has improved many shortcoming of the Mig-29 such as larger internal fuel tanks, longer service life, fewer overhauls, cheaper operating cost ect.


As for history, your perception is likely flawed, you probably equate the logic of, teen series shot down the mig-29 so it's inferior. A little history and research would tell you that during those encounters some Migs had malfunctioning radars. Also during Iraq a few Iraqi Mig-29s had radar locks and even scored direct hits on a few aircraft but those aircraft got very lucky and survived the missile hits. Furthermore, Mig-29s were involved in turning fights with aircraft such as the F-15, the mig-29 had the advantage; however, the training and AWACs of the F-15 overcame the Mig-29s maneuverability, HMS, and high bore missiles. In fact the Iraqis were so badly trained that they crashed into the desert floor when engaged in dogfights and the F-15 got credit for the kill when in reality the F-15 had no part in the Mig-29s distruction.

Iraqi migs didn't have radars? seriously buddy?

As for migs shooting teen series a source ..(* non Russian) ?

Apart from that... even Russia grounded the plane several times?apart from the Malaysia,algeria etc etc all are complaining abt these jets and want to replace them?limited A2G capability,fuel hungry,the German experience?

As for kills.. F-15s alone scored over 104? .. with 0 losses (not sure abt the real number... fig from 2003) ... 11 mig-29s!!


Another ex .. when Yugoslav MiG-29 pilot Pavlovic was shot down by an F-16C, 2 more Yugoslav MiG-29s took off from Batajnica and challeged a group of US F-15s. Both MiG-29s were shot down by US Captain Jeff Hwag>??

I think over 38 mig-29s have been shot down during combat!!


Also ... A German Mig-29 pilots view:


fulcrumflyer wrote:

I've got over 500 hours in the MiG-29 and 2000 hours in the F-16 (I also flew the F-15A/C and the F-5E). The following is an excerpt from a research papaer I wrote while working on a Master's Degree in aerospace engineering. Bottom line: F16 (and F-15) good, MiG-29 bad.

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.


Want more ?

 

[Manindra]

Because they know the JFT has better electronics thats why plus cheaper to induct plus cheaper to maintain see all that vs the sucks mig-29.


thats mighty be right but not all the mig-29 are in the same par with the mig-29K. now can you tell me how far its radar can see the JFT.

Only eighties MIG are inferior to JFT is just like Tejas would crush F-16 A/B version (not MLU) any day. Upgraded or new MIG-29 would crush JFT Block II anyday.
Official figure of radar range of KLJ-7 is 105 KM for 5m2 RCS aircraft.
Official figure of Radar range of ZHUK-ME is 120 KM for 5m2 RCS aircraft.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

Another:


Schlemming with the Fulcrums,
F-16/MiG-29 Training in Italy
Article by Eric Hehs

Four Cyrillic letters adorn a toggle switch in the MiG-29 cockpit. The letters spell a word that sounds like schlemm. The switch activates a helmet-mounted sight system used to designate targets for one of the most formidable air-to-air missiles any USAF fighter pilot may ever face, and actually ever face-the AA-11 Archer.

The system allows pilots the MiG-29 to shoot the thrust-vectored Archer where their planes are not pointing. With a turn of the head, they can target opposing aircraft up to forty-five degrees off the nose of the MiG. When MiG-29 pilots of Germany's Jagdgeschwader 73 (Fighter Wing 73) use the helmet-mounted sight system in simulated engagements, they call it a schlemm shot . (Not surprising, schlemm means grand slam in German.)

Only a handful of USAF fighter pilots have ever been schlemmed. Those who have, though, consider themselves lucky. They have experienced what others have only read about or encountered in simulations. With experience comes credibility. And as of last May 1995, the most credible squadron when it comes to fighting the MiG-29 is the 510th Fighter Squadron from Aviano Air Base in northern Italy.

Most people associate Aviano with Deny Flight Operations over Bosnia. Many pilots of the 510th and its sister F-16 squadron, the 555th, have been flying over Bosnia from Aviano for most three years without much attention. Until recently, that is. These days, the squadrons fly these missions for two-month shifts every six months. The units spend two of the remaining four months training at Aviano and two months deployed. On one such deployment last year to Decimomannu Air Base on the southern tip of Sardinia, Capt. Will Sparrow of the 510th learned about an upcoming German MiG-29 visit to the island. The Fulcrums, he heard, were looking for aerial adversaries. "We were on the phone about thirty seconds later getting our name on the books to come back down here," Sparrow recalled.

A few months after that call, the 510th headed back to Sardinia with ten F-16s and an able support team for a four-week MiG-29 Fest. The JG 73 sent ten Fulcrums and fifteen air-to-air German F-4Fs. The pilots flew a variety of setups, from simple one F-16 flying basic fighter maneuvers against one MiG-29, to more complex encounters of four F-16s teamed against four MiG-29s. Two F-16s also flew against two MiG-29s and two F-4Fs. 'We called that two v two plus two," explained Sparrow. "The MiGs practice a lot of tactics with the F-4s to make use of the F-4's radar."

The more complex engagements were simultaneously monitored by ground controllers who used the air combat maneuvering instrumentation facilities at Decimomannu to guide the aerial combatants. The ACMI facilities were also used by the aircrews to review the engagements. "Decimomannu is a fantastic place to train," said Sparrow, who was in charge of the deployment for the 510th. "The base has an ACMI that can't be beat for debriefing. And they have a bombing range nearby at Cappa Frasca.

"I hope this deployment receives a lot of attention because it deserves a lot," Sparrow continued. "Not because we're here, but because we're learning about aircraft very similar to the German MiGs, aircraft that could cause us a lot of problems. As for what we expected before coming down here, we would get ten different answers from ten different pilots. We've heard a lot of things about the MiG-29. We all read the same stuff and get the same information. But we never really know what to believe. We now know they are a great adversary. They were everything I expected and more. Nothing can substitute for training like this. We go out and fight ourselves a lot and we try to make those encounters as realistic as possible. But this is the real thing. And these MiG pilots are really well trained."

Germany's MiG-29 unit is based at Laage Air Base near Rostock on the Baltic coast. Before German reunification in 1990, the aircraft flew for the former East Germany and the Warsaw Pact. After reunification, the Fulcrums became a test wing for the German Air Force. In 1993, the unit became an operational wing. Its twenty-four Fulcrums and twenty-eight pilots officially became a combined wing with an F-4 unit from Pferdsfeld Air Base in 1994. The unit formally maintains an alert role and polices the air over the five republics that comprise the former East Germany. Many of Germany's MiG-29 pilots are former F-4 pilots who were trained in the United States. These pilots volunteered to convert to the Fulcrum, which currently represents the most advanced fighter in the German Luftwaffe.

The JG-73 has also retained a number of former East German MiG-29 pilots who have had to tailor their knowledge of the airplane to fit western style tactics. Most of the Fulcrum pilots have fewer than 300 hours in the aircraft. Only a few have over 400 hours. No one in the unit, including former East German pilots, has over 500 hours in the MiG-29.

This was not the JG 73's first encounter with advanced western aircraft. The wing flew against Dutch F-16s at Decimomannu last year and against Spanish F-18s for two weeks in 1993. The Germans deploy to Sardinia because the ACMI facilities are there and because air-to-air combat training is restricted over the former East Germany, which covers Laage Air Base. The restriction, however, may be dropped later this year.

"The highlight of this deployment for me has been the BFM (basic fighter maneuvering, i.e., modern dogfighting) against a clean F-16C," explained Capt. Oliver Prunk, the operations officer for JG 73. "The F-16C performs significantly better in terms of power when compared with the F-16A. I was also pleased with the proficiency of the American pilots. They take their jobs very seriously. We try to be the best adversary we can. I think they were surprised with the performance of the MiG-29 and with what we can do with it."

The most impressive aspect of the Fulcrum's performance for the American pilots was its low-speed maneuverability. "In a low-speed fight, fighting the Fulcrum is similar to fighting an F-18 Hornet," explained Capt. Mike McCoy of the 510th. "But the Fulcrum has a thrust advantage over the Hornet. An F-18 can really crank its nose around if you get into a slow-speed fight, but it has to lose altitude to regain the energy, which allows us to get on top of them. The MiG has about the same nose authority at slow speeds, but it can regain energy much faster. Plus the MiG pilots have that forty-five-degree cone in front of them into which they can fire an Archer and eat you up."

The off-boresight missile, as described in the opening scenario, proved to be a formidable threat, though not an insurmountable one. "Some of their capabilities were more wicked than we originally thought," said McCoy. "We had to respect the helmet-mounted sight, which made our decisions to anchor more difficult. In other words, when I got close in, I had to consider that helmet-mounted sight. Every time I got near a Fulcrum's nose, I was releasing flares to defeat an Archer coming off his rail."

"Before coming here, some of our pilots may have thought of the MiG's helmet-mounted sight as an end-all to a BFM fight," explained Lt. Col. Gary West, commander of the 510th. "We have found that it is not as lethal as we had expected.

We encountered some positions-particularly in an across-the-circle shot or a high-low shot and in a slow-speed fight-where a Fulcrum pilot can look up forty-five degrees and take a shot while his nose is still off. That capability has changed some of the pilots' ideas on how they should approach a MiG-29 in a neutral fight. Below 200 knots, the MiG-29 has incredible nose-pointing capability down to below 100 knots. The F-16, however, enjoys an advantage in the 200 knot-plus regime. At higher speeds, we can power above them to go to the vertical. And our turn rate is significantly better. By being patient and by keeping airspeed up around 325 knots, an F-16 can bring the MiG-29 to its nose. But the pilot must still be careful of the across-the-circle shot with that helmet-mounted sight.

"We have done very well on neutral BFM engagements," continued West. "We have tried single and two-circle fights, depending on how much lead turn we had at the merge. Without exception, we have been able to use finesse or power to an advantage after at least a couple of turns. I don't think any F-16 pilot has gotten defensive and stayed there. As always, and this applies to any airplane, success depends on who is flying."

Three pilots from the 510th received backseat rides in one of the JG-73's two-seat MiG-29 trainers. Capt. Sparrow was one of them. "The MiG is harder to fly than the F-16," said Sparrow. "The Soviet airframe is great, but the avionics are not user friendly. After flying in the backseat of the Fulcrum, I got a feel for how spoiled we are in the F-16. I always felt good about the F-16, but I wouldn't trade flying the F-16 for any other aircraft, foreign or domestic.

"The Fulcrum doesn't have the crisp movements of an F-16," Sparrow continued. "You need to be an octopus in the MiG-29 to work the avionics. Those German pilots have it tough. Just to get a simple lock on and fire a missile may take a half dozen hands-off switches or so. We can do the same with a flick of the thumb while we are looking at the HUD. F-16 pilots also have a significant sight advantage. A couple of hundred feet advantage can make a difference in air-to-air combat; the actual difference is more significant than that. MiG-29 pilots have a tough time checking their six o'clock. Their canopy rail is higher. They can lose sight of us even when flying BFM."

"Their visibility is not that good," agreed McCoy, one of the other two pilots who enjoyed a spin in the Fulcrum. "Their disadvantage is a real advantage for us. F-16 pilots sit high in the cockpit. All the MiG-29 pilots who sat in our cockpit wanted to look around with the canopy closed. They were impressed that they could turn around and look at the tail and even see the engine can."

"Besides visibility, I expected better turning performance," McCoy continued. "The MiG-29 is not a continuous nine-g machine like the F-16. I tried to do some things I normally do in an F-16. For example, I tried a high-AOA guns jink. I got the Fulcrum down to about 180 knots and pulled ninety degrees of bank and started pulling heavy g's. I then went to idle and added a little rudder to get the jet to roll with ailerons. The pilot took control away from me in the middle of these maneuvers because the airplane was about to snap. I use the F-16's quick roll rate like this all the time with no problem.

"I also tried to do a 250-knot loop," McCoy recalled. "I went to mil power and stabilized. As I went nose high, I asked for afterburner. I had to hamfist the airplane a little as I approached the top of the loop. I was still in afterburner at about 15,000 feet and the jet lost control. The nose started slicing left and right. I let go of the stick and the airplane righted itself and went down. It couldn't finish the loop. In the F-16, we can complete an entire loop at 250 knots."

Like Sparrow, McCoy climbed out of the MiG-29 cockpit feeling better about the F-16, especially its automation. "The biggest instrument in the MiG-29 cockpit is the clock," McCoy said. "It took me a while to understand this. But a large clock is needed to keep track of the time after launching a missile. When they launch a missile, they have to consider their shot range and the type of missile they are shooting and estimate how long it will take to impact before firing. When they take a five-mile Alamo shot, for example, they have to calculate mentally the time required for the missile to reach its target so their radar can illuminate it for the duration. They fire and watch until they know when they can turn away. That procedure is a real disadvantage if they're flying against someone who shot a missile at them at about the same time.

"F-16 pilots don't have to think about these things," McCoy continued. "We have great automation. When we launch a missile, the airplane performs all the calculations and displays a countdown on the head-up display for us. When we're within ten miles, we want our eyes out of the cockpit looking for flashes or smoke from an adversary. That's why our head-up display is focused to infinity. We can view information without refocusing our eyes to scan the horizon. Inside of ten miles, Fulcrum pilots are moving their hands around flipping about six switches, some they have to look at. I am moving one, maybe two switches, without taking my hands off the throttle and stick."

German Fulcrum pilots realize the limitations, and advantages, of their aircraft. "If you define an F-16 as a third-generation fighter, it is not fair to speak of the MiG-29 as a third-generation aircraft because of its avionics," said Lt. Col. Manfred Skeries, the deputy commander of the JG-73. "Aerodynamics, now, are something different." Skeries is the former commander of all East German fighter forces and the first German pilot to fly the MiG-29. His comments came after he received his first flight in the F-16.

"The MiG-29's avionics are a shortcoming," admitted Capt. Michael Raubbach, a Fulcrum pilot of the JG 73. "Its radar-warning and navigational equipment are not up to Western standards. The Russian idea of hands-on throttle and stick is not the same as it is in the West. It is true that we have to look in the cockpit a lot to flip switches. And the way information is provided and the accuracy with which it is provided-in the navigational equipment in particular-doesn't allow full employment in the Western concept.

"Our visibility is not as good as an F-16 or even an F-15," Raubbach continued. "We can't see directly behind us. We have to look out the side slightly to see behind us, which doesn't allow us to maintain a visual contact and an optimum lift vector at the same time. This shortcoming can be a real problem, especially when flying against an aircraft as small as the F-16. But as a German, I can't complain about the MiG's visibility. The aircraft offers the greatest visibility in our air force."

Raubbach is one of many Western-trained pilots who volunteered for the first five MiG-29 slots that became available after Germany made the JG 73 an operational wing. He is now an instructor pilot for the unit. "The helmet-mounted sight is a real advantage when it comes to engagements requiring a visual identification," Raubbach said. "It offers no advantage in a BVR engagement, however, unless you enter a short-range fight, which is not very likely against an AMRAAM-equipped opponent like we are facing here."

The Westernization of an Eastern aircraft has presented its own problems. The MiG-29's powerful Isotov RD-33 engines, designed as disposable commodities for a mass force, were intended to run about 400 hours before they had to be replaced. (By comparison, F-16 engines can run about 4,000 hours between overhauls.) The Germans have managed almost to double the RD-33's lifespan by detuning the engines by ten percent. Besides lowering thrust, the cost-saving fix has reduced range and dirtied the exhaust at lower altitudes. The move from JP-4 to NATO's standard fuel JP-8 has also hurt engine performance.

"The engines have been extremely reliable," commented Raubbach. "It goes from afterburner to military power, without problems, at various speeds and under varying g conditions. I can feel the difference detuning makes only at higher speeds. We have many spare engines. We had a shortage at one time, but we now have a big supply. Engines do not represent a shortcoming for us."

Though aerodynamically adept, the MiG-29's performance is constrained by avionics conforming to Soviet tactical doctrine. The aircraft was designed to rely heavily on a centralized system of ground controllers, which could take control of the aircraft's radar. The system could also land the plane if necessary. "Warsaw Pact pilots were not taught to evaluate a situation as it occurs in the air," Prunk explained. "Pilots were used to a system that made many decisions for them. The aircraft's guidance system had room for only six preprogrammed steerpoints, including three targets. The radio had twenty preselected channels at frequencies unknown to the pilot.

"The aircraft was not built for close-in dogfighting, though it is aerodynamically capable of it," Prunk continued. "The East Germans flew it as a point-defense interceptor, like a MiG-21. They were not allowed to max perform the airplane, to explore its capabilities or their own abilities. Sorties lasted about thirty minutes. The airplane was designed to scramble, jettison the tank, go supersonic, shoot its missiles, and go home." This relatively strict operational scenario presents its own limitations. Many of these involve the aircraft's centerline fuel tank. The MiG-29 cannot fly supersonic with the tank attached. Nor can pilots fire the aircraft's 30mm cannon (the tank blocks the shell discharge route) or use its speed brakes. The aircraft is limited to four g's when the tank has fuel remaining. The tank creates some drag and is also difficult to attach and remove. The MiG-29 can carry wing tanks that alleviate many of these shortcomings, but the Luftwaffe has no plans to purchase them from Russia.

Even given its drawbacks, the MiG-29 remains a formidable foe. "This deployment answered so many questions I had in my mind about the MiG-29," said McCoy, who flew in eight sorties against the Fulcrum and in one with it. "The experience confirmed what I knew about the MiG-29's ability to turn and to fight in the phonebooth. It is an awesome airplane in this regime. The awe, though, fades away after that first turn in. The biggest adrenaline rush was getting to that point. After that, I started evaluating it as a weapon. The German MiG-29 pilots represent a worst-case threat for us because their skills are so good."

"When Western pilots merge with a MiG for the first time, they tend to stare at it in awe," said West, who flew in three sorties against the Fulcrum. "Instead of flying their jets and fighting, they are enamored by this Soviet-built aircraft that they have spent their lives learning about. Pilots lose this sense of wonder after a first encounter. It is no longer a potential distraction. They are going to know what type of fight to fight and exactly where they may be in trouble. No one can learn these things by reading reports. Air-to-air fighting is a perishable skill. But the lessons we learned here won't be forgotten. These pilots will know at the merge exactly what they are up against. They will have more confidence. And they know they are flying an aircraft that is superior in maneuverability, power, and avionics.

"When our pilots first arrived here, they almost tripped over themselves because their eyes were glued to the ramp and those MiG-29s," West continued. "After a few days, though, those MiGs became just like any other aircraft. And that's the way it should be."



404: Code One Magazine

 

[ptldM3]

Iraqi migs didn't have radars? seriously buddy?

Can you read? Seriously buddy? Serbian Migs had malfunctioning radars, no one ever said they had no radars but a malfunctioning radar is as good as no radar.

As for migs shooting teen series a source ..(* non Russian) ?

http://aces.safarikovi.org/victories/victories-iraq-gulf.war.pdf

F-111, Tornado ect are not 'teen series' but the proof is there along with the fact that US pilots admitted being locked on by Mig-29s and fired upon.

But a very low tactic on your behalf to subjugate and dismiss all Russian sources.

Apart from that... even Russia grounded the plane several times?apart from the Malaysia,algeria etc etc all are complaining abt these jets and want to replace them?limited A2G capability,fuel hungry,the German experience?

Your assumptions are outdated and plainly wrong. Limited A2G capabilities were a problem for early Mig-29s, as for being fuel thirsty where did you get that?

The RD-33 is more fuel efficient then the F404 in dry thrust.

0.77 lb/h vs 0.81

As for the Mig-29 being grounded several times, I don't get what you are trying to prove, nearly every aircraft has been grounded at some point including F-16s but why bother, I sense your post was inflammatory and immature.

As for kills.. F-15s alone scored over 104? .. with 0 losses (not sure abt the real number... fig from 2003) ... 11 mig-29s!!

No one mentioned the F-15 and it never shot down 11 Mig-29s. 3 Mig-29s were shot down during desert storm and 2 during Kosovo and the F-15 had AWACS.

Another ex .. when Yugoslav MiG-29 pilot Pavlovic was shot down by an F-16C, 2 more Yugoslav MiG-29s took off from Batajnica and challeged a group of US F-15s. Both MiG-29s were shot down by US Captain Jeff Hwag>??

Nice summary, except I know where you got it from and the same source also claimed that the Migs had malfunctioning radars. Those Mig-29s were also old as time; morever those were export versions which had many systems such as data-link removed and radars that were down-graded.

I think over 38 mig-29s have been shot down during combat!!

you thought many things. If you want to make that claim you better back it up.

Also ... A German Mig-29 pilots view:


fulcrumflyer wrote:

[snip]

Save us the bombardment of your copy and past job. That was also not written by a German as you stated, the Germans never had much of anything good to say about the F-16 since they regularly trashed them with one German stating that an F-16 took 18 archers from a Mig-29.

The article is comparing a Mig-29A export version circa 1983. the guy talks about issues such as anolog cockpit and flight controls which are radically different in a Mig-29A compared to a Mig-29SMT or Mig-29K or any other Mig-29.

Why not compare a F-16 block 15 to a Mig-35 while you are at it?

 

[gslv mk3]

Is it the comparison just between two engine and single engine?

What theory or study says twin engine aircraft is superior to single engine?

It depends on what role they were designed. A single engine aircraft like JF-17 is very effective in ground support and point interception. PAF JF-17 also has BVR capability. Its RCS definitely smaller than any Indian aircraft gives it higher advantage.

Just because Indians have MiG-29 doesn't mean its superior. Its a high maintenance aircraft.

As a reminder, 1971 war, a much more modern IAF MiG-21F was downed by an old PAF F-86 Sabre Mk.6.

No matter how advanced your plane is, its the pilot and his capability that makes it an effective fighting machine.

One word - LCA Tejas

Picking one number to make an argument is no comparison. Its point scoring. MiG-29 and JF-17 standing alone have their own merits.

It all depends on what was the objective of development was for each aircraft. When Pakistan started development of JF-17, it was under US sanctions. It was looking at a capability of an F-16 (the planes that were paid for but not delivered due to sanctions). So F-16 is a totally different aircraft than MiG-29. By extension and to make an argument if I compare F-16 to MiG-29, then F-16 is in many ways better than MiG-29 and vice versa.

The development of JF 17 started in China in the 90s,with Pakistan joining in in 1998(?)

Indians troll too much you know, you are a knowledgeable sane member.

The same ' sane ' member was found running around claiming Indian president 'Salam' stole blueprints of 'cryogene' engines from Russia...

 

[Chak Bamu]

The development of JF 17 started in China in the 90s,with Pakistan joining in in 1998(?)

No, likely 1994. That was the first time I read about it in Janes Defense.

Also, I would like to contest your claim that LCA has lower RCS. How would you substantiate this claim. I know about composites etc... but I need to see the basis of your claim.

 

[gslv mk3]

No, likely 1994. That was the first time I read about it in Janes Defense.

Also, I would like to contest your claim that LCA has lower RCS. How would you substantiate this claim. I know about composites etc... but I need to see the basis of your claim.

Any links?Can you post article?

The low RCS,well LCA is much smaller,has a much cleaner profile & has high use of Composites on skin which implies low RCS

 

[Chak Bamu]

Any links?Can you post article?

The low RCS,well LCA is much smaller,has a much cleaner profile & has high use of Composites on skin which implies low RCS

I do not need to 'post' an article to tell you that I read about it in Janes Defense in 1994. You want to find a link, you do a search. Google is your friend...

So you are using assumptions of LCA being 'small', having 'a much cleaner profile', and 'high use of composites on skin' to come up with your guess that LCA has a lower RCS than JFT. Good. That is exactly the sort of answer I expected.

 

[gslv mk3]

I do not need to 'post' an article to tell you that I read about it in Janes Defense in 1994. You want to find a link, you do a search. Google is your friend...

So you are using assumptions of LCA being 'small', having 'a much cleaner profile', and 'high use of composites on skin' to come up with your guess that LCA has a lower RCS than JFT. Good. That is exactly the sort of answer I expected.

China/Pakistan signal intent to resume FC-1 development work

For the second part,thats called common logic.Do you have any proof that all aluminium JFT have much less RCS than a far smaller plane,with high composite content?

 

[Chak Bamu]

China/Pakistan signal intent to resume FC-1 development work

For the second part,thats called common logic.Do you have any proof that all aluminium JFT have much less RCS than a far smaller plane,with high composite content?

'Resume' is the key word here. You really should pay closer attention to what you are posting. Apparently PAF took some time to consider a re-design. Anyone familiar with JF-17 / FC-1 development knows this.

For the second part. A speculation is a speculation after all. An assumption is still an assumption. You are speculating on basis of assumptions. For example, how do you know that JF-17 is 'all Aluminium'? How can you make such an assertion? Do you really not know that it has composite content?

 

[MiG-21]

I'll quickly correct some facts which I skimmed though.

1) Please avoid using Nato desgination of MiG-29A. Nato with their brilliant spying powers got everything wrong from MiG-29B to MiG-29S often giving same designations for different Aircraft versions. The common designations MiG-29A or MiG-29C for a mixture of MiG-29B , MiG-29S and MiG-29S'x' Izdeliye 9.12 and 9.13 variants.
Officially MiG-29A is a prototype. MiG-29B is the first production version but has many izdeliye. Then its MiG-29S, SE SM BM and its different izdeliye. Then SMT. Then the unified family of the radically new second generation MiG-29's starting from MiG-29K, MiG-29M/M2 and MiG-35. Recent news indicates M/M2 will be henceforth referred as the MiG-35 but that is not yet approved by rosoboronexport.

2) The long post by "fulcrumflyer" is a member from abovetopsecret forum, which I was a member for several years before I got bored, is NOT a German. He claims to be an USAF pilot. Even if he is one, he could be the dolt who ate 18 archers and cant digest that fact. Or maybe even the other US Pilots who "got up and left the room" when they were told in debrief that they were shot down repeatedly during dogfights, and unable to come to terms with that fact. Seriously if you people are going to post U.S sources I can very well post russian sources which slams every teen fighter flying out there as an over priced junk with the maneuverability of a MiG-23MLD(not mine, but the Russian Airchief's own words when he was offered and got to fly the F-15).

3) The German MiG-29B(or G), were flown when the soviet union was collapsing and spare parts were almost non-existant. What the germans did to counteract that was they de-rated their engine and made the engine inlet temperature and the combustion chamber temperature to burn at lower degrees to extend their engine part's lifetime. as a direct result of that the the egnines became less fuel efficient eventhough they have better fuel efficiency compared to American engines in the Dry thrust mode, as well as the maximum engine output decreased 10-15%. And also they were very conservative in the BFM not pulling more Gs... basically going it safe and doing everything possible to not result in one of more parts requiring a quick replacement, which they cannot simply get. And yet the results were astonishing.

4) Till date the F-teens have never scored a MiG-29 kill without the help of AWACS, JSTARS, Tomahawks, spy planes and spy sats, superior numbers, and billions of dollars for fleet maintanance and training against third world countries. They basically require all these nannys to look after it, to avoid it being shot down(which still got shot down)... Says a lot about the capability of these jets taken as an individual element in analysis.

5) The Article "Schlemming with the fulcrums" or whatever, is from CODE ONE MAGAZINE. You know the same magazine which is owned by Lockheed Martin. The same damn company which manufactures the F-16 and says its the greatest aluminium box to ever fly... blah blah and the rest. Seriously...

6) The Israelis flew the MiG-29S version, vastly superior to the MiG-29Bs radar and avionics. The same radar which was used in Kargil to lock-on the 2 F-16s, which came along with the follow on order of 10 MiG-29B but different izdeliye(Izdeliye 9.13) ordered in the 90s.

MiG-29B (Soviet Union/Russia) - N019 Sapfir - 79.5km for 5m2 target - Can Track 2, and fire/engage on 1 target. ++other radar modes and datalinking.

MiG-29B (Warsaw pact - Poland, East germany etc..) - N019EA Sapfir - 79.5km for 5m2 target - Can Track 2, and fire/engage on 1 target. +other radar modes and downgraded datalinking.
MiG-29B (non-Warsaw pact - India, Iraq, Serbia etc..) - N019EB Sapfir- 79.5km for 5m2 target - Can Track 2, and fire/engage on 1 target. No datalink.


MiG-29B (India, Bangladesh) - N019ME Topaz - 91km for 5m2 target - Can Track 4, and fire/engage on 2 targets.
MiG-29SE (Peru) - N019ME Topaz - 91km for 5m2 target - Can Track 4, and fire/engage on 2 targets. *
MiG-29S (Russia) - N019M Topaz - 91km for 5m2 target - Can Track 4, and fire/engage on 2 targets.


MiG-29K (India & Russia) - Zhuk ME - 120km for 5m2 target - Can Track 10, and fire/engage on 4 targets.
MiG-29M/M2 (Syria) - Zhuk ME - 120km for 5m2 target - Can Track 10, and fire/engage on 4 targets.
MiG-29SMT/UPG (India) - Zhuk ME - 120km for 5m2 target - Can Track 10, and fire/engage on 4 targets.


MiG-35 (Russia) - Zhuk AE(prototype) - 182km for 5m2 target - Can Track 30, and fire/engage on 6 targets.


* - The target engagement figure is for semi-active R-27. For R-77 the number of targets which can be engaged simultaneously will be more than 2.

 

[gslv mk3]

'Resume' is the key word here. You really should pay closer attention to what you are posting. Apparently PAF took some time to consider a re-design. Anyone familiar with JF-17 / FC-1 development knows this.

For the second part. A speculation is a speculation after all. An assumption is still an assumption. You are speculating on basis of assumptions. For example, how do you know that JF-17 is 'all Aluminium'? How can you make such an assertion? Do you really not know that it has composite content?

Tell me about the composite content,please.

 

[rockstarIN]

I do not need to 'post' an article to tell you that I read about it in Janes Defense in 1994. You want to find a link, you do a search. Google is your friend...

So you are using assumptions of LCA being 'small', having 'a much cleaner profile', and 'high use of composites on skin' to come up with your guess that LCA has a lower RCS than JFT. Good. That is exactly the sort of answer I expected.

There is no such agency or something who certify fighter jet's RCS and inform all related parties(as you know well). It is all assumptions now. Since HAL/DRDO are chest thumping guys who always publish whatever their plus points(as well as shortcomings) you can believe them.

Given it is a tailless delta and a small plane, it is assumed that the RCS of LCA is quite lower and the design itself was just keeping in low RCS in mind.

 

[Chak Bamu]

Tell me about the composite content,please.

No need. I am not making lame claims here. You are the one making unfounded assertions.

 

[gslv mk3]

No need. I am not making lame claims here. You are the one making unfounded assertions.

You are claiming that JF 17 has got high composite content?And would have much smaller RCS than LCA?