Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

future-like aircraft in force with USAF (such as B-2 F-117 or F-22) was developed in URSS and literally imported in USA

first find a way to DTK a B2 and F22 at 400km range.......until then.........


no country for old men

I am sure a lot of Russians are working on technology to detect F-22s and B-2s at very long ranges... just like a lot of Americans are working on ABM missiles that can begin to be effective against TOPOLs let alone TOPOL-Ms and Yars...

Nothing new but worth a read.........


http://www.docstoc.com/docs/115543547/F22-analysis

The article also mentions that new Russian AESA radars can detect stealth at 180 NM which is roughly 333 km. Hence the figure of 400km is getting near.

victor7 wrote:

future-like aircraft in force with USAF (such as B-2 F-117 or F-22) was developed in URSS and literally imported in USA

first find a way to DTK a B2 and F22 at 400km range.......until then.........


no country for old men

Detection of a F-22 at ONLY 400 km ?

Any modern, advanced OTH radar could detect an aircraft with a RCS -in X band- some order of magnitude smaller than an F-22 at literally several THOUSANDS of kilometers of distance, from its same take off

If you ,instead, talk of tracking a similar target, a modern VHF radars ,some of which (like the new generation of Russian ones fully mobile ,with a multispectral AESA radars ) are not only capable to track similar aerodynamic "VLO" ....at least in X band....targets at virtually maximum range - like a legacy aircraft in theirs same class- but also to provide a very, very robust missile in-flight guidance for SAM against them.

If you want a picture of the REAL capabilities of "stealth" fighter/strike aircraft like F-22/F-35 (in opposition to the comical metropolitan legends and low level disinformation data circulating freely in public media) is sufficient to ear the voices of the American critics of those type of platforms , who obviously don't have any reason and don't feel themselves committed to "cover" with false data and Hollywwod-like claims ,moreover totally irreconcilable with Physical reality, those type of aircraft ; two of those voice are Winslow T. Wheeler and Pierre M. Sprey , those are some of theirs assertion on the subject :

"Far from an ability to fly anywhere “unseen,” stealth limits the ability of some radars to detect the F-35 at some angles to lesser distances. In the presence of some radar types, some of them quite old designs, stealth aircraft can be detected (“seen”) routinely. At angles other than nose-on or around the “waterline,” stealth aircraft can have a significantly larger radar return than the hummingbird and insect sized returns that are typically described.
The above assumes the stealth characteristic performs as designed, but that is usually not the case. My work at the U.S. Government Accountability Office on stealth systems made it clear to me that not a single U.S. stealth aircraft had lived up to its original detectability promises, and the F-35 looks to be no exception."

("F-35 Testimony to Canada's House of Commons")

http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?DocumentID=4636&StartRow=1&ListRows=10&appendURL=&Orderby=D.DateLastUpdated&ProgramID=37&from_page=index.cfm

"The Air Force, Lockheed, and their congressional boosters tout the F-22 as the silver bullet of air combat. The F-22's so-called stealth may hurt more than it helps. In truth, against short wavelength radars, the F-22 is hard to detect only over a very narrow band of viewing angles. Worse, there are thousands of existing long range, long wavelength radars that can detect the F-22 from several hundred miles away at all angles."

("Stop the F-22 Now")

http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?DocumentID=4527



Russia on its side ,since several years by now, don't even consider aerodynamic targets -VLO or not with theirs ECM and corollary assets- as a noteworthy strategic menace anymore ; all attention today is put ,instead, in the neutralization of the real high priority menaces of modern era conflicts :

1) ballistic missiles (by far the most devastating and difficult to defend against)
2)large scale saturation stand-off cruise missile attacks .
3) future hypersonic and low orbital strategic menaces

Russian army Kolchuga-M passive detecting system, which could detect and triangulate any airborne emitter on 600+ km distance, so IF F-22 or F-35 don't want to be detected by it, they have to fly in total silence, what means they will also know nothing, what is happening in the air and on the ground. They could only rely on pilot's eyes.

Have heard a lot about Kolchuga able to detect birds at a distance. The main question is will it also be able to track and furthermore guide a missile on the target to kill it. DTK is the only objective, mere detection will not help too much.

Btw, the link above on F22 analysis said that a BVR missile has only 7% chance of hitting its target. Is that true? That is awfully low percentage for expensive missiles.

Have heard a lot about Kolchuga able to detect birds at a distance. The main question is will it also be able to track and furthermore guide a missile on the target to kill it. DTK is the only objective, mere detection will not help too much.

Once it is detected then it can be killed.

The IAD will calculate its position and look for AD assets in that area to deal with the threat.

Systems like TOR and Pantsir-S1 and even BUK could engage in optical mode.

Btw, the link above on F22 analysis said that a BVR missile has only 7% chance of hitting its target. Is that true? That is awfully low percentage for expensive missiles.

I rather suspect they meant radar homing missiles. An IIR would have a much better chance.... besides there are not going to be more than about 188 F-22s ever and at probably $250 million a pop you can afford to fire a few missiles at it...

Airforces Monthly ( April 2012 )


Is the F-33 still unaffordable ?
http://www.mediafire.com/?biuclcama86a89a

Btw, the link above on F22 analysis said that a BVR missile has only 7% chance of hitting its target. Is that true? That is awfully low percentage for expensive missiles.

Actually... 7% is a very high number for the F-22 and I am surprised...

The chance of an AMRAAM hitting a target taking no evasive manoeuvres, not using countermeasures and in a launch situation where the target is within the normal kill envelope of the missile is 50%, so even just adding manouvers that should halve to 25% for most aircraft that simply change direction and/or speed after the AMRAAM has been launched.

I would expect a modern fighter manouvering hard should reduce that to 20%,and with a modern capable ESM/ECM system I would expect a range of 5-9% kill probability.

Austin wrote:Airforces Monthly ( April 2012 )


Is the F-33 still unaffordable ?
http://www.mediafire.com/?biuclcama86a89a

Thanks for the link Austin

Mindstorm wrote:

Austin wrote:Airforces Monthly ( April 2012 )


Is the F-33 still unaffordable ?
http://www.mediafire.com/?biuclcama86a89a

Thanks for the link Austin

Any time Mindstorm

Hope you have read this as well

Air Forces Monthly March 2012 issue ( via AndyB/BRF )

Ka-52 AM Co-axial Alligator

http://www.mediafire.com/?ntn8wauf2u9t5z1

Austin wrote:

Mindstorm wrote:

Austin wrote:Airforces Monthly ( April 2012 )


Is the F-33 still unaffordable ?
http://www.mediafire.com/?biuclcama86a89a

Thanks for the link Austin

Any time Mindstorm

Hope you have read this as well

Air Forces Monthly March 2012 issue ( via AndyB/BRF )

Ka-52 AM Co-axial Alligator

http://www.mediafire.com/?ntn8wauf2u9t5z1

Very thanks x2 Austin

I had anticipated ,almost an year ago, the introduction of the very advanced Vitebsk multioperation defensive suit (the domestic version of President-S DAS) in serial production KA-52s which is stimed the most advanced helicopter among the future three types.

What i find instead "wrong" and ,in somne way, even irrational is to continue to postpone continually Vitebsk's validation tests and adaptation for Mi-28N/NE, even more if we consider that just the lack of a dedicated DAS for this platform limit enormously its export potential -and Mi-28NE is the attack helicopter more often offered in International tenders by Rosoboronexport-
No foreign customer will ever buy an attack helicopter only on the basis of its very high resilience to enemy fire and a promise of future integrations of very advanced weapon suit (like Hermes-A ATGM ) when a good fraction of its avionic and defensive suit is still not implemented or still remeain frozen in the test/validation phase.

medo wrote:




Russian army Kolchuga-M passive detecting system, which could detect and triangulate any airborne emitter on 600+ km distance, so IF F-22 or F-35 don't want to be detected by it, they have to fly in total silence, what means they will also know nothing, what is happening in the air and on the ground. They could only rely on pilot's eyes.

Any more info on Rssian Kalchuga-M?
There is some stuff on the Ukranian Kalchuga, but the Russian unit is almost nowehere to be found.

In many ways the Mi-28N is a half finished aircraft, the problem I think is the attempt to go from the Mi-24 Hind concept of a daylight fair weather only helo using largely unguided rockets and bombs and ATGMs and cannon or HMG straight to something that is competitive with the Apache model D.

Operating in the dark and in all weather is not just about NVG and cabin lighting.

Personally I think they are different enough to warrant operating both types, certainly the Kamov would be best in hot and high conditions and indeed on naval platforms.

Any more info on Rssian Kalchuga-M?
There is some stuff on the Ukranian Kalchuga, but the Russian unit is almost nowehere to be found.

The Russian version of Kolchuga is called Vera and I think capability vise it is nearly as good if not better. Nebo radars have capacity to detect stealth under jamming environment at around 60km/nm or whatever. These radars are already with S400 batteries in operation. One way to defend would be, i speculate, is to place Nebo radar in layers from western border to the point of interest. Thus even in putting 20 radars roughly 1200KM area is covered. As soon as first radar detects or is bombed, the rest of the systems go on the firing mode.

Regarding BVR missiles having 5% hit rate, then if Su-35 can find an efficient way to avoid and waste them up, then F22 will have to do the dogfight something which it is not very good at. Its best chances should be to run away in that scenario. However at 4-8 BVR missiles, the probabilities again build up in its favor.

Russian doctrine has always been Dogfights while Western focus has been on situational awareness i.e. use look first and shoot farther. Mig 29 is an excellent dogfighter and F16/F15s hold disadvantage in a close encounter when Fulcum is in the hands of a good driver. However, most or nearly all Mig29 encounters vrs F15/F16 have been a) Migs was badly outnumbered b) were flying against AWACS type support c) pilots on Fulcrums that needed repairs and crucial items not functioning d) badly performing pilots.

Wikipedia reports that in 1999, 2 Indian Fulcrums had a BVR lock on the Pakistani F-16s but chose not to release as orders were not granted given the fact Pak F16s were on their side of the border. That would have been the first Fulcrum kill of the F16. Mig23 has however killed F16 in 1980s Afghanistan, event attributed to various factors which are not in clearity.

DO NOT HAVE TO AGREE BUT WORTH 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.

One thing I would agree above is the concept of ground controller calling shots to the Migs in the air. This is nonsense, going back to Soviet thinking that every single decision has to come from Kremlim.

Also heard that Mig29s Pilots had to be Octopus i.e. work harder in cockpit i.e. throwing both hands in 360 degrees to run the show but F16s majority of items were automated making life easier for the Pilot to focus on Situational Awareness. Fly by Wire concept came little late to Soviet/Russian mindset.

However, in last 20 years, Russian Aviation has done some decent catching up and old school Soviet thinking has been much replaced.

victor7 wrote:

Any more info on Rssian Kalchuga-M?
There is some stuff on the Ukranian Kalchuga, but the Russian unit is almost nowehere to be found.

Russian doctrine has always been Dogfights while Western focus has been on situational awareness i.e. use look first and shoot farther. Mig 29 is an excellent dogfighter and F16/F15s hold disadvantage in a close encounter when Fulcum is in the hands of a good driver.

What is interesting, is the most numerous "new" Western fighter to emerge at the end of the Cold War, the F-16, was completely outmatched in BVR by MiG-29, by Su-27, hell by MiG-23. Why? It had no BVR capability at all, until post Cold War AMRAAM integration. The only F-16s with any sort of BVR, where the Air National Guard units (F-16ADF) converted to use Sparrow, starting in Feb 1989.

victor7 wrote:One thing I would agree above is the concept of ground controller calling shots to the Migs in the air. This is nonsense, going back to Soviet thinking that every single decision has to come from Kremlim.

Also heard that Mig29s Pilots had to be Octopus i.e. work harder in cockpit i.e. throwing both hands in 360 degrees to run the show but F16s majority of items were automated making life easier for the Pilot to focus on Situational Awareness. Fly by Wire concept came little late to Soviet/Russian mindset.

However, in last 20 years, Russian Aviation has done some decent catching up and old school Soviet thinking has been much replaced.

A lot of the Western impressions of Soviet air defense, especially PVO pilots, was to put frankly, nonsense. They were not robotic drones.

Soviet thinking was quite good for the sort of scale and warfare planned for the Soviet air forces.

A lot of the Western impressions of Soviet air defense, especially PVO pilots, was to put frankly, nonsense. They were not robotic drones.

Soviet thinking was quite good for the sort of scale and warfare planned for the Soviet air forces.

There was an article I read long time ago regarding East German Fulcrum teams fielded against Western F16s in a real combat scenario, except live fire, using 100% operational tools and doctrines of each side. Initially, Migs were bad and even shot down by F14s and alot by F15s/F16s. However, changes in operational tools and strategies started to get them better and a stage reached where tables were turned and Migs were shooting down the Falcons. One general view of USAF pilots is that Fulcrum should be finished off at a distance using BVRs. If you let him come near you and dogfight, then it is "like wresting in wet mud with a pig........every passing second you will suffer and struggle more while the pig enjoys it more and more, till he finished you off."

However, I have a good general understandings of Soviet impractical thinking which is at times to the point of thunderous irritation. Taking such impracticalities out and add some western tricks and tools, results in a very efficient combination and end result of top class weapon systems or other tools in walks of life. Su30-MKI is a good example of Soviet machine using western tools and becoming a world beater in its class. Having a fat Air Force General on ground telling Pilots when to shoot and when to duck is a 'thrilling comedy' at best.

Don't have time to properly reply, but that article was rubbish. If we are going to be fair how about a comparison between the Mig-29A and its CONTEMPORARY F-16 equivalent, which means mid 1980s and therefore we have a Mig-29 with radar guided BVR missiles and the F-16 armed with sidewinder.

More importantly the model sidewinder that was pretty rubbish in terms of all aspect engagement performance compared with the high offboresight R-73...

In fact if we are taking the bog standard downgraded for export Mig-29A lets compare with the original F-16 with little air to ground capability that was designed as a light fighter with two wingtip missiles and a gun...

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/articles.html

A good link for air force types, various articles.

Another link on German Mig 29s

http://www.16va.be/mig-29_experience.htm

"Inside ten nautical miles I’m hard to defeat, and with the IRST, helmet sight and ‘Archer’ I can’t be beaten. Period. Even against the latest Block 50 F-16s the MiG-29 is virtually invulnerable in the close-in scenario."


HaHahahhaahahahah! this Pig is too stinky to get close to, it will actually KILL you!

I believe the negatives listed, except for more powerful engine or so, can be easily or cheaply upgraded. Not to forget, these were export model monkey down versions.

MiG-29 Fulcrum Versus F-16 Viper

The baseline MiG-29 for this comparison will be the MiG-29A .....

What is worth a read in not contained in this....very well know and laughed piece of comical theatre from a poster of F-16.net (called fulcrumflyer ) ,a mental sick guy who believe to be a fighter pilot , but in your rational behind it: finally you have understood what is the perfect place for you : F-16.net !!


If instead you are interested in know where came from (moreover horribly warped and mixed to laughable inventions ,only to attempt to shape reality to match its highly biased picture of the world) the ideas and the information that this comical guy has concentrated in this authenticate joke you can easily see that it recycle ,warping horribly them, info from common books and net sources but ,above all : From Farnborough to Kubinka ,an American Mig -29 Experience from Bejamin S. Lambeth ( it is so naive and not knowledgeable to believe that the "claims" of the 60 km simulated "kills" by Mig-29 against USAF's F-16s was formulated by him when ,in reality it had simply and correctly cited the event described in…. Jane’s Defence Weekly of November 1990 "Mig-29 downs F-16 in Mock Dogfight” pag 922 and Jane’s Defence Weekly of April 6 1991 "Mig-29 is better than F-15C" by Joris Janssen ) and “How to Fly and Fight in the Mikoyan Mig-29” by Jon Lake -in particular fragments from the USAF F-16 pilot’s declarations of on German Mig-29A (the older type but ,for theirs bad luck, of Soviet not export /downgraded type) that had repeatedly and SOUNDLY BEATED them in NATO DACT exercitations.

The incredible amount of childish ,self-embarassing inventions and reality subversion of this "fulcrumflyer" contained in this piece ,literally too many to be cited all (only to cite someones : the Mig-29C that is a Mig-29A with an jammer and 200 kg more fuel or the Mig-29 uncapable to reach 9G ,when to the exact contrary in reality the same USAF pilots lament that just the capability of MiG-29 to surpass ,when required, the 9G threshold represent a substantial advantage for Fulcrum's pilots !! or that Mig-29 must wait to be at 13 nautical miles to shoot its AA-10 Alamo !! ) not only has been not mocked by the herd of decerebrated ignorants in this site but several of those comical inventions has been even learned and repeated in other discussions about F-16 vs MiG-29 .

In reality those German MiG-29s which i repeat ,even if of the older type, was not of the downgraded /export type, literally obliterated NATO F-16 F-18 and F-15s in DACT exercitations , and not only in WVR (at example theirs not export/downgraded N019 radar,even if of the older type, give proof to be capable to consistently jam the contemporaneous F-15's AN/APG-63 up to the WVR transition ,as well computed by Soviet specialists).
In WVR the results was simply crushing ; this statements, by a real pilot ,Johann Koeck, can give to you an idea :

"But when all that is said and done, the MiG-29 is a superb fighter for close-in combat, even compared with aircraft like the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18. This is due to the aircraft's superb aerodynamics and helmet mounted sight. Inside ten nautical miles I'm hard to defeat, and with the IRST, helmet sight and 'Archer' I can't be beaten. Period.
Even against the latest Block 50 F-16s the MiG-29 is virtually invulnerable in the closein scenario.
On one occasion I remember the F-16s did score some kills eventually, but only after taking 18 'Archers'. We didn't operate kill removal (forcing 'killed' aircraft to leave the fight) since they'd have got no training value, we killed them too quickly. (Just as we might seldom have got close-in if they used their AMRAAMs BVR!) They couldn't believe it at the debrief, they got up and left the room!
"They might not like it, but with a 28°/sec instantaneous turn rate (compared to the Block 50 F-16C's 26°) we can out-turn them.
Our stable, manually controlled airplane can out-turn their FBW aircraft."

Is important to notice, moreover that none of those Mig-29A still in force in ex Germany after the reunification was equipped with R-27EA/T/P (with engagement ranges vastly superior to those of any contemporary AMRAAM ) ,but in spite to that with basic R-27 (not downgraded for export) those Fulcrum was capable to achieve simulated kills at about 60 km of distance.

In fact if we are taking the bog standard downgraded for export Mig-29A lets compare with the original F-16 with little air to ground capability that was designed as a light fighter with two wingtip missiles and a gun...

GarryB you would be very surprised to discover how this "aircraft's generation's advantage" is ,very often, not an analytical mistake but a true necessity for western aircraft when them are confronted in symmetrical scenarios against not-downgraded/export Soviet russian aircraft.
Only to render this clear, recently at Thracian 2010 exercises ,Bulgarian Mig-29s not only of the older type but also devoid of R-73 and HMS confronted in DACT WVR combats F-16 Blk-50 with JHMCS and AIM-9X ,but Fulcrum's vastly superior aerodynamic layout has allowed it to mantain an edge !!
Those are the words of Cpt Lubomir Slavov (one of the most feared Mig-29 pilot in NATO symmetrical DACT exercises ,with countless "kills" of F-15, F-18 and F-16 on its belt) :

"That is why the fighting tactics against the F-16 Block 50 can be exactly the same as that applied against the other Viper versions - trying to survive the first exchange of missiles and then entering an high -G turning dog-fight. After completing one or two circles, the F-16 loses too much energy and eventually become an easy prey because the Mig-29 generally retain a far better energy state"

"The BuAF did not use the helmet-mounted system for the Mig-29 during this exercise and the Fulcrum drivers flying BFM missions had to rely on their's aircraft exceptional manoeuvrability to aim the R-60 (AA-8 Aphid) in off-bore sight situations.....
Capt Slavov that amassed five 1 v 1 BFMs (high G dogfight) during the exercise commented that the JHMCS in combination with the AIm-9X ,stands out as the only F-16's weighty advantage in the high-g turning within visual range engagements " you have to stay outside F-16's kill zone butwhen it comes to manoeuvrability ,the Mig-29 is no match amongst the fighters of its generation .I have some pretty good dogfighting experience against both experienced and inexeperienced Viper pilots and believe that the only real difference between them is how quickly they allow me to get my Mig-29 into a fire position "


The incredible amount of childish ,self-embarassing inventions and reality subversion of this "fulcrumflyer" contained in this piece ,literally too many to be cited all (only to cite someones : the Mig-29C that is a Mig-29A with an jammer and 200 kg more fuel or the Mig-29 uncapable to reach 9G ,when to the exact contrary in reality the same USAF pilots lament that just the capability of MiG-29 to surpass ,when required, the 9G threshold represent a substantial advantage for Fulcrum's pilots !! or that Mig-29 must wait to be at 13 nautical miles to shoot its AA-10 Alamo !! ) not only has been not mocked by the herd of decerebrated ignorants in this site but several of those comical inventions has been even learned and repeated in other discussions about F-16 vs MiG-29 .

In reality those German MiG-29s which i repeat ,even if of the older type, was not of the downgraded /export type, literally massacrated NATO F-16 F-18 and F-15s in DACT exercitations , and not only in WVR (at example theirs not export/downgraded N019 radar,even if of the older type, gived proof to be capable to consistently jam the coevian F-15's AN/APG-63 up to the WVR transition ,as well computed by Soviet specialists).
In WVR the results was simply crushing ; this statements, by a real pilot ,Johann Koeck, can give to you an idea :

"But when all that is said and done, the MiG-29 is a superb fighter for close-in combat, even compared with aircraft like the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18. This is due to the aircraft's superb aerodynamics and helmet mounted sight. Inside ten nautical miles I'm hard to defeat, and with the IRST, helmet sight and 'Archer' I can't be beaten. Period.
Even against the latest Block 50 F-16s the MiG-29 is virtually invulnerable in the closein scenario.
On one occasion I remember the F-16s did score some kills eventually, but only after taking 18 'Archers'. We didn't operate kill removal (forcing 'killed' aircraft to leave the fight) since they'd have got no training value, we killed them too quickly. (Just as we might seldom have got close-in if they used their AMRAAMs BVR!) They couldn't believe it at the debrief, they got up and left the room!
"They might not like it, but with a 28°/sec instantaneous turn rate (compared to the Block 50 F-16C's 26°) we can out-turn them.
Our stable, manually controlled airplane can out-turn their FBW aircraft."

Is important to notice,moreover that none of those Mig-29A still in force in ex Germany after the reunification was equiped with R-27EA/T/P (with engagement ranges vastly superior to those of any contemporary AMRAAM ) ,but in spite to that with basic R-27 (not downgraded for export) those Fulcrum was capable to achieve simulated kills at about 60 km of distance.

In fact if we are taking the bog standard downgraded for export Mig-29A lets compare with the original F-16 with little air to ground capability that was designed as a light fighter with two wingtip missiles and a gun...

GarryB you would be very surprised to discover how this "aircraft's generation's advantage" is ,very often, not an analytical mistake but a true necessity for western aircraft when them are confronted in symmetrical scenarios against not-downgraded/export Soviet russian aircraft.
Only to render this clear, recently at Thracian 2010 exercices ,Bulgarian Mig-29s not only of the older type but also devoid of R-73 and HMS confronted in DACT WVR combats F-16 Blk-50 with JHMCS and AIM-9X ,but Fulcrum's vastly superior aerodynamic layout has allowed it to mantain an edge !!
Those are the words of Cpt Lubomir Slavov (one of the most feared Mig-29 pilot in NATO symmetrical DACT exercices ,with countless "kills" of F-15, F-18 and F-16 on its belt) :

"That is why the fighting tactics against the F-16 Block 50 can be exactly the same as that applied against the other Viper versions - trying to survive the first exchange of missiles and then entering an high -G turning dog-fight. After completing one or two circles, the F-16 loses too much energy and eventually become an easy prey because the Mig-29 generally retain a far better energy state"

"The BuAF did not use the helmet-mounted system for the Mig-29 during this exercise and the Fulcrum drivers flying BFM missions had to rely on their's aircraft exceptional manoeuvrability to aim the R-60 (AA-8 Aphid) in off-bore sight situations.....
Capt Slavov that amassed five 1 v 1 BFMs (high G dogfight) during the exercise commented that the JHMCS in combination with the AIm-9X ,stands out as the only F-16's weighty advantage in the high-g turning within visual range engagements " you have to stay outside F-16's kill zone butwhen it comes to manoeuvrability ,the Mig-29 is no match amongst the fighters of its generation .I have some pretty good dogfighting experience against both experienced and inexeperienced Viper pilots and believe that the only real difference between them is how quickly they allow me to get my Mig-29 into a fire position".

Btw, what tactics do pilots use to evade and waste the missiles launched at them.

Nebo radars have capacity to detect stealth under jamming environment at around 60km/nm or whatever.

60km and 60NM are vastly different distances...

As soon as first radar detects or is bombed, the rest of the systems go on the firing mode.

They operate with S-400 batteries which will have Pantsir-S1... and importantly they will operate with a range of other sensors and systems that are both active and passive.

Regarding BVR missiles having 5% hit rate, then if Su-35 can find an efficient way to avoid and waste them up, then F22 will have to do the dogfight something which it is not very good at. Its best chances should be to run away in that scenario. However at 4-8 BVR missiles, the probabilities again build up in its favor.

An Su-35 can carry up to 12 missiles externally, though its normal load is less as jamming pods and other items are often carried too.

Russian doctrine has always been Dogfights while Western focus has been on situational awareness i.e. use look first and shoot farther.

Actually it was NATO that was confident that its superior combat training would give it the edge in dogfights, while the Soviets concetrated on BVR missiles including a wide range of weapons dedicated to the role of longer range engagements. It was after the west got its hands on Mig-29s and R-73s that they realised that training wouldn't be much good if the other guy just looks locks and fires a missile with a good chance of a kill.

However, most or nearly all Mig29 encounters vrs F15/F16 have been a) Migs was badly outnumbered b) were flying against AWACS type support c) pilots on Fulcrums that needed repairs and crucial items not functioning d) badly performing pilots.

More importantly the western pilots have either trained against Mig-29s or have read the NATO manual on its strengths and weaknesses and the best tactics to use to beat it. The Mig pilot on the other hand is pretty much on their own.

except for 200 kg more fuel and an internal jammer, the MiG-29C was not an improvement over the MiG-29A)

The Mig-29A was the export Mig-29 that had the IRST out of late model Mig-23s and had serious limitations when fitted with a centreline fuel tank.

The Mig-29A could only carry three AAM missile types... the R-60M short range IR guided AAM, The R-73 short range IR guided AAM. The R-27R Medium range semi active radar homing AAM.

The Mig-29S on the other hand can carry the full range of R-27s including the passive radar homing R-27P models and the passive IR guided R-27T models but it can also carry the extended range R-27E models with longer range.

It can also carry the R-77 equivalent of AMRAAM... which is rather significant.

The Mig-29S also had a MFD that could be used for TV and IR and laser guided air to ground weapons.

The Gardenyia self defence suite in the Mig-29S is far superior to the basic system in the A model.

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.

There were no F-16s in service during the "height" of Mig-29 production that had any BVR AAM capability.


During tests and training with the West Germans the Mig-29 didn't lose a single short range engagement with any western aircraft. The F-16 managed to get onto the Migs tail 62% of the time, but had already been "killed" by the Mig pilot with a good lock and simulated launch.

This would require the centerline tanks to be jettisoned.

The primary problem in this comparison is that the F-16 is a multi role fighter bomber, while the Mig-29 is a short range interceptor fighter. The external fuel tank for the Mig-29 is for ferrying and would never be fitted in combat.

The placard limits for the tanks are 600 knots or Mach 1.6 (Mach 1.5 for the MiG-29) whichever less is.

768mph is the speed of sound... 600 knots would be about 700 mph and would be subsonic.

It was the researcher’s experience that the MiG-29 would probably not reach this limit unless a dive was initiated.

The Mig-29 has a vertical climb rate of about 310m/s which is very close to supersonic...

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.

Hahahahaha... I love the suggestion... Mig make claims but they are probably liars. The F-16 on the other hand is made of super mithral and while it is limited to 9g it can actually do much more without any risk of damage.

The critical thing they are ignoring of course is that at 9g or even 7 g the pilot is totally ineffectual as a pilot as he is just trying to avoid blacking out.

The F-16 has a flight control system that controls the aircraft and it has hard limits.
The control stick doesn't move... a computer measures the force applied by the pilot and uses that info to manouver the aircraft. The point is that with that turned on the plane simply wont exceed its design parameters so the pilot will not be able to fly as fast or turn as fast as he wants to.

The Mig-29 on the other hand has what are called soft limits which the pilot using extra force can pull through to depart temporarily from "safe" envelope parameters to evade a threat.

Remember the F-16 pilot needs to out manouver the enemy aircraft and get his nose pointed within about 30 degrees of the enemy plane to get a lock and then fire his missile. The Mig pilot just needs to look, lock and fire.

He will have plenty of time to get on the F-16s tail because the F-16 pilot will be jinking and turning to evade the first missile so the Mig pilot can line up a second shot and get a kill.

That is why the F-16 got the AMRAAM as soon as it was available.

As a result, the MiG-29 requires constant attention to fly.

Yawn... bog standard downgraded export model of a plane with no fly by wire system compared to later model F-16 electric dart... comparing apples with oranges. The Mig-29M2 has full fly by wire capability and would eliminate all these so called problems.

A criticism leveled at the F-16 is total lack of feedback from the fixed flight stick... interesting he doesn't mention this?

Both aircraft have a lift limit of approximately
35° AoA.

Again another limit on flight that is fixed in the F-16 and not fixed in the Mig... as shown clearly by their tail slide manouvers... something we don't see F-16s do.

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.

WRONG. If F-16Cs and Mig-29As that have not had any upgrades face off in aerial combat...

Mig-29s can easily be fitted with R-77 or RVV.SD or even RVV-BD and easily get first shot on F-16s.

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.

No. In original Soviet service the Mig would take off with its IRST on and its radar off and would get target information from a ground station that will position it in an optimal place to maximise its chances of a kill.

The F-16s would not have AMRAAMs because in the Mid 1980s there were no AMRAAMs in service anywhere. It would be Mig-29s firing at standoff ranges of about 20-25km and then closing in for the kill in dogfights with R-73s.

The F-16s will be armed with sidewinders and if on bombing missions would need to dump their payloads to defend themselves.

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 Mig also has an IRST with a very wide field of view that can detect the F-16 even in cloudy conditions...

The first maneuver demonstrated to me during my F-15 training was the Tail Slide. The engines did not flameout. :-)

The difference is that the Mig can do it at 300m over an airshow crowd while the F-15 will do it at 3,000m.

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)

What is this dribble? The pilot uses his helmet mounted sight to direct the seeker of the Archer missile. In turning combat the pilot can look at a target aircraft and push a button and the missile seeker will look where he is looking... when the aiming reticle starts to blink he knows he has a lock and can launch the missile.

The R-73 has been in service for several decades and unlike the AIM-9X is fielded on every Russian Flanker and Fulcrum. The imaging seeker of the AIM-9X is very good and certainly better than the seeker in the R-73, but guess what... the Russians will be fielding a new short range AAM with an IIR seeker too... it is called 9M100 and will be unified with a land based SAM, a naval SAM and a short range AAM design. The ground and naval missile will be called Morfei and will be a lock on after launch weapon... every bit as potent as Sidewinder.

The point is that the F-16 might get a weapon that competes with a Russian weapon system (including the HMS and radar and IRST all linked together) more than 30 years after the Soviet system entered service.

What is the western equivalent of RVV-BD?

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.

So this claim is that there are no Mig-29s that are more manouverable than the F-16. I guess the Mig-29OVT doesn't exist? Or the Mig-35 with an AESA radar, modern digital FBW control system and likely RVV-BD compatibility...

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.

You don't use a cannon for its range... the 30mm cannon shells are more effective than the 20mm shells of the US weapon in a gun system that is a fraction of the weight and dimensions of the US system.

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.

This is the clue to the biased nature of this author. Had there been a WWIII during the 1980s the Migs would have racked up enormous kills because the Sparrow is notoriously unreliable and as mentioned the R-73 was the best AAM of the 1980s. The implosion of the Soviet Union saved a lot of NATO pilots, but this is largely forgotten and even today this author talks about new upgrades for F-16s while comparing it with unupgraded Mig-29A model aircraft.

I guess... if we turn back to the thread topic that the F-22 is crap because it has no kills in real combat.

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?

I love the dishonesty in this article... the German pilots of the Mig-29s were WEST GERMAN pilots, most East German pilots who would actually have had the choice to fly or not were quickly fired from the German AF... on paper because they were not trained to western standards... in actual fact... they were the enemy and were not trusted.

“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.

It didn't need range or long range navigation... that is what the Flankers were for.

The export model Migs had downgraded range and navigation systems, which was made worse because the Germans decided to derate the engines in an attempt to increase their hours. The result was that the Migs the Germans flew in training against NATO forces were the worst operational Migs available.

In training between Australian F-18s and Malaysian Mig-29Ns the Malaysian Migs launched R-77s about 10kms outside the range of the AMRAAMs the Aussie F-18s were operating with...

One thing I would agree above is the concept of ground controller calling shots to the Migs in the air. This is nonsense, going back to Soviet thinking that every single decision has to come from Kremlim.

That is rubbish. There is an enormous radar and sensor network set up on the ground... during the battle of britain the interceptor fighters were under strict ground control too... this maverick BS might be wonderful in movies where the hero breaks the rules and saves the day, but in the real military you do your job and play your part. Having Mig-29s flying in a marauding pack looking for their own targets would create chaos and would be very ineffective.

Also heard that Mig29s Pilots had to be Octopus i.e. work harder in cockpit i.e. throwing both hands in 360 degrees to run the show but F16s majority of items were automated making life easier for the Pilot to focus on Situational Awareness. Fly by Wire concept came little late to Soviet/Russian mindset.

Again... rubbish. The An-124 has a full fly by wire flight control system. The early fighter systems were unreliable and limited the pilot to a strict envelope.

The Mig cockpit was not highly automated in the early export models. Later models are just as sophisticated as western systems.

[qutoe]However, in last 20 years, Russian Aviation has done some decent catching up and old school Soviet thinking has been much replaced. [/quote]

Not that the person that wrote the above article has noticed. The Mig-29M flew in the late 1980s with FBW flight control system. BTW the F-15 doesn't have FBW either...

I believe the negatives listed, except for more powerful engine or so, can be easily or cheaply upgraded. Not to forget, these were export model monkey down versions.

All those problems were dealt with long ago, but the west and the general public haven't realised.

That is why I am a big supporter of the Mig-35 because I think it would kick arse against any NATO fighter because they have such a low opinion of it...

The Mig-29 started out as a short range point interceptor... take off, fly fast to a position where your missiles have a good chance of a kill, then move in and clean up anything left over and then return to base and rearm and refuel and do it again.

The F-16 started life as a small light day fighter... but rapidly became a multirole fighterbomber.

I would rate late model Mig-29s to be every bit as good as late model F-16s. When the F-16 gets the AIM-9X the Mig will have lost its close range combat advantage that it has held for more 30 years, just like it lost its long range advantage when the F-16 got AMRAAM, because while the Mig-29S can carry R-77s that meant it had rough parity where before it was superior in BVR and WVR combat.

With the introduction of the RVV-BD and the introduction of Morfei it will reclaim the edge in long range and short range combat...

In reality those German MiG-29s which i repeat ,even if of the older type, was not of the downgraded /export type,

The Germans had the Mig-29B, which was a downgraded export model for the Warsaw Pact Allies. It was not as downgraded as the model for export which had Aphids as standard IR AAM, but the radar and navigation was downgraded as was the IRST and the range of missile types was seriously restricted.

The Germans also derated the engines which made fuel consumption rather worse... even in dry power.