Is Russia safe from F-22 and Β-2?

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.

Regarding the ground controller doctrine..........


Internet has been abuzz about Indians doing well against USAF few years ago. One of the features behind this was the adoption of western tactics (taught to IAF by the Israel Air Force). Also German results vastly improved when they shed the ground controller strategies and fine tuned western habbits to fit their fulcrums. In the times of AWACS and other data link features, man on the ground calling shots does not make sense, IMHO.

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

Western opinions are extremely brutal and comical in cutting down the capabilities of non western equiptment, especially Russian origin, and they trying to project as if Mig-29 is a paper plane or T-72 is toy tank made of plastic.

There is no major difference between so called Western and Russian doctrines...

AWACS stands for Airborne (early) Warning And Control System.

The west uses an airborne warning and control system because it is mobile and they can use it around the world to maintain their empire as well as attack Russia with it.

The Russians use a combination of ground controllers and a small number of airborne controllers.

Both do the same job, but from different locations using different sensors and systems, but the job is essentially the same... use your superior sensor range and performance to find targets and utilise existing assets (aircraft and ground defence forces) to defeat those targets.

The PVO perfected the system to the point where the intercepting aircraft could have flight directions inputted directly into their autopilots so the guy on the ground looking at the position of the Russian interceptor and the position and direction of the targets can calculate an intercept point where the interceptor pilot has the best chance of a kill without using his radar and giving away his position.

One of the features of the A-100 which is to replace the A-50U AWACS is the ability to control missiles to their targets so in theory an old unupgraded Mig-29A could take off from an airfield armed with 6 RVV-BDs and autopilot to a launch position and launch all 6 missiles and then return to base while an A-100 passes target data to those 6 missiles in flight that could be 250km away from where the Mig-29A was when it launched the missiles... which I think you will agree is well outside AMRAAM range for any F-16 or F-15 for that matter.

Ground controllers saved Britain during the Battle of britain and likely prevented the invasion of England being the direction of choice for the Germans.

Of course ground based controllers are no use for invading countries like Libya and Kosovo so I can see why the US rejects it... it is really only useful for defence.

Western opinions are extremely brutal and comical in cutting down the capabilities of non western equiptment, especially Russian origin, and they trying to project as if Mig-29 is a paper plane or T-72 is toy tank made of plastic.

But there is always a boogeyman to ensure their budgets aren't cut... the Su-27 and now the Armata fill that gap...

It is a balancing act... they have to show the enormous amounts of money is well spent, but they need to ensure new programs get funding so it is always new stuff that is the threat...

It is a balancing act... they have to show the enormous amounts of money is well spent, but they need to ensure new programs get funding so it is always new stuff that is the threat...

some say that USAF jacked up the performance of Indians in order to get more funding to buy 700 F22s instead of only 189. In a popular video however a USAF colonel mentioned that when pitted against the better breed of USAF pilots in the US base, Indians and their Su-MKIs were flat on the ground and soon refused to go for 1 on 1 engagement. He also mentioned in group scenario, a lot of friendly kills by IAF as they could not identify the birds.

Battle environment or total theater package is much more important than one on one deals. NATO used several dozens of planes to down 5 Serbian Fulcrums. Same in Iraq. That does not make Fulcrum any inferior.

some say that USAF jacked up the performance of Indians in order to get more funding to buy 700 F22s instead of only 189. In a popular video however a USAF colonel mentioned that when pitted against the better breed of USAF pilots in the US base, Indians and their Su-MKIs were flat on the ground and soon refused to go for 1 on 1 engagement. He also mentioned in group scenario, a lot of friendly kills by IAF as they could not identify the birds.

Yeah, cause America is all about the truth. Which is why they promote the Wikileaks website and would never do anything to cut off its income stream... say with pressure on Visa or Paypal or anything.

A better breed? Were the first lot inbred?

The USAF has its own fair share of friendly kills in combat.

What I really think was that the story that the first test was an attempt to justify F-22s then the second event would be even more one sided to show the cost cutters were wrong and the USAF needs F-22 to compete.

The fact that you claim the Indian pilots were soundly beaten suggests to me that as often happens the first results were genuine and the USAF got a real kick up its fat complacent ass, and that the second time they probably did everything in their power to massage their own bruised egos and that they wouldn't fake a loss in order to get more F-22s back on the table.

I rather suspect they had no respect for the Indian AF and sent normal average USAF pilots to fly against them and when they got their asses handed to them the response was first of all duck and cover... we let them win because we wanted to make a case for more F-22s, and to play round two with the best crews they could find and analyse the first round in every detail to find weaknesses and problems to exploit in round 2.

They wouldn't do the latter if their claim about making the F-22 necessary was true.

And that is assuming what they say about round 2 is true as their blatant lie about the first round suggests they are strangers to the truth...

Battle environment or total theater package is much more important than one on one deals. NATO used several dozens of planes to down 5 Serbian Fulcrums. Same in Iraq. That does not make Fulcrum any inferior.

And that is why the US is so successful and why NATO is fairly ordinary as a force till the US turns up.

The US has spent a Large fortune on all the extra bits... called force multipliers that make things easier... tanker aircraft, AWACS, jammers, JSTARs, Rivet Joint, satellite coverage, HALE UAV and UCAV, etc etc.

Just having a particular SAM or fighter is not enough you need all the parts to the machine and they need to work together. Libya, Serbia, Iraq, even Vietnam to a degree had many of the parts but none had all of them.

Vietnam of course had the one part that was critical... they had no alternative to victory.

The point is that Russia has the leftovers of what the Soviet Union had and most of which it has updated or improved... in the case of fighter aircraft the Mig-35, Su-35, and PAK FA are head and shoulders above anything the Soviet forces had in terms of performance. In terms of SAMs and ICBMs and many other aspects the same is true as well.

Numbers have certainly reduced but overall it is a much better force and still untouchable by NATO and the US.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKEa-R37PeU

www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ibgAQ7lv0w

Col. Fernof Red Flag analysis.

He was impressed with Mig-21-Bis.

Later on he appears in pro F22 article

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/02/infamous-youtube-star-fornof-r.html

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/03/the-last-ace/7291/

Some of the pilots I spoke to described the F‑22 as such a huge leap in capability that it ought to be considered not a fifth-generation fighter, one step up from the F‑15, but sixth-generation.

“It is really two big steps ahead of anything else out there,” Corcoran told me. “All of the data from all the different sensors in the aircraft are fused. The F‑22 has one big display in the middle of the cockpit, so you are kind of sitting in the middle of that display, and all of the sensors run on their own. And tracks show up all around you, 360 degrees, and all of it in color. So the red guys are bad, the green guys are good, and the yellow guys—we don’t know who the yellow guys are yet. So without the pilot doing anything, you have this 360-degree picture of the battle space around you. With the F‑15, after a couple of years of training, you might be able to achieve that level of awareness.”

Yeah, sensor fusion started in the early 1980s with the mig-29 and Su-27 combining the pilots eye... via a helmet mounted sight and an IRST and radar.

All three systems were linked so that a target detected visually could be captured by the radar without having to scan to find it.

You have to look how rapidly technology like computing power has evolved, stuff like target autotracking using optics alone... in other words totally passive tracking of targets which was unheard of in the 1980s is fairly straight forward now... even Kornet portable ATGMs can do that these days... hand held digital cameras have smart features like automatic face detection and face recognition systems.

Of course a plane flying now will be rather more advanced than a plane that first flew in the 1970s. The point is that planes like the Su-35 will be getting 5th gen avionic components from the PAK FA... I rather suspect that if the US followed the Russian path and did the same with their Eagles they would have an air force with less of a gap between aircraft types. Their problem is that the eagle is much older than the Flanker and while it is a proven design it is no longer in production.

Imagine the sensor fusion on the PAK FA... the idea of sensor fusion is to take data from all sorts of sources and fuse the data... which is meaningless numbers to humans... so that it becomes information... useful information. On the F-22 the data comes from the AESA radar in the nose and radar emissions from radar sensors in its EW system.

For the PAK FA there is the large AESA in the nose plus the various radar sensors for the EW system, but there are also two side mounted radar antenna arrays facing sideways also operating in the X band, and two wing mounted L band antennas, plus there is also a sophisticated IRST, plus DAS sensors offering a 360 degree IR and optical view around the aircraft.

Which do you think will get the more complete view?

Oh so the ghost of Col.'s video presentation is back again.
Maybe you have seen this before but anyway.
Here is response from Vayu Aerospace Review Editor Pushpindar Singh: http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2008/11/a-final-word-from-india-on-you.html Read it completely.


Now experts from Vishnu Som's(NDTV, India) post on BR forum:

Hi ... for all of you who are out there in the internet world and who have an interest in the performance of the Indian Air Force at Red Flag 2008 .. I have a few remarks. As the only Indian journalist who spent a lengthy period of time at Nellis after being granted permission by both the Indian Air Force and the US Air Force, I was granted access to impeccable sources in both forces. Whats more, I was able to independently corroborate this information with reliable, alternative sources.

For starters … not a single Sukhoi 30 MKI fighter was `shot down’ in close air combat missions at the Mountain Home air base. In fact, none of the Sukhois were even close to being shot down in the 10 odd one on one sorties which were planned for the first two days of the exercises at Mountain Home. These one on one engagements featured USAF jets such as the F-15 and F-16 in close air engagements against the Su-30 MKI. The majority of the kills claimed in these engagements were granted to the Indian Air Force with the remainder of these being no-results. Indian Air Force Sukhois did use their famed thrust vectoring in these one on one engagements. Contrary to what may have been reported elsewhere … the Su-30 has a rate of turn of more than 35 degrees when operating in the thrust vector mode. In certain circumstances, this goes up substantially.

By the time the exercises at Mountain Home had matured … the Indian Air Force had graduated to large formation exercises which featured dozens of jets in the sky. In one of these exercises … the blue forces, of which the Indian Air Force was a part … shot down more than 21 of the enemy jets. Most of these `kills’ have been credited to the Indian Air Force.

At Red Flag though, they found themselves at a substantial disadvantage vis a vis the other participants since they were not networked with AWACS and other platforms in the same manner in which USAF or other participating jets were.

In fact, Indian Air Force Sukhois were not even linked to one another using their Russian built data links since American authorities had asked for specifics of the system before it was cleared to operate in US airspace. The IAF, quite naturally, felt that this would compromise a classified system onboard and decided to go on with the missions without the use of data links between the Sukhois.

Neither was the Indian Air Force allowed to use chaff or flares, essential decoys to escape incoming missiles which had been fired by enemy jets. This was because the US FAA had visibility and pollution related concerns in the event that these were used in what is dense, busy air space in the Las Vegas region.

Though it is true that there were 4-5 incidents of fratricides involving the Indian Air Force at Red Flag … it is important to point out the following:

In the debriefs that followed the exercises … responsibility for the fratricides were always put on the fighter controllers not the pilots. Its also important to point that unlike in Mountain Home, none of the Indian Air Force’s own fighter controllers were allowed to participate since there was classified equipment at Nellis used for monitoring the exercises. The lack of adequate controlling and the fact that Nellis fighter controllers often had problems understanding Indian accents (they had problems understanding French accents as well) resulted in a lack of adequate controlling in situations. Whats more … given the fact that the availability of AWACS was often low … the bulk of fratricides took place on days when the AWACS jet was not deployed. Whats important to remember though is that US participants in these exercises had a similar number of fratricides despite being fully linked in with data links and the latest IFF systems.

So was the Indian Air Force invincible at Red Flag. In a word … no. So yes, there were certainly days in which several Sukhoi jets were shot down. And there were others when they shot down many opposing jets.

Perhaps the most encouraging part of these exercises comes from the fact that the Indian Air Force’s young pilots … learnt from their mistakes, analysed, appreciated and came back strong. Mistakes were not repeated.

At the end of the exercises … its more than clear that the IAF’s Su-30s were more than a match for the variants of the jets participating at the Red Flag exercises. Considering the fact that the central sensor of the Sukhoi, its radar … held up just fine in training mode …despite the barrage of electronic jamming augurs well for the Indian Air Force.

Available here: http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4361&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=40

some say that USAF jacked up the performance of Indians in order to get more funding to buy 700 F22s instead of only 189. In a popular video however a USAF colonel mentioned that when pitted against the better breed of USAF pilots in the US base, Indians and their Su-MKIs were flat on the ground and soon refused to go for 1 on 1 engagement. He also mentioned in group scenario, a lot of friendly kills by IAF as they could not identify the birds.

I well remember, when Indian Su-30MKI were in UK in similar exercise and every Su-30 have Tornado ADV escort, which simulate Flanker radar and BVR shots, because Indians refuse to turn their radars on. There could be agreement between Russian and India, that IAF don't expose radar capabilities to western air forces. So if radars are off, then also IFF is off, so Indian flankers have had to do visual recognition against USAF.

Kill ratio of 21:1 in favor of Su-MKI and that too against the USAF, Well if you say so.......I for one have no expertise, not even near to make a comment on that.

I can only speculate that USAF was impressed by the IAF and more so because they had thought Indians to be C grade like Arabs but they proved themselves to be B or B+ in certain things.

One point that caught the mind was Indians were without AWACS. If you read this thread you might find an article link which mentions that AWACS duration in actual war is barely 8 minutes. When playing against the USAF reduce that down to whatever but it has to be less than 8 in all cases.

End of it all, IAF might have gone home thinking they can handle their immediate adversaries confidently and that is more important.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKEa-R37PeU

www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ibgAQ7lv0w

Col. Fernof Red Flag analysis.

He was impressed with Mig-21-Bis.

Later on he appears in pro F22 article

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/02/infamous-youtube-star-fornof-r.html

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/03/the-last-ace/7291/

Perfect....you are simply perfect for F-16.net ; you have all the right cards to become a true hero in that blind fanatical infested site.
Even this famous self-embarrassing, infamous story of Col. Fornof is in your repertoire ?

Sorry for blast the umpteenth bubble of your warped world , but Col. Fornof literally OVERTURNED THE REAL RESULTS of Red-Flag 2008 only to please its auditory opf old retired American pilots, in a private meeting at the "Daedalian's" HQ (believing that its words would have never gone out of those four walls ).

Reality is that USAF pilots on F-15s was horribly beaten in Red Flag 2008 by IAF in a way even more clear than in Cope India 2004 .
This private, home-made video ,(moreover literally full of comical technical mistakes uttered by Col. Fornof one after the other such as Su-30MKI with a Tumansky engine or the MiG-21 Bison equipped with an Elta radar ) was recorded just in the same time that IAF's pilots and officials was celebrating openly ,in front of all TV and press theirs umpteenth outstanding result against USAF, this time directly in the USA .

See this video:





If you want the numerical picture of the thing ,providing ground for similar enthusiasm of IAF pilots and media you can read here

"The IAF did not undertake any IvIs at Nellis during Red Flag, nor did they engage thrust vectoring during the Exercise. 1v1s were flown only at Mountain Home AFB. In none of the 1v1s were the Su-30MKIs ever vulnerable, let alone shot down. As all exercises were flown with ACMI, the situations are recorded and available to substantiate this aspect. Additionally, the MKI's behaviour with thrust vectoring is dramatically different from that described by the Colonel. F-15 and F-16 aircrew were well appreciative of IAF manoeuvres with thrust vectoring.

There is no need to go in for 'kill ratios' as that would be demeaning. However, the IAF had significant edge throughout and retained it. In fact the true lesson for the USAF should be : 'do not field low value legacy equipment against the Su-30MKI' !.
(demeaning or otherwise, it is understood that the kill ratio (at Mountain Home AFB) was 21 : 1, in favour of the Su-30MKIs).

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2008/11/a-final-word-from-india-on-you.html

The crushing "supremacy" enjoyed by IAF at red Flag 2008 was reported also in some magazines
This is an extract from Take-off magazine of February 2009,pag 9 and 10

In 2004, IAF Su-30MKI pilots learnt midair refuelling from Ilyushin Il-78MKI tanker planes that had been delivered by the Tashkent Aircraft Production Corp. not long before that. Following a years-long interruption, there was a combined Indian-US exercise that year, during which Indian pilots on Su-30Ks beat USAF F-15Cs both hands down in mock battles. It is believed that the result would have been even more impressive, had the Indians used their Su-30MKIs at the exercise. This was proven a few years later, when IAF Su-30MKIs locked horns with up-to-date US and West European warplanes in mock battles as part of combined exercises in India and abroad.
For instance, IAF’s Su-30MKI fighters displayed their superiority over USAF fighters in the course of Exercise Cope India 2005 in India from 7 to 18 November 2005, according to the Boston newspaper Christian Science Monitor citing the participants in the exercise. “Russian fighter Su-30MKI is better than main US fighter, the F-15C Eagle. The air forces of the countries operating the Sukhoi enjoy a certain superiority and may threaten the US air preponderance in the future”, ironically, the Americans themselves drew the categorical conclusion, having admitted the superiority of the Su-30MKI over the F-15C during Indo-US Exercise Red Flag held last August in the United States.
Under the scenario, the Su-30MKIs fought dogfights and medium-range engagements, simulating missile launches against aerial and ground targets. Despite their operating with one hand tied behind their back (IAF command ordered the pilots not to use their radar equipment in full so as not to reveal its actual capabilities), the Su-30MKIs kept on beating the opposition.

The comical "version" of Col. Fornof, literally created from thin air ,only to please its private auditory of old,retirted american pilots (and ,for the purpose, fattened with plentiful addition of gross technical mistakes and ridiculous incongruencies ) survive, by now, only in the hazed minds of some fanatical ignorants on internet (like the average poster at F-16.net and similaria).

Actually I would say that these exercises dont prove anything since seldom the airforces use the full capabilities of their planes. They always have one hand tied behind their back due to secrecy of datalinks, radars etc. What I think is that because US didnt perform very well when they were in India in 2004 Cope India, due to their fighters were heavily restricted and in Red Flag their was going to something like this happen where info was going to be leaked in order to reverse some bad publicity of 2004. Even in the Col.'s video He states that MKI at higher level than American teens, but F-22 is much higher than MKI....you can figure out what He is trying to say to their congressmen. Give more F-22 to USAF so that they can maintain their lead in the world. Actually I dont see anything wrong in col.'s video as long as it remains personal. But if it leaks, then I am afraid you are going to open whole lot of other cans of worms as well where people will nitpick your remarks and other side will also release some info where you might not have done so well either.

This thread has gone places.

Corrosion wrote:Actually I would say that these exercises dont prove anything since seldom the airforces use the full capabilities of their planes. They always have one hand tied behind their back due to secrecy of datalinks, radars etc. What I think is that because US didnt perform very well when they were in India in 2004 Cope India, due to their fighters were heavily restricted and in Red Flag their was going to something like this happen where info was going to be leaked in order to reverse some bad publicity of 2004. Even in the Col.'s video He states that MKI at higher level than American teens, but F-22 is much higher than MKI....you can figure out what He is trying to say to their congressmen. Give more F-22 to USAF so that they can maintain their lead in the world. Actually I dont see anything wrong in col.'s video as long as it remains personal. But if it leaks, then I am afraid you are going to open whole lot of other cans of worms as well where people will nitpick your remarks and other side will also release some info where you might not have done so well either.

Good practical answer, real world is lot different, simulated exercises prove few points to make forces aware of their operational strong and weak point.

I would add that in real world USAF can outnumber IAF by 5 to 1 in terms of birds available for a fight. So Su-MKI is good but might not be able to kill 5 if pitted against alone. The video showed their Air Vice Marshall and two Group Caps speaking high about their performances. I would accept that as a gesture of gained confidence because Indians do not thump their chests and post false numbers for no reason like Arabs do.

Su-MKI is a world beater in its class and this was reported by Jane's way back as 2001 I think.

like this happen where info was going to be leaked in order to reverse some bad publicity of 2004.

Corrosion what info leacked ?

This private video ,which for Col Fornof's bad luck was uploaded in internet by some Deaelaian brother , is no more no less than an IMMENSE PILE OF COMICAL INVENTIONS, clear?

The poor Col. Fornof had literally overturned completely the events and the results of Red Flag 2008 only to please its auditory of ex American pilots (moreover adding a ridiculous amount of gross technical mistakes) knowing that it was a private meeting and believing that never its words would have came outside this room
What is the most ironic thing is that in the same instants Col. Fornof was literally inventing this piece of comical theatre closed among four walls in front of its Daedalian friends, the IAF pilots and officials was celebrating openly in front of all public media theirs umpteenth superior performance of theirs aircrafty and crew aganist USAF (like you can see also from the video i have posted).

Corrosion the only thing absurd here is that in 2012 .....2 0 1 2.....after that the factual reality was exposed (representing practically the exact opposite of the comical raving of our "Youtube Terry" at this meeting of the Daedalians ) someone still have the face to cite it without feel ashamed !!

Private Video in a public setting? Was he attending to bunch of pre-prep kids who tend to forget things very quickly or were the audience only of Alzheimer patients in advanced stages. You should be ashamed of yourself twisting the facts here without any damn authority. Do not jump to conclusions on your own. That can prove dangerous in real world scenario.

ps: work on your sentences, it is a mental torture to read and comprehend them.