MiG-29 vs F-16/F-15

GarryB wrote:I think the Mig-29 gets a really bad rap... for a while it was the soviet super fighter, but then after they got their hands on them and learned their strengths and weaknesses before they actually came up against them for real I think they have been hugely underrated in the west.

Most of the criticism of Soviet fighters in general and the MIG 29 in particular were made by Western analyst who were either jealous of their performance or had no idea of what they were talking about .

However, if you are interested in an unbiased assessment of the MIG 29 you may choose to read this :

How the Fulcrum buzzed the Falcons

http://indrus.in/articles/2013/01/16/migs_over_kargil_how_the_fulcrum_buzzed_the_falcons_21659.html

The main problem of course is that the Mig is often compared with modern western fighters armed with AMRAAMs, so while the R-77 remains untested in real combat it is a real unknown quantity that is easy to dismiss.

As usual also factual reality (even those in mere air to air exercises, DACT or not) of the so called BVR engagements between early MiG-29 and western aircraft had been deeply deformed in widely accessible open media to provide a guided perception of reality, useful at promote confidence in western products and tarnish ,for what was possible, MiG's products name and ,even more, theirs MARKET .


First some historical facts on operational "BVR engagements" from the same NATO pasted conflicts that can aid anyone to get a more realistic picture of how things stand in actual Air to Air combat between agile aircraft:

1) In ALL pasted successful engagements involving western medium range radar guided missiles, enemy aircraft was NOT AWARE to be under attack, not reacting in any way to evade or suppress the incoming missiles (see down to discover what was the main reason for that...) .
2) A VERY HIGH AMOUNT of engagements involving radar guided medium range AA missiles with potential BVR capability was in reality executed well WITHIN VISUAL RANGE distance from enemy aircraft (one more time read down what was the reason for that...)
3) In ALL pasted successful BVR and WVR engagements western aircraft enjoyed a crushing numerical and training advantage over enemies equipped ,moreover, with very few samples of the export version of the older model of Fulcrum -lacking, among others, even of any type of integrated ECM suit- and often reduced in disastrous conditions (even with RWR and the main radar totally out of service !!)
4) ALL pasted enemies aircraft of western F-15 and F-16 was armed with inferior export version of AA missiles outdated by ,at least, one or two generations

And now the MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR :

5) In ALL pasted successful Air-to-Air BVR engagements western aircraft's squadrons was attentively directed and guided by AWACS , not menaced by any type of enemy aircraft or armament


What up-explained and the few operational instances where the up-mentioned conditions not materialized (almost always conducting ,even in those absurdly unbalanced war's conditions in favor of NATO aircraft, to failed attempts of engagements or enemy aircraft capable to easily avoid a great amount of enemy BVR missiles before egressing and escaping from NATO much bigger number of pursuers and ,in one instance -early export version of MiG-25 vs a F/A-18- ,even to down the NATO aircraft with a Bisnovat R-40E ) highlight that the ,by far, most important, even allowing, element to successfully complete few attacks from BVR ranges was PRESENCE and ACTIVE GUIDANCE by part of AWACS.


The analysis ,by part of this assets, of enemy aircraft relative route and direction of motion allowed ,in all pasted conflicts, NATO aircraft to turn literally around the radar cone footprint of coverage of opposing aircraft's main radars ,from outside theirs maximum detecting range, attacking them ,in vast majority of the instances, from theirs rear hemisphere (and in fewer instance from rear-beam aspect) and from higher altitude.
In this way western F-15s and F-16s obtained kills ,with AIM-120 missiles, without that the enemy would get any chance to realize to be under attack , preventing so to him to react maneuvering to avoid them or accelerating outside missile's effective engagement footprint for that particular engagement geometry.


Note : Low Observable air superiority aircraft like F-22 and F-35 or PAKFA or J-20 which ,as explained more times, show tactically relevant RCS in the order of 0,2 -0,5 square meters, realize the same type of "undetected" kills circumventing enemy aircraft's radar cones of coverage footprint ,but without the formerly indispensable guidance of AWACS, a short-numbered asset considered today totally not survivable against an advanced enemy Air Force.
THAT is the way F-22s in REALITY engage and "kill" F-15s in USAFs' exercises, exploiting to the maximum an important tactical advantage offered by low observability in medium range air combat and is also the main reason leading to the true race for adding some kind of all-around sensor coverage in all latest generation aircraft



Returning to EMPYRICAL PROOFS of what just said about the real BVR engagement exchange ratios ,even between early Fulcrum armed with export first version of Vympel R-27 and much up-to-date F-16s armed with AIM-120 series, can be useful to cite a relatively recent Polish DACT exercises.
First coverage - 2007 DACT exercise- is included in the article of Armia magazine 2009/ 3-4 "MiG-29 kontra F-16" by Adam Gołąbek, Krzysztof Barcz the salient point of which has been translated in this post of ff1987 at keypublishing forum :


http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=120736&page=3



From the above link:

1)scenario :
BVR - distance over 50km , 4 MiG-29 (9.12) vs 2 F-16blk 52+
results : 2 F-16 and 1 MiG-29 shoot down

Comment to this engagement by Lt. pilot Mariusz Wiąckowski,not contained in the ff1987's summary :

"The air space above the North-East Poland, five thousands meters a.s.l, was the place of the simulated battle.
In the first so-called air raid, four MiGs and two F-16 participated. The battle was carried at long distance. American planes had the advantage, since they have long distance rockets. Nevertheless, MiG have shown to be more effective since they "shot down" two F-16s, while they lost only one machine.
Our numerical advantage did not matter. According to a scenario, we were patrolling, and the F-16s supposed to attack us, hence they could choose any tactics they wished" - explains Lt. Wiączkowski"

2) scenario :
BVR , 4 vs 4 , F-16 had E-3C support.
results : 4 MiG-29 shoot down



Practically E3's presence was the main "overturning element" allowing much up-to-date (F-16 Block-52) armed with the latest AIM-120s AMRAAM against the most outdated MiG-29s armed with early export R-27s to gain the upper hand in BVR engagements !!!
A BVR relative exchange ratio of 2:1 in favour of MiG-29A ,after several missiles of both sides evaded, transformed instantly in a 4:0 BVR exchange ratio in favour of F-16 Block-52 with MiG-29A with Fulcrums incapable to even reacting to the enemy missile attacks (naturally those early MiG-29 are devoid of any MAWS ) or to mount any counter-engagement on F-16s for the mere presence of E3 AWACS ,capable to direct air engagement geometry outside of each single enemy aircraft sensors' footprint, exactly as had happened in pasted NATO conflicts .


Also in the other two scenarios recapped, from "Fruit Fly" internal Polish Air Force DACT exercise , where 4 MiG-29As was used in the interceptor role aggressor against an opposing intruder group composed by 4 SU-22 escorted by 4 F-16s Block-52 (in the first scenario MiG-29As must attack the escort group of F-16s ,while in the second the "enemy" SU-22 bombers ), remain very evident not only the very low Pk of BVR missiles, but also that ,one more time, all engagements invariably comed to WVR where (with the obvious exception of the last scenario where Fulcrum's mission task become exclusively to destroy Su-22 bombers) even those super outdated export MiG-29s gain easily the upper hand against Block-52 equipped with AIM-9X .


1)scenario

Red : 4 F-16 (escort) , 4 Su-22 ( bombers )
Blue : 4 MiG-29 (CAP)
-some AMRAAM and R-27 shoot were evade ( max range shoot ) by turning away
-AMRAAM kill 2 MiG-29 in BVR
-R-27 kill 1 F-16 in BVR
-R-73 kill 2 F-16 in WVR
results : 2 MiG-29 and 3 F-16 shoot down

2)scenario

Red : 4 F-16 (escort) , 4 Su-22 ( bombers )
Blue : 4 MiG-29 (CAP)
-start at alt 8-9km
-distance : F-16 detect MiG-29 from 120km , track at 80 km , only one F-16 used his radar , and thanks to link 16 provide data to the others F-16s.
-first shoot were below 80km ( at max range ) - 4 AMRAAM and 2 R-27 , and all missiles failed.
-second shoot were below 50km - some r-27 and 2 AMRAAM were fire - and results some kills at 30km - 1 MiG was killed by AMRAAM and 2 Su22 by R-27
-second MiG-29 was killed ( but author didn't go into detail) – probably by another AMRAAM shoot.
-third Su-22 shoot down
-fight end in WVR , 2 vs 2 , results -1 MiG-29 killed by AIM-9X and another because lack of fuel .
- so 4 MiGs and 3 Su-22 were shoot down in this scenario



Now anyone could easily argue how a modern and domestic MiG-29-SMT, with : enormously improved and refined aerodynamics performances ,full fly-by-wire guidance, latest ECM suit, latest MAWS ,latest radar and OLS and armed with....Izdeliye 170-1 and Izdeliye-760, would fare against those latest version of F-16s that obtained similar embarrassing results (also in BVR and ,not now , but since the first DACT exercises after Germany reunification ),against deeply downgraded export version of the most outdated model of MiG-29.


So much for the so much vaunted BVR capabilities of western aircraft ,totally AWACS-depending ( and also NATO is perfectly aware that the 20 E-3s would have been totally worthless and not-survivable against the Air Force of any advanced nation ) and in reality in need of overwhelming numerical, support and technological generation's advantages to gain the upper hand over few , ridiculously downgraded early version of Fulcrum.

Great post as always

Mindstorm wrote:
4) ALL pasted enemies aircraft of western F-15 and F-16 was armed with inferior export version of AA missiles outdated by ,at least, one or two generations
And now the MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR :
5) In ALL pasted successful Air-to-Air BVR engagements western aircraft's squadrons was attentively directed and guided by AWACS , not menaced by any type of enemy aircraft or armament

During the 1999 Kargil War the Indian MIG 29 s were also export version of the MIGs and were not the latest MIG 29 UPG currently flying with the IAF . Inspite of that the MIG 29s were able to achieve a lock on with the export version R 77 on the F 16 Block D of the PAF which were supported by Saudi AWACS.


BVR can never become tactically feasible . The fog of war and the complexity of air combat dictates that pilots must wait until their targets come within visual range before they can be shut down. Even if they dare to fire, the chances of a BVR missile kill are too small for the strategy to work.

RAND states that since 1991, the USAF has fired 13 AMRAAMs to achieve six BVR kills, a 45% success rate. It is important to note here that half of the 13 AMRAAMs were fired from WVR .

According to our friend Carlo Kopp the odds of failure at each step in the BVR kill-chain.

1. Active missile confirmed on launch rail -- 0.1% (chance of failure)
2. Search and track radar jammed -- 5%
3. Launch or missile failure -- 5%
4. Guidance link jammed -- 3%
5. Seeker head jammed or diverted -- 30%
6. Chaff or decoys seduce the seeker -- 5%
7. Seeker chooses towed decoy -- 5%
8. Aircraft out-manuevers missile -- 40%
9. Fuse or warhead failure -- 2%

The probability of a BVR hit therefore is somewhere in the vicinity of 17% .

MIG 29 s were also export version of the MIGs and were not the latest MIG 29 UPG currently flying with the IAF

Sujoy you know perfectly that India and Russia are linked by a totally unique bi-lateral partnership and alliance since URSS's era, you cannot even put on the same plane the MiG-29s models exported to Middle East nations and those exported to India and same can be said for theirs armament (the green light for RVV-AE to India was almost a decision unique in its kind , for the time).

What we talk about here ,debating of engagement of F-15s and F-16s against Fulcrum in pasted NATO conflicts against third category enemies, is early downgraded Fulcrums (izdeliye 9.12B), with N019EB main radar -moreover ,in great part of the instances, even not operative for lack of spare parts - devoid of any type of ECM suit (in Iraqi case even the chaff/flare dispenser was out of service !) and armed ,at best, with Molniya R-60E and first export version of R-27R !!

Those aicraft have NOTHING to do with the IAF's MiG-29s that mantained "looked" Pakistan's F-16s with theirs RVV-AE , we here talk of two completly different worls.


Those DACT BVR engagements involved 9.12B Fulcrums successfully engaging F-15A/C and F-16 Block-50/52 equiped with domestic US radars and armaments infinitely more up-to-date and ,as pointed out previously, that happened since the first DACT exercices with ex-DDR MiG-29s (see for example “Mig-29 downs F-16 in Mock Dogfight” Jane’s Defence Weekly November -10- 1990).

The only point i was attempting to make is that ,in order to counterbalance in some way ,in the common perception's realm, the crushing superiority of MiG-29 WVR western PR operatives have disseminated the idea that "Fulcrum" was however much inferior to "western aircraft" in the BVR arena .

Even only to give some kind of credibility to this thesis ,them had been forced to put on the other plate of the balance ,against those old and widely downgraded MiG-29 9.12B, much more up-to date F-15s and F-16s armed with the most modern AA missiles and to point at engagement results obtained in war's conditions ridiculously unbalanced in favour of western aircraft moreover with full AWACS support.

That, by itself, speak volume on how things stand behind PR's mist .


RAND states that since 1991, the USAF has fired 13 AMRAAMs to achieve six BVR kills, a 45% success rate. It is important to note here that half of the 13 AMRAAMs were fired from WVR.

Yes and that Pk percentage was achieved thanks to unilateral AWACS support a crushing numercal overmatch and against inferior enemies in majority of the instances totally unaware to be under attack and not executing so any type of defensive manoeuvre or employing any ECM countermeasure ! (even only chaff release).

Anyone with even a minimum of knowledge on the subject is perfectly aware of the realistic Pk of AA BVR missiles against modern advanced aircraft.
A today agile fighters, for unavoidable kinematics reasons ,enjoy a significant advantage in manoeuvre outside engagement envelop or the warhead's lethal radius of a typical AA missile (at least until reliable new types of propulsion and aerodynamic actuators are developed for them ) and the question worsen even more with supermanoeuvrable targets equiped with modern integrated self-defense jamming pods, decoys and chaff/flares.

Its always a system vs system. Everything is designed by keeping goals in mind. To check what Mig29 is capable of, one has to give it an optimal environment to operate in, for what it is designed for. Most of the time Small air forces can't provide that. If you cant give it conditions needed then you have failed strategically and Mig 29 wont give you a tactical win if taking on a superpower, well lets say 97% of the time, it wont.

Off Topic.... Iran for example is playing very intelligently here by not buying any Fighters. They know, they cant beat US + EU + Israel AF with an Air-force they can afford even if they push the hardest. So they are playing it un-conventionally. All is fair in love and war. The west is also playing un-converntionally by using Sanctions etc.

Mindstorm wrote:Sujoy you know perfectly that India and Russia are linked by a totally unique bi-lateral partnership and alliance since URSS's era, you cannot even put on the same plane the MiG-29s models exported to Middle East nations and those exported to India and same can be said for theirs armament (the green light for RVV-AE to India was almost a decision unique in its kind , for the time).

Yes, Mindstorm I am not just aware of this but I also cherish this on a regular basis .

The point that I was trying to make is that the IAF's MIG 29 of the 90s were no where as advanced as the current MIG 29 UPG which as you would know comes with a state of the art avionics package . Also , the Ilyushin -76 were not there to help queue up the F 16s for the MIG 29 , something which is now available . The Mig 29 therefore had the thankless job of escorting the MIg 21 , Mig 27 and the Mirage 2000 while at the same time fending off the invading F 16s . The situation described in the link that I had provided in my earlier post actually relates to a situation where 2 Mig 29 were challenged by 4 F 16s of the PAF . Now PAF pilots are among the best in business who constantly hone their skills in Saudi Arabia & Turkey . The idea on that day was to ambush the Mig 29s so that the Mig 21, Mig 27 and Mirage 2000 are well exposed to the Pakistani F 16s and SAM batteries .

What made the job even more difficult for the MIG 29 pilots was

a) Extremely high altitude ( 15,000 ft + )
b) Precarious nature of the battlefield where there was every possibility of straying into Chinese territory
c) The presence of SAUDI AWACS that supported the PAFs F 16
d) Numerical superiority of the opponent ( 4 F 16s vs 2 MIG 29s)

Therefore , under such testing conditions to establish BVR missile lock on the F 16s was not an easy job .

The point is Western manufacturers would mostly use anecdotes like how western aircrafts shot down a MIG/Sukhoi that was being flown by Iraq or Vietnam or some African countries without disclosing that those aircrafts were practically obsolete aircrafts that the host countries were flying exactly for the same reason why western nation still fly legacy aircrafts . Most often NATO can target the opponents aircrafts because they had overhelming numerical superiority . Infact NATO will NEVER go to war unless it has numerical superiority . As Lenin once said "quantity itself has got a quality " .

Since Russia does NOT tell the rest of the world how Russian aircrafts have repeatedly won the battle against western aircrafts a number of countries draw the conclusion that Western aircrafts are superior . I will quote Lenin again - " a lie repeated often becomes the truth " .

Mindstorm wrote: Note : Low Observable air superiority aircraft like F-22 and F-35 or PAKFA or J-20 which ,as explained more times, [b]show tactically relevant RCS in the order of 0,2 -0,5 square meters

I disagree about your paragraph, it is not so easy to detect stealth aircraft just by using longer wavelength and infrared signature. They also cool the exhaust gas before releasing atmosphere to reduce IR signature. According to electromagnetic scattering theory, if you use wavelength that is longer than length of aircraft, you get a region of Rayleigh scattering where the shape of scatterer is less or no importance, but RCS is very low in this region. Since they are designed basically for reducing monostatic RCS, today, maybe the only way to detect F 22 is to use bistatic radar or forward scattering phenome which has not been perfected in Russia and certainly NOT in third world countries like India and China .

I disagree about your paragraph, it is not so easy to detect stealth aircraft just by using longer wavelength and infrared signature.

Longer wavelength ?


Who has talked here about longer radar wavelength or IR signature ?


What you see up exposed are the average tactically relevant RCS of "stealth" fighter aircraft in X band, clear ?

The "epic" figures you can read around -on the order of -30 /-40 dBSM .....- refer instead simply to some frontal "hypercritical", re-radiating cones, obtained (mostly in RCS tests) with pencil beam irradiation.
Naturally them don't represent in any way the tactically relevant RCS exposed by similar aircraft to enemy radars in actual air combat.

Low observability provide surely ,to the aircraft integrating it, an important and potentially even deciding tactical and survivability's advantageous factor in air to air combat ,but nothing even only close to the comical ideas and imaginative capabilities circulating on it in public media .

The most important domestic names, just from the same Scientific Institutes that have discovered and validated the Physical principles and the entire Theoretical architecture a part of which, literally imported in USA, allowed US community of the sector to realize the VLO F-117 and B-2 bombers and, after, the LO F-22 and F-35 fighters (...yes, F-22 and F-35 are compromise designs with a significantly greater average RCS ,also in X band, than F-117 and B-2 ) are all adamant in asserting that ,for example, F-22's RCS is not inferior to 0,2 - 0,4 square meters.


By the way the same requirements of F-35 is for an improvement of about 20 times of the radar signature over previous generation aircraft





You will find that this correspon perfectly and stand firmly in the 0,4 - 0,5 square meters cited by the most authorative names at world in the sector for this kind of aircraft.

I always love to repeat that the day the real average RCS figures for those aircraft will be revealed also by western sources to theirs public opinion ,we will see one of the worse epidemic of mass suicides.

A BVR relative exchange ratio of 2:1 in favour of MiG-29A ,after several missiles of both sides evaded, transformed instantly in a 4:0 BVR exchange ratio in favour of F-16 Block-52 with MiG-29A with Fulcrums incapable to even reacting to the enemy missile attacks (naturally those early MiG-29 are devoid of any MAWS Wink ) or to mount any counter-engagement on F-16s for the mere presence of E3 AWACS ,capable to direct air engagement geometry outside of each single enemy aircraft sensors' footprint, exactly as had happened in pasted NATO conflicts.

I was really surprised about the results of the exercises. Maybe the performance is also due to Polish pilots large experience with the Fulcrum. There are not many references to the performance of German Fulcrums in BVR, but the targeting procedure was more complicated than in (modern) Western equivalents.

If the F-16 is supported by AWACS, how does it change the targeting procedure? of course, you expect a much better situational awarenes but you still need to lock and fire the missile.

Are there more details on the Polish exercises? they were really interesting.

Sujoy wrote:
What made the job even more difficult for the MIG 29 pilots was

a) Extremely high altitude ( 15,000 ft + )
b) Precarious nature of the battlefield where there was every possibility of straying into Chinese territory
c) The presence of SAUDI AWACS that supported the PAFs F 16
d) Numerical superiority of the opponent ( 4 F 16s vs 2 MIG 29s)

Such great imaginations . In case you are not working for some Asian movie industry you need to visit the doctor immediately .

War&Peace wrote:
you need to visit the doctor immediately .

How old are you?
You should get you manners first or you will be banned.

A BVR relative exchange ratio of 2:1 in favour of MiG-29A ,after several missiles of both sides evaded, transformed instantly in a 4:0 BVR exchange ratio in favour of F-16 Block-52

Comparing a Mig-29A with a Block 52 F-16 is like comparing a Mig-35 with an F-16A.

The main difference is that the F-16A has no BVR capability at all, while the Mig-29A can carry and use the R-27R, though it can't carry any other model R-27 including the extended range R-27E models.

BVR combat with a block 52 F-16 means the F-16 must be equipped with AMRAAM, so any results you might get become meaningless, except to emphasise why the west spends a small fortune on AWACS and other platforms. They call them force multipliers for a reason.

If the F-16 is supported by AWACS, how does it change the targeting procedure? of course, you expect a much better situational awarenes but you still need to lock and fire the missile.

An F-16 with AWACS support might never directly detect its target with its own radar... the AMRAAM does not need a lock before it can be launched, using target data taken from the AWACS the F-16 can launch a missile to an intercept point and with continuous data from the AWACS can send course updates to the missile so that when it arrives in the vicinity of the target and turns on its own radar the only warning the target would get would be emissions from that AWACS aircraft 400km away, and the sudden radar energy from an actively guiding AMRAAM within 5km of its position.

Not sure what the object of the training was, but it was very one sided.

War&Peace wrote:In case you are not working for some Asian movie industry you need to visit the doctor immediately .

With pleasure , BUT after you .

I was really surprised about the results of the exercises

Because a lot of ridiculous ideas or plain non-senses circulate usually on similar subjects.
In public accessible media (in particular western ones) is strongly promoted the idea that Western aircraft enjoy a sort of "magical" primacy in beyond visual range air to air combat; the main rational behind this claim is that Information Warfare operatives considered necessary to "counterbalance" in some way, in the common immaginary, the superior aerodynamic layout, armament and WVR performances of the MiG-29 against any of its western counterpart, sustaining that western aircraft enjoyed ,on the other side, a similar advantage in BVR combat and that this element would render WVR capabilities and aerodynamics performances of the enemy product not influential (the latest comical invention promoted and spread, lately, by those PSY-OP operatives ,is that modern WVR involving high-off-boresight missiles generate reciprocal kills independently from aircraft kinematic performances !!!! ).
Those claims i substances had the goal to maintain high cohesion and confidence of western people in the .....self-claimed....."primacy" of theirs military products and render also credible the intense "bashing" campaign in open media of any Russian-made product (an action aimed at ruin, at a more macroscopic level, their market).

Reality is ,obviously , very different from what publicly portrayed:

1) Air to Air medium range missiles ,for unavoidable Physical reasons, linked to the extremely variable and stressing kinematical conditions of their delivery (which at its own time dictate theirs general constructive design and the efficiency's boundaries of theirs aerodynamic layout ) and the stringent volumetric and weight constraints of theirs propulsion and warhead sections show a very scarce Pk against any agile target actively maneuvering to avoid them (that even leaving totally outside the effects of active and passive ECM )
2) Geometrical and vectorial characteristics of the interception(both of the shooting and the intended target) have an enormous impact on the effective engagement range and the final Pk of the BVR missiles
3) A very high closing speed between the air to air missile and the target is an immensely beneficial factor in favour of an aware target (the G-charge necessary for an AA missile to execute a similar intercept, being the product of a power function of speed, would surpass of many times the structural and aerodynamic surfaces limits of today AAMs and, moreover, their very limited warheads wouldn't allow to maintain an agile target within theirs lethal range.


Even only the factors up-mentioned (representing obviously only a very small part of the hundreds of the variables involved) explain why virtually all the BVR kills recorded operatively in pasted wars has been achieved against targets TOTALLY UNAWARE to being under attack and not actively acting against them and very often , with REAR-ASPECT shoots delivered from relatively close range.

Reality of BVR combat , between evenly matched and advanced opponents, (in a conflict against an immensely inferior enemy enjoying crushing numerical and technical advantages you can win literally in the way you want ) is that of a transitional phase where both sides attempt to gain a decisive numerical overmatch on the other before the unavoidable transition to close range , downing with several missiles for targets the elements of the enemy formation in the “right” vectorial conditions to be successfully engaged.

Therefore the only thing surprising of those DACT exercises is that F-16 Block-52s equipped with AIM-120C5 (and AIM-9X for WVR) was incapable to gain the upper hand ,Beyond Visual Range, against early export versions of MiG-29 armed with nothing more than early version of R-27 !!

If the F-16 is supported by AWACS, how does it change the targeting procedure? of course, you expect a much better situational awareness but you still need to lock and fire the missile.

Unilateral presence of uncontested AWACS (an AWACS that can be intercepted by some enemy element can even become a liability) in one side produce an immense effect on the same basis of the engagement's development and a totally disproportionate effect on the final exchange ratio between the two sides.

An AWACS placed even at some hundreds of Km of distance from an air engagement is perfectly capable to maintain track of the vector of ANY single enemy aircraft and to provide guidance for the friendly aircraft placed in the most favourable relative position in respect to enemy so to allow him to literally CIRCUMVENT the sensor's footprint of the designated enemy aircraft ; the enemy so engaged remain totally unaware to being under attack and incapable to react .
This was one of the main reasons for which, in pasted conflicts, no aircraft downed by NATO aircraft ever attempted any kind of defense against the inbound missiles shot to them by F-15s and F-16s : all of those aircraft were attacked from vectors placed outside the angular coverage of theirs main radar , all thanks to the guidance offered by AWACS.

At this element is necessary to add, as well pointed out by GarryB, that AWACS is capable to provide in-flight target positional data up-link to delivered AIM-120, allowing friendly aircraft to egress much before the usual after missile delivery.

An engagement with or without AWACS are different like day and night.

NickM wrote:...I disagree about your paragraph, it is not so easy to detect stealth aircraft just by using longer wavelength and infrared signature. They also cool the exhaust gas before releasing atmosphere to reduce IR signature. ...

The entire airframe (not just the exhaust) emit IR, for various reasons. In the following video, IR detection starts at 0:31 . Anything in black means no IR emissions. Anything gray or lighter means IR detected. One can see the hotspots on the airframe, and when the afterburners are lit in this video.

Everything above absolute zero emits radiation in the IR spectrum.

To do the same in the visible spectrum you would need to heat the material to several thousand degrees.

This means that in the IR spectrum everything glows... gives off its own light... even very cold things like liquid nitrogen and water ice.

Stealth aircraft also emit light in the IR spectrum... whether they cool their exhaust gasses or not.

if im correct the F-15A/C/D/E are all comparable to the MIG-29 with a few exlusions, they both carry bombs, F-15(AOE) Mig-29(AOE/CLUS) so are they both essentially the same, i know the F-15 carrys 120 rams, and the MIG29 carrys R-77s but is there really a difference?

George1 wrote:

CyricDamascus wrote:if im correct the F-15A/C/D/E are all comparable to the MIG-29 with a few exlusions, they both carry bombs, F-15(AOE) Mig-29(AOE/CLUS) so are they both essentially the same, i know the F-15 carrys 120 rams, and the MIG29 carrys R-77s but is there really a difference?

F-15 has greater range

According to Wikipedia?

The F-15 is probably better compared to the Su-27 family the Mig-29 was designed from the outset to be a short range interceptor/fighter, but has evolved into a fully multirole aircraft able to deliver precision air to ground weapons.

A better comparison for the late model MiG-29 and MiG-35 would be late model F-16 and late model F-18s.

Of course the MiG-35 will likely be compatible with the R-37M in the form of the RVV-BD with a flight range of 300km in the domestic model and 200km for export so in a way it would be a shorter ranged F-14D with longer ranged missiles than the Phoenix that is designed to engage manouvering targets (unlike Phoenix).

With conformal fuel tanks the F-15E is more like Su-34...

GarryB wrote:A better comparison for the late model MiG-29 and MiG-35 would be late model F-16 and late model F-18s.

Malaysian Air Force officials after their discussion with UAC are saying that their Mig 29s can be upgraded to Mig 35 .

RTN wrote:

GarryB wrote:A better comparison for the late model MiG-29 and MiG-35 would be late model F-16 and late model F-18s.

Malaysian Air Force officials after their discussion with UAC are saying that their  Mig 29s can be upgraded to Mig 35 .

The airframes are completely different, there is no chance of that.

Some avionics and systems, sure.

Nice pic:

Malaysian Air Force officials after their discussion with UAC are saying that their Mig 29s can be upgraded to Mig 35 .

As TR1 mentions the original MiG-29 uses a different air frame, though most of the systems of the MiG-35 should be able to be fitted to the MiG-29 easily enough.

The MiG-35, MiG-29K, and MiG-29M and MiG-29M2 all share the same airframe with the two seat and single seat sharing the same canopy and forward fuselage structure... the difference is the presence or absence of a second seat.

the newer aircraft uses lighter and stronger materials and is actually in production.

For an existing MiG-29 the best option would be an upgrade based on the SMT design with new electronics and systems and add on fuel structures etc etc.

If it was me, I would trade in old model MiG-29s and get MiG-29M2s initially, with the MiG-35 upgrade for the future when it is not so state of the art (and expensive).

Once everything is in production and service in the Russian military then costs should come down... especially the AESA radar which will likely improve in performance as it matures.

A very under rated fighter that would likely cause a few surprises against the unwary.

Mig-29 vs F-16 Fighting Falcon