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
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.