Mig 29 better than F-16 ?

the people confuse the excersices, there are also reports on excersices with mig29 victories against f16s, most of f16 victories are team-group combats, the germans fulcrums dont work good, because the lack of parts (specially the radar sistem -the problems arent by the radar itself-), so they use f4 phantoms to assistance, but in dogfights is genneral accepted that the german migs have better turn (istant-sustained) and better AoA, that despite of the use of NATO standar fuel (the engines loses 10% of power, because were not designed for such fuel) and despite the use of f16s last block against older migs29, there are also missunderstandings about dogfights, specially when the fulcrums used external fuel tanks.

What exercises were these? i provided links to back up what I've said.

And F-16's are better in teams...You mean teams like just what would be used during real air combat between Russia and America?

the f18 is very,very inferior against mig29 or f16, it have an g limit of 7.5, but the high aspect ratio works good at very,very low speed (under M0.4), and is better than the f16 above 5000-7000 mts, specially by the f404 low bypass turbofan (0.3-0.4)

None of that will matter when a F-18 has the superior avionics and radar.

disturbed your an patriot ignorant so please make a little more research....

Originally posted by grunt2
disturbed your an patriot ignorant so please make a little more research....

Research on what? The fact that fighters fly in groups and the F/A-18 has newer and better avionics and radar technology than the MiG-29? No, I don't think research needs to be done for those claims.

Originally posted by XB70
Research on what? The fact that fighters fly in groups and the F/A-18 has newer and better avionics and radar technology than the MiG-29? No, I don't think research needs to be done for those claims.

ohhh, cmon, avionics are the more versatile factor in the planes, (well that also depends sometimes on the airframe like the size of the randome), again newer f18s against older mig29 that doesnt used fully radar capacity due the lack of parts, electronics, radar stage, data links are very, very important in combat team, the f18 is maybe the worst modern fighter.

[edit on 1-2-2005 by grunt2]

If you look at paper statistics, sure. If you looked purely on paper, though, the Su-27 could compete with a F-22.

The F-18 has superior avionics and radar then Mig-29's. These Mig-29's beaten were flown by Germany. They were the best in the world in Mig-29's. They had the capability to keep them operating at full capacity.

well, i had posted my arguments. i dont want more troubles with blinded fanatics and ignorants , that even dont know how a plane works, im out...

Originally posted by grunt2f18 is maybe the worst modern fighter.

That's because it's a naval craft that has to fufill both the attack and fighter role on the same aircraft, while still being able to fit on a carrier. The F/A-18 is actually very good at what it does, because it can carry just about any ordnance available to attack aircraft.

Just take a look at all the Mig-29 variants and their advancement .
These should cream the F-16's

Mig-29 Variants

These comparision, stastical charts of the Mig-29 and F-16 side by side will prove why the mig is better.

Mig 29, F-16 charts

Yea, statistical charts prove everything! REAL combat records don't matter...

MIGs dont have good combat records, why? They get rarely used in combat. It's true look at most countries that purchased MIGs, most of them did not have to use them. Americans, on the other hand, pick wars right and left and get to use their F-15s and F-16s quite often, so thats why everybody brags about how "combat proven" they are. In reality current best versions of MIG-29s and F-16s are just as good. MIG-29 is better in some aspects, F-16s better in others. The pilot determines the victory. And don't give me that "the F-16 has AMRAAM and MIGs dont bull#" Just because you don't hear about Russian missile testing, doesn't mean they don't get tested. WTF you think is happening in Russia, they make missiles on paper, mass produce them, then they dont work and they decide the hell with them? Russian missile programs have always been better then the American, just admit it, blah I'm out.

LOOK Disturbed 1990's and 21st century F-16'S have better avionics and Radar than 1980's "cold war" area MiG 2-9's yes, ain't nobody arguing about that, what I (Siberian Tiger) am saying is the MiG 29's of Russia during the 1980's was on par if not better than the U.S. F-16 of the cold war days (1980's), now if we're talking about now 2005 Russia has already created, built and actually put NEW Improved Avionics and Radars in our MiG 29's the only thing is we have put them in only a handfull of MiG 29's these are what we call the MiG 29SMT we had to doe this because YOU Yanks have upgraded your F-16's from the 1980's so we gotta do the same thing, right now 02/01/2005 we have just a handfull of these babies but when it comes time to "RUMBLE" I surly assure you that we can get 1500 MiG-29's upgraded to SMT levels, in no longer than 5 weeksyou see as long as we have actual Improved Avionics/Radars created and built and put into a limited number of our MiGs (Reffering to MiG29 SMT) all we need to do is what you Yanks call "MASS PRODUCE 'EM" BABY!!!!!

[edit on 2-2-2005 by SiberianTiger]

[edit on 2-2-2005 by SiberianTiger]

Combat Record

Lt. Col. David "Logger" Rose, a Persian Gulf War F-15 pilot, 41, recalled the time "12 years ago to the day in Desert Storm" when an Iraqi MiG-29 chased away his F-15 on the first day of the war.

Source : www.reviewjournal.com...

That just further strengthen's the Mig's claim.
True a few Mig-29's were shot down, but those were in the hands of a few untrained rookies.

Give a Mig-29 to a proper pilot and he'll blow up an F-16 anyday, maybe an F-15 too.

Originally posted by Stealth Spy
Combat Record

Lt. Col. David "Logger" Rose, a Persian Gulf War F-15 pilot, 41, recalled the time "12 years ago to the day in Desert Storm" when an Iraqi MiG-29 chased away his F-15 on the first day of the war.

Source : www.reviewjournal.com...

That just further strengthen's the Mig's claim.
True a few Mig-29's were shot down, but those were in the hands of a few untrained rookies.

Give a Mig-29 to a proper pilot and he'll blow up an F-16 anyday, maybe an F-15 too.

This is an anecdotal tale lacking any information on the circumstances. No Mig-29 has ever shot down an American plane, period. Mig-29's were lost in the gulf war however. If many hadn't flow to Iran to escape the American's the numbers lost would have been massive. Even on the first day of the conflict Mig's would take off (even the Mig 29, then one of the best fighters available), retract their landing gear and blow up.

That's air superiority at work.

B.B.C. World News Report reported an artickle on March 27, 1999 that a Yugoslav MiG29 shot down a F-15 E Strike Eagle.

[edit on 2-2-2005 by SiberianTiger]

SiberianTiger - unless you have something to do but dismiss anything you doin't agree with as propaganda, you shouldn't even be allowed to post here. Everything that comes from you is bull. No F-15 was shot down by a Mig-29. The BBC sure didn't report it. Go find the article of the BBC's if its true.

MIGs dont have good combat records, why? They get rarely used in combat. It's true look at most countries that purchased MIGs, most of them did not have to use them. Americans, on the other hand, pick wars right and left and get to use their F-15s and F-16s quite often, so thats why everybody brags about how "combat proven" they are. In reality current best versions of MIG-29s and F-16s are just as good. MIG-29 is better in some aspects, F-16s better in others. The pilot determines the victory. And don't give me that "the F-16 has AMRAAM and MIGs dont " Just because you don't hear about Russian missile testing, doesn't mean they don't get tested. WTF you think is happening in Russia, they make missiles on paper, mass produce them, then they dont work and they decide the hell with them? Russian missile programs have always been better then the American, just admit it, blah I'm out.

Yea, that doesn't explain a number of exercises where Mig-29's lost to F-16's and F-18's...

I guess its just easier to ignore that, though.

Why, exactly would the latest Mig-29's be better then the latest F-16's if the earlier Mig-29's weren't better then the early F-16's? That's not even remotely logical. Who has progressed more since the end of the Cold War, America or Russia?

First of all what I never said that the 1980's F-16's were beter than the 1980's mig29's, what I said (which you read but are now trying to make it seem like I didn't say) is "during the 1980 our MiG 29's were on par if not better than your F-16's" that's what I said and you know it, now about this MiG exersises evrybody owatching this site I would want to solve this RIGHT NOW, If there is anyone who disagrees with what I'm about to say say it NOW, NOW When U.S.A. sell F15's/16's to client states those "export 15's/16's don't have the same 1. Avionics 2. Radar systems 3. Electronic Jamming devices that are installed in U.S. F-15's 16's o.k. (You of all people should know this) now GUESS WHAT RUSSIA DOES THE EXACTE SAME THING GUY!! non Russian MiG 29's don't have the same Radar systems nor nor electronic Jamming devices in them, so when U.S.A. went head to head with Iraqi MiG 29's than was Iraqi MiG 29's with "Down Graded Systems" wheather it's Radar or Electronic Jaming systems (including the German MiG's that you Yanks had those exersices with) plus they don't have Russian Dog fighting skills because we ain't gonna give that to them at all, so U.S.A. ain't foght Russian MiG 29's with Russian Radar's/ Russian Electronic Jamming devices, and especially our superb Dog fighting skills those Iraqi MiG 29's AND those German MiG 29's were nothing compared to Russki MiG's o.k. so a little advice when you hear U.S. Military commander's telling "we went head to head with the 29 in Gulf War 1, and we trained and defeated German 29's and we beet them so that proves we're better than the Russians" when you hear stuff like that believe you me what I'm about to tell you kid, "YOUR Military Planner's-Commander's are DILIBERATLY LYING to ALL of you Yanks to make Russia look bad-DILIBERATLY and it's also a subliminal testamony that Russki Generals know when we hear these "CONSTANT" out bursts by U.S. Military that we "RUSSIA" would TOTALY crush U.S.A. in a head on what you Yanks call "CONVENTIONAL" War. P.S. I have read that B.B.C. news article about the MiG shoot down of F-15 on a site the site is down now so I'm now loged in with "Air Forces Monthly" internet site and I asked them for a link to the B.B.C. article so you have to be pateint with them (Air Forces Monthly) to give me the link.

[edit on 2-2-2005 by SiberianTiger]

[edit on 2-2-2005 by SiberianTiger]

Originally posted by Stealth SpyThese comparision, stastical charts of the Mig-29 and F-16 side by side will prove why the mig is better.

Mig 29, F-16 charts

I find it interesting that the chart should omit the bomb tonnage of the F-16. It might, however, have to do with the fact that it can carry 2 tonnes more than the MiG-29/33.
And I really don't see how the MiG is better.
The F-16 has a takeoff weight 3,206kg lower than the MiG, yet it carries 2 tonnes more ordnance.
Speed is lower at altitude, I'll give you that.
It has a longer range at both low-level and operating altitude.
The thrust-to weight ratio is lower. However, upon converting the statistic it gave for thrust, it was at least 1,000lbs off. In addition, the MiG is a twin-engine.
G limit is all the same.
The rate of climb cited in this book I'm looking at here (Modern Military Aircraft Anatomy) is cited as 50,000ft per minute. The statistic cited there, converted, is about 38,000 feet per minute.
Turn rate is lower, but it has been argued that dogfighting is becoming obsolete.
It has a lower RCS.
I'm not sure about this AAM launch range, because it does not give what unit it's in.
The biggest thing, however, is the downtime between failures. The F-16's downtime is significantly lower than both MiG's.
Then there's the 1,000 extra hours you get with the airframe, and the same and lower cost when compared to the 29 and 33, respectively.

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
I've already given a source that talked about exercises between Mig-29's and F-16's. It showed the avionics of the Mig-29 were drastically inferior. And, the F-16 won. The F-18 has also carried out exercises with the Mig-29 and won.

You can't be serious. Fixed "fights" to make your own fighters seem better.
Look, we are requesting hard proof. Not biased information.

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
I've already given a source that talked about exercises between Mig-29's and F-16's. It showed the avionics of the Mig-29 were drastically inferior. And, the F-16 won. The F-18 has also carried out exercises with the Mig-29 and won.

You can't be serious. Fixed "fights" to make your own fighters seem better.
Look, we are requesting hard proof. Not biased information.

Originally posted by Asia Minor

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
I've already given a source that talked about exercises between Mig-29's and F-16's. It showed the avionics of the Mig-29 were drastically inferior. And, the F-16 won. The F-18 has also carried out exercises with the Mig-29 and won.

You can't be serious. Fixed "fights" to make your own fighters seem better.
Look, we are requesting hard proof. Not biased information.

What exactly would it take to satisfy your requirement for proof? It's not enough that the F-16 has dominated it's class in ever combat environment and most excercises it has been a part of?

It's not enough that the Israeli Defense Force's F-16's had a combined combat record of 44-0 against Syria? Or that they were able to penetrate Iraqi airspace when it was one of the most heavily defended places in the world, destroy a nuclear reactor and retreat without loosing a single aircraft?

www.f-16.net...
home.sprynet.com...

Or that the Pakistani Air Force F-16's had 8 kills and 1 loss from Soviet/Afgan pilots? And that 1 loss was likely fratricide...
www.f-16.net...

What more do you want? Can you provide any evidence of combat superiority of the Mig? I didn't think so....