Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Mig 29 better than F-16 ?

page: 15
0
<< 12  13  14   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 11:35 AM
link   
I guess in the court of personal opinion, truth and fact should not be allowed to cloud that opinion. I flew the MiG-29 as an exchange pilot for nearly 3 years with the Luftwaffe. The Germans got more out of the MiG-29 than even the Russians. The German MiG-29s included the non-export version of the radar (NO-19). We hosted the German squadron numerous times in the US and were able to exploit the aircraft down to the last nuts and bolts and last line of software code. The Moldovan jets we bought in 1997 ended up as little more than science experiments and static displays at different USAF bases in the US. They were in pretty sad shape.
To answer a couple of questions; the AA-12 Adder (spelling?) is a missile to be respected and is another part of the fighter pilot's problem to be solved. It does suffer a significant range disadvantage when compared to even the earliest versions of the AMRAAM.
MiG-29 OTV? Why not compare it the the F-16 Multi-Axis Thrust Vectoring test bed from the mid-1990s? The F-16 MATV was capable of everything the OTV is. The issue is that both are technology demonstrators. The USAF was too conservative to buy the $50,000 / 250 pound per aircraft modification for its F-16 fleet. Plus, at least in the maneuverability category, the F-16 MATV was better than the Raptor and the USAF couldn't have anything that did anything better than its new Holy Grail. Is there a long list of customers for the OTV?
The MiG-29 UB is a 2-seat trainer, has no radar and has limited combat capability. Plus it flies like crap!!
The F-16 is not the best slow-speed fighter in the world because of its angle of attack limitations and the fact the aircraft is longitudinally unstable. But I'd take it to the merge against any MiG-29 because it is easier to fly, is more precise, has better visibility and can sustain higher turn rates than the MiG-29. Plus, the F-16 enjoys a better thrus-to-weight ratio and accelerates much better than the Fulcrum. The MiG-29 isn't bad in these areas, the F-16 is better. I've even had the opportunity to dogfight the Su-27 Flanker (in an F-16) and beat it everytime because the F-16 was more maneuverable. F-15 pilots I know who have flown against the Flanker beat it with maneuverability and the AIM-9X / Helemt-Mounted Cueing System combination and maneuverability.
I know the armchair video game pilots won't be swayed by the facts, That's a personal problem. The MiG-29 is not a bad airplane, the simple truth is that the F-16 is better. I went to Germany with huge expectations about the Russian 'Superfighter'. I was disappointed (but I had fun regardless).
'Nuff said, over and out!




posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by fulcrumflyer
To answer a couple of questions; the AA-12 Adder (spelling?) is a missile to be respected and is another part of the fighter pilot's problem to be solved. It does suffer a significant range disadvantage when compared to even the earliest versions of the AMRAAM.


Are you sure about that?IMO the Amraamski gives any american BVR missile a run for its money.


I've even had the opportunity to dogfight the Su-27 Flanker (in an F-16) and beat it everytime because the F-16 was more maneuverable. F-15 pilots I know who have flown against the Flanker beat it with maneuverability and the AIM-9X / Helemt-Mounted Cueing System combination and maneuverability.

And which Su-27s were these? Some sorry former soviet- breakaway if I'm not mistaken. Russian a/c are heavily uinder rated because their training regime is not good enough. Plus they do not infuse foreign tech/innovation into their systems. However this doesn't mean that the a/c they export are not tweaked to their max abilities (and beyond) when exported(not Germany).
Infact its been proven that certain countries can fly a/c better than the countries that invented them.Israel is a case in point.

EDIT: Yes the UB is a trainer, what was I thinking, I meant the
MiG-29B/S/M2

[edit on 8-1-2006 by Daedalus3]


jra

posted on Jan, 8 2006 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by fulcrumflyer
MiG-29 OTV? Why not compare it the the F-16 Multi-Axis Thrust Vectoring test bed from the mid-1990s? The F-16 MATV was capable of everything the OTV is. The issue is that both are technology demonstrators.


I believe MiG-29 OVT is being put into production under the MiG-35 designation, and will be offered for export. So it isn't just a technology demonstrator.



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 12:47 AM
link   
well I've uploaded MiG-29OVT video here:www.youtube.com...



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 03:02 AM
link   
reply to post by fulcrumflyer
 


fulcrumflyer, I’m very interested in your hands on experience in both Falcon and Fulcrum, and I’m hoping you can share some info with us.

Qs on the Fulcrum - What is the main role of the MiG-29, what does a front line fighter concept mean and how is it deployed, how does a modular engine assembly differ conventional mounting, what is modular field maintenance, how does Fulcrums role and deployment differs from F-16s multi-role “jack-of-all trades” modifications, what can you tell us about joint IRST/pulse auto guns trigger FCS in CAC, what is the scramble take of run from unpaved runway, at what speeds do gills open and close, what are the mandatory procedures for the gills bleed veins in various weather conditions, what is the full rearm/refuel turn around time, how much of the pain is it for the ground crews to do maintenance of the RDs and how long does it take to swap out both engines, bleed and re-pressurize the hydraulic systems (including redundant bypasses), is it true that there is a manual override for horizon hold and stall auto recovery, is it true that RD-33, RD-93 and RD-333 are designed to run dirty multi-fuel mixes including winter blends, and that’s why they trail when they run on dirt?


“We hosted the German squadron numerous times in the US and were able to exploit the aircraft down to the last nuts and bolts and last line of software code.”


This one is of particular interest to me. How did the ground crews get around electronic/software bookmarks which force exponential radar/FCS/Lazur/DRLO lag when the systems are not inspected and serviced by Soviet/Russian technicians?

What is the electronic bookmark hibernation period before Zhuk lag gets so bad that FCS fails to interpret the data and can only use IRST for proof positive target locks?

What is the percentage of false target locks do you get with bookmark activated FCS and what is the time cycle period?

What were those bookmarks, were they hardwired into memory banks or processing feed junctions, and were they activated by software code counters or hardware time shift correction modules?

How much did those memory modules really weigh, and are they really EM shielded, armored and enabled with redundancy auto switching modules?

What can you tell me about the numerical input panel on the right hand console, and what kind of buttons did the Fulcrum you flew had? What was the common problem with those buttons and what procedures did pilots had to follow in order to prevent malfunction?

I have more questions, but I’ll appreciate if you can help me with the ones I already posed.

Thanks in advance!



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 10:11 PM
link   
Stop comparing apples to oranges.

MiG-29 has nothing in common with the F-16, and both were designed for different purposes.

Just because they “seem” to be in the same class and stand as potential adversaries in the skies, comparing them with out tracing their actual lineage and generational development stages is utterly useless.

I can’t believe that to this day, the very BASIC classification of MiG-29 as a FRONT LINE FIGHTER is completely misunderstood and overlooked by Western ideology.

I’m sick and tired or reading the same old stereotypical TV propaganda useless crap and blatant disinformation even on the basic of facts about both of these aircraft, and sadly it only shows the degradation of ATS board in general.

Let me make an example.


F-16 was better. It had longer range and was more universal than Mig-29


Until ATS members simply read and understand what a FRONT LINE FIGHTER is, all such discussions are simply useless, because it will always end in fruitless attempts of comparing gasoline and diesel powered vehicles with out understanding the difference between them.

F-16 is NOT a front line fighter, MiG-29 is, and until everybody here gets up to speed on what it means, feel free to dilute yourselves further.

Then feel free to chat about P-51D Mustang that finally made it to the air war when it was already over by 1944, and try to compare it 109s or Yaks, or how about comparing a steam train to a steam boat while at it.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 02:20 AM
link   
Well the comparisions are but natural and inevitable, but not because we arm chair generals tend to pit these two against each other due to our lack of knowledge in their roles; but because the comparisions have been made by real time military strategists, fighter pilots and procurement bodies of various AFs having either both choices(F-16 or MiG-29) or having one of them as a foe and/or the other in their inventory.

I wrote a very big post on this only the have my PC bail out on me when I was about to submit it.

Nonetheless here's the jist:

The procurement of F-16(blk 15 nontheless) by the PAF in the early 1980s prompted a panic buy by the IAF.. and what did they buy?
Well to counter the F-16 in a pure aerial role they bought the MiG-29. They also bought some Mirage 2000s but that purchase had multiple reasons and that was obvious sine the Mirage 2000 was indeed a true multi role a/c.

There was intense questioning and querying by military analysts, strategists and indeed fighter pilots themselves on how these two would fare against each other. They were of course bought to counter the other, no doubt about that.
I have read instances of Dutch F-16 pilots conducting face-to-face convos with IAF MiG29A pilots at military schools in Europe to just find out what this MiG 29 was all about.

I believe there were some MiG 29 vs F-16 encounter in the Gulf War I, and all ended in favour of the F-16. People have stated that the lopsided nature of these encounters were due to multiple peripheral factors that gave the F-16(and all coalition a/c) an immense advantage over Iraqi MiG29s et al.

There were some brief encounters of F-16s and MiG 23s (another reported analogous foe of the F-16) at the end of the Soviet Afghan war. The MiG23 pilots were experienced Soviets(VVS) and the F-16 drivers were PAF pilots, no less skilled. These encounters ended in no kills, except one strange fratricide incident(PAF F-16 on F-16). The soviets never claimed an MiG23 soruced F-16 kill outright, but they weren't too convinced with the fratricide version given by the PAF as well.
One must note that these encounters were pursued by soviet pilots stationed in Afghanistan who were aching for their very own first F-16 kill after hearing numerous reports of Iraqi MiG23s downing Iranian F-4s,F-5s and F-14s even.
The PAF F-16s on the other hand had until then ridiculed the Soviet backed Afghan Air Force by regularly shooting Soviet supplied Su-22s, MiG 21s and Su-25s with the then new AIM-9P.

Then there have been reported encounters (BVR only) of IAF MiG-29Cs and
PAF F-16s(blk 15) during the Kargil war.
IAF MiG 29s were flying CAS for MiG-27s, MiG21s and Mirage 2000s which in turn were pounding troop positions entrenched in high bunkers.
All IAF sorties were conducted within the Indian border, but the PAF flew their own CAP on the Pak side just in case snything were to stray over.
Here the MiG 29s had a clear advantage over the 1st gen PAF F-16s being fitted with BVR capable radar(Zhuk-M) and missiles(R-27,R-77).
IAF MiG 29 pilots claimed multiple 'lock-ons' on PAF F-16s with their BVR goodies even though each type of a/c remained 10s of km away from the other and that too on their respective sides of the border.

Finally I seen a bunch of videos on youtube about the MiG 29.. they're in Russian unfortunately..They seem to be very informative and IIRC, the video itself makes many references to the US F-16 while explaining the MiG 29 story.
IF someone could translate those videos for us, I would be glad to direct him/her to them. I feel them to be quite interesting.



Summary: These aircraft have been compared for a number of reasons and they will continue to be compared.. by laymen and by those who know their stuff as well.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 06:37 AM
link   
In any war over europe the fulcrum would have been the dominant player as in the furball it had a HMCS.

BVR it wouldn't have been so great, but it would have been extremely hard for either side to maintain the fight at BVR distances for any length of time.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Daedalus3
 



Finally I seen a bunch of videos on youtube about the MiG 29.. they're in Russian unfortunately..They seem to be very informative and IIRC, the video itself makes many references to the US F-16 while explaining the MiG 29 story.
IF someone could translate those videos for us, I would be glad to direct him/her to them. I feel them to be quite interesting.


Give me the links and I’ll see what I can do to translate. Text is one thing but speech s another.

As for comparisons, Fulcrum is NOT a strand alone design. In order to even begin to make any kind of assessment, the history of Russian Great Patriotic War has to be addressed, and how VVS fought the Luftwaffe, because to this day Russian air force faces the same issues as back then.

The biggest problem is the VAST territory to control, and naturally the fluidity of the front lines.

To make it simple, Russians always seem to categories and then develop purpose specific designs, and do so to this day.

WWII Russia fighters/interceptors.

Fastest/highest alt interceptor of 1941 – MiG-1/MiG-3.

Until the very end of the war MiG-1/3 had the highest kill to loss ratio of ALL Soviet fighters all while being sent on dangerous and specific missions.

Yaks – light, water cooled, extremely maneuverable FRONT LINE FIGHTER, which through out the war “hopped” from one airfield to another as the front line moved back and forth.

LaGG-3 a failed attempt to manufacture a true fighter out of laminated wood do to shortages of strategic materials, but it did lay down the foundation for the greatest work horse of the war, LA-5.

LA-5 – extremely rugged, radial powered fighter/interceptor with heavy firepower, good range and ability to take tremendous damage and still make it to home base.

Anybody sees a pattern here?

MiG-1/3 = Su-9/11/15/ MiG-25/31

Yak 1/7/9/3 = MiG-9/La-15/MiG-15/19/21/23/29

LA5/FN/7/11/ = SU-27

MiG-29 is a Front line fighter, and in order to understand what Russian requirements for a FLF is, one has to look back in history and find out how they did it in WWII.

Another clear example is the La-15 and its La-168 La-176 variants, which completely outperformed the MiG-15, but because they was more complex and difficult to manufacture, less performing MiG-15 was chosen.

La-15 entered limited service in 1949, and in December of 1948, La-176 became the first combat ready supersonic fighter in horizontal flight. No kidding.

Horizontal Mach 1.02 was achieved by pilot I.E.Fedorov, in a FULLY LOADED La-176 which is armed with twin 23mm cannons plus a single 37mm cannon.

See how interesting History can be? In 1948 we have our Chuck Yeager in experimental, bomber launched rocket powered X-1 reaching Mach 1.07, same year Soviets have their history with Fedorovs combat ready Mach 1.02 La-176, and the Germans have their Hans Guido Mutke that broke the sound barrier while diving in Me 262 all the way back in April 9 of 1945.

It’s just how it is, and when comparing something as complicated as fighters, it is VITAL to understand the whole history behind the entire topic.

For example, with just a little looking into, one will quickly find out that Russians do not always built the bet that they can, and more often then not they build with just enough to do the job.

La-176 verses MiG-15 is a good starting point, Kalashnikov verses Korobov is another example, and so on with EVERY single type of military equipment.

While Western propaganda conditioned our minds to think that Soviet/Russian industry stupidly stamps out cheap crap in massive numbers in order to simply outnumber the West, the reality is that Soviet/Russian design beuros were ALWAYS in fierce competition withy each other and the winner was announced only after exhausting field testing and trials.

At the same time the winners were not always the best performers, and if the absolute edge was not necessary, Soviets/Russians never hesitated to sacrifices a bit of performance for ease and lower price of manufacture.

Absolutely the same principle applies to MiG-29. Yes it’s radar is weaker then its counterparts, but not because Russians were not able to make a better one, its because it was cheaper to make in MASS quantities required for FLF. Fulcrum did not have a full FBW, it had a HYBRID system which was cheaper to produce, and at the same time could absorb massive damage from enemy fire.

For the Fulcrum system survivability is crucial because being a FLF it meant that it was going to take the brunt of the battle.

It is a fact that Fulcrums RD-33s exhaust left smoke trails, but that’s because they can burn what Russians call “dirt”, or lower grade kerosene and not pure jet fuel.

That ability is absolutely vital because on the front lines a steady supply of clean jet fuel simply can not be guaranteed, and in order to stay operational sacrifices need to be made.

With RD-33s those sacrifices are shorter life span and unavoidable smoke trail when burning dirt. Notice though, even on YouTube you’ll find plenty of clips where Fulcrums are not leaving a smoke trail, and that’s because they are burning clean fuel, it’s that simple.

Fulcrums maintenance is said to be a total nightmare, and that was said by Western techs that got to the Fulcrums after 1991.

On the contrary, just as with most Soviet equipment, Fulcrums maintenance is incredibly simple, yank out the broken part/unit and replace it with a factory fresh one.

Field maintenance is ENGENEERED into the total design, and that means easy and fast access to entire systems so they can be totally swapped out with new ones, instead of having to perform complicated rebuild/repair under enemy fire.

Fulcrums engine housings are designed to allow for a full swap with in 30 minutes. That’s the point, burn the engines out, tear it out, push in new ones, throw the bird back into the air and send the spent engines back to the factory for a total rebuild.

At the same time, Soviets/Russians traditionally and purposefully over engineered and underrated tolerance thresholds of everything they built.

If a gear is supposed to operate at 100% stress level for its calculated life span, they built it to hold 150% stress level with additional 30% life span.

“Kit it up” in the field is another Soviet/Russian favorite. They engineer the basis with an ability to kit it up if necessary.

Soviets have been doing it this was since WWII, it’s so simple, and I just can’t get why people spend their time arguing about such elemental things with out taking a minute or two to flip back a few pages of history.

Back in WWII typical water cooled Soviet fighter engine resource was only 50 hours. Why? Because they opted for swapping the entire engine for a new one rather then wasting time on keeping a napkin clean maintenance shop simply because they might be overrun by German ground forces over the night.

How did they swap it? By sending in the ENTIRE fighter to be safely overhauled in the factory, and that’s why Soviet fighters didn’t have distinctive markings on them. The pilots replaced their fighters so often they didn’t even bother to paint their kill marks. Sometimes they painted a squadron strip, that’s about it.

Why did they send the entire fighter? Because other then required overhauls, fresh pilots had a chance to safely pick up some solo flight hours after basic training.

I can’t stand when people attempt to compare war machines like a family sedan to a pickup truck. This one got cup holders, but this one got bigger tires.

War is a matter of survival, not cup holders and tire size, and unless somebody knows what survival mode is, they’ll never understand how one has to think to survive.

I’ll put it in my own way, and I will not hide my resentment for the Falcon because it lost more pilots in failure crashes then to enemy fire.

To me MiG-29 is just like the AK-47. Both with very clear designed purpose. Simple, rugged, crude, out there to get in your face and kill you while knee deep in the mud of war.

To my knowledge and correct me if I’m wrong, not a single Fulcrum pilot died in failure/ejection crash.

F-16 to me is exactly like the M-16. Unnecessary “high tech” bells and whistles / flash and glitter, unclear “interim” mission parameters which are continuously “redefined” and “adjusted”, delicate, fussy “clean freaks”, kills you instead of the enemy by breaking down when you need it most, and in all cases repeatedly over hyped in order to cover up the never ending string of massive failures.

I remember how the Phantom pilots were tearing out their “warning” receivers because they were randomly and constantly whining bussing and flashing and only ending up in distracting the pilot from that obsolete MiG-19 that’s rapidly climbing up his tail and already lining up his guns.

Just my two cents, as usual.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Daedalus3
 



Finally I seen a bunch of videos on youtube about the MiG 29.. they're in Russian unfortunately..They seem to be very informative and IIRC, the video itself makes many references to the US F-16 while explaining the MiG 29 story.
IF someone could translate those videos for us, I would be glad to direct him/her to them. I feel them to be quite interesting.


Give me the links and I’ll see what I can do to translate. Text is one thing but speech s another.

As for comparisons, Fulcrum is NOT a strand alone design. In order to even begin to make any kind of assessment, the history of Russian Great Patriotic War has to be addressed, and how VVS fought the Luftwaffe, because to this day Russian air force faces the same issues as back then.

The biggest problem is the VAST territory to control, and naturally the fluidity of the front lines.

To make it simple, Russians always seem to categories and then develop purpose specific designs, and do so to this day.

WWII Russia fighters/interceptors.

Fastest/highest alt interceptor of 1941 – MiG-1/MiG-3.

Until the very end of the war MiG-1/3 had the highest kill to loss ratio of ALL Soviet fighters all while being sent on dangerous and specific missions.

Yaks – light, water cooled, extremely maneuverable FRONT LINE FIGHTER, which through out the war “hopped” from one airfield to another as the front line moved back and forth.

LaGG-3 a failed attempt to manufacture a true fighter out of laminated wood do to shortages of strategic materials, but it did lay down the foundation for the greatest work horse of the war, LA-5.

LA-5 – extremely rugged, radial powered fighter/interceptor with heavy firepower, good range and ability to take tremendous damage and still make it to home base.

Anybody sees a pattern here?

MiG-1/3 = Su-9/11/15/ MiG-25/31

Yak 1/7/9/3 = MiG-9/La-15/MiG-15/19/21/23/29

LA5/FN/7/11/ = SU-27

MiG-29 is a Front line fighter, and in order to understand what Russian requirements for a FLF is, one has to look back in history and find out how they did it in WWII.

Another clear example is the La-15 and its La-168 La-176 variants, which completely outperformed the MiG-15, but because they was more complex and difficult to manufacture, less performing MiG-15 was chosen.

La-15 entered limited service in 1949, and in December of 1948, La-176 became the first combat ready supersonic fighter in horizontal flight. No kidding.

Horizontal Mach 1.02 was achieved by pilot I.E.Fedorov, in a FULLY LOADED La-176 which is armed with twin 23mm cannons plus a single 37mm cannon.

See how interesting History can be? In 1948 we have our Chuck Yeager in experimental, bomber launched rocket powered X-1 reaching Mach 1.07, same year Soviets have their history with Fedorovs combat ready Mach 1.02 La-176, and the Germans have their Hans Guido Mutke that broke the sound barrier while diving in Me 262 all the way back in April 9 of 1945.

It’s just how it is, and when comparing something as complicated as fighters, it is VITAL to understand the whole history behind the entire topic.

For example, with just a little looking into, one will quickly find out that Russians do not always built the bet that they can, and more often then not they build with just enough to do the job.

La-176 verses MiG-15 is a good starting point, Kalashnikov verses Korobov is another example, and so on with EVERY single type of military equipment.

While Western propaganda conditioned our minds to think that Soviet/Russian industry stupidly stamps out cheap crap in massive numbers in order to simply outnumber the West, the reality is that Soviet/Russian design beuros were ALWAYS in fierce competition withy each other and the winner was announced only after exhausting field testing and trials.

At the same time the winners were not always the best performers, and if the absolute edge was not necessary, Soviets/Russians never hesitated to sacrifices a bit of performance for ease and lower price of manufacture.

Absolutely the same principle applies to MiG-29. Yes it’s radar is weaker then its counterparts, but not because Russians were not able to make a better one, its because it was cheaper to make in MASS quantities required for FLF. Fulcrum did not have a full FBW, it had a HYBRID system which was cheaper to produce, and at the same time could absorb massive damage from enemy fire.

For the Fulcrum system survivability is crucial because being a FLF it meant that it was going to take the brunt of the battle.

It is a fact that Fulcrums RD-33s exhaust left smoke trails, but that’s because they can burn what Russians call “dirt”, or lower grade kerosene and not pure jet fuel.

That ability is absolutely vital because on the front lines a steady supply of clean jet fuel simply can not be guaranteed, and in order to stay operational sacrifices need to be made.

With RD-33s those sacrifices are shorter life span and unavoidable smoke trail when burning dirt. Notice though, even on YouTube you’ll find plenty of clips where Fulcrums are not leaving a smoke trail, and that’s because they are burning clean fuel, it’s that simple.

Fulcrums maintenance is said to be a total nightmare, and that was said by Western techs that got to the Fulcrums after 1991.

On the contrary, just as with most Soviet equipment, Fulcrums maintenance is incredibly simple, yank out the broken part/unit and replace it with a factory fresh one.

Field maintenance is ENGENEERED into the total design, and that means easy and fast access to entire systems so they can be totally swapped out with new ones, instead of having to perform complicated rebuild/repair under enemy fire.

Fulcrums engine housings are designed to allow for a full swap with in 30 minutes. That’s the point, burn the engines out, tear it out, push in new ones, throw the bird back into the air and send the spent engines back to the factory for a total rebuild.

At the same time, Soviets/Russians traditionally and purposefully over engineered and underrated tolerance thresholds of everything they built.

If a gear is supposed to operate at 100% stress level for its calculated life span, they built it to hold 150% stress level with additional 30% life span.

“Kit it up” in the field is another Soviet/Russian favorite. They engineer the basis with an ability to kit it up if necessary.

Soviets have been doing it this was since WWII, it’s so simple, and I just can’t get why people spend their time arguing about such elemental things with out taking a minute or two to flip back a few pages of history.

Back in WWII typical water cooled Soviet fighter engine resource was only 50 hours. Why? Because they opted for swapping the entire engine for a new one rather then wasting time on keeping a napkin clean maintenance shop simply because they might be overrun by German ground forces over the night.

How did they swap it? By sending in the ENTIRE fighter to be safely overhauled in the factory, and that’s why Soviet fighters didn’t have distinctive markings on them. The pilots replaced their fighters so often they didn’t even bother to paint their kill marks. Sometimes they painted a squadron strip, that’s about it.

Why did they send the entire fighter? Because other then required overhauls, fresh pilots had a chance to safely pick up some solo flight hours after basic training.

I can’t stand when people attempt to compare war machines like a family sedan to a pickup truck. This one got cup holders, but this one got bigger tires.

War is a matter of survival, not cup holders and tire size, and unless somebody knows what survival mode is, they’ll never understand how one has to think to survive.

I’ll put it in my own way, and I will not hide my resentment for the Falcon because it lost more pilots in failure crashes then to enemy fire.

To me MiG-29 is just like the AK-47. Both with very clear designed purpose. Simple, rugged, crude, out there to get in your face and kill you while knee deep in the mud of war.

To my knowledge and correct me if I’m wrong, not a single Fulcrum pilot died in failure/ejection crash.

F-16 to me is exactly like the M-16. Unnecessary “high tech” bells and whistles / flash and glitter, unclear “interim” mission parameters which are continuously “redefined” and “adjusted”, delicate, fussy “clean freaks”, kills you instead of the enemy by breaking down when you need it most, and in all cases repeatedly over hyped in order to cover up the never ending string of massive failures.

I remember how the Phantom pilots were tearing out their “warning” receivers because they were randomly and constantly whining bussing and flashing and only ending up in distracting the pilot from that obsolete MiG-19 that’s rapidly climbing up his tail and already lining up his guns.

Just my two cents, as usual.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 02:13 AM
link   
The vidoes:

A Three Part:






Another Two Part:



And erm.. in the early 90s, the IAF is reported to have had a maintenance nightmare with the MiG29As..
I'm not sure what happened and why, but there was a lot of friction around the operationalization of this a/c at that time.

EDIT: Another thing.. MiG29A pilots (atleast in the IAF) were very confident about the superiority of their ECM and RW capabilities as opposed to the blk 15 PAF F-16s. Its something that I've read about(or heard) a long time back and I thought it relevant.

[edit on 6-1-2008 by Daedalus3]



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 02:20 AM
link   
btw .. what happened to Fulcrumflyer?
I wanted to get to know about these USAF mock encounters with Su-27s.. when did that happen?



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 05:12 AM
link   
Thanks for the clips!


And erm.. in the early 90s, the IAF is reported to have had a maintenance nightmare with the MiG29As..
I'm not sure what happened and why, but there was a lot of friction around the operationalization of this a/c at that time.


A whole boat of problems here. Soviet maintenance philosophy focused on quick servicing for the fastest turn around time possible, so while main systems are easily accessible and can be removed in no time at all, getting further gets increasingly complicated and frustrating.

To Western techs things will very quickly look illogical and backwards, because entire modules have to be broken apart and disassembled in order to replace a simple part or get to a valve and so on.

Again the reasons are the same, having learned the lessons of WWII Soviets knew all to well that a safe shop is a luxury war does not allow, and opted to engineer their systems for very easy basic filed maintenance, short service live and then a full rebuild at the factory.

The second major issue is electronics maintenance. Soviets/Russians use hardware and programming “bookmarks”, which sabotage/degrade systems performance if not regularly serviced by dedicated Soviet personnel.

It’s a political safety measure, in order to retain control over weaponry provided to prospected allies. It the other party decides to break the agreement, their newly acquired equipment will quickly degrade into a useless heap of metal.

A perfect example is what happened to Iranian F-14s. It’s not just the issue of parts. Any part can be reverse engineered and copied, but it’s the “bookmarks” that do not allow the systems to operate properly.

Just like previous generations MiG-29 was designed with export in mind and numerous electronic/programming “bookmarks” were built into its systems.

All Warsaw Pact countries that flew Fulcrums had regular visits from Soviet technicians, and they were the ones that were resetting and monitoring such “bookmarks”.

After 1991 those “visits” stopped, and while Fulcrums operated as usual, FCS, radar, and comm. System began to show processing lag time, thus severely degrading total effectiveness.

Target acquisition, tracking, processing, IFF, assignment, datalink, commc, etc, slowed down to a crawl, and when Western analysts got their hands on the functioning Fulcrums, they were testing already “faded” units.

Further more, such bookmarks can be activated remotely by CGI controller in case of defection. Radar, FCS, navigation, etc will simply switch off, and auto ejection will be activated, and FBW enabled aircraft will put them selves into a dive.

While Fulcrum does not have a full GCI control, it has remote throttle/fuel pump control, and in case of defection the fuel feed is switched off.

In order to bypass/disengage all of these systems an entire maintenance factory floor and its management had to be involved, so it’s not as easy as it was shown in “FireFox”.

Such measures were a basic necessity not only because of fear of defections, but unpredictable health related problems and even pilot hypnosis/poising attempts.

Let’s say a pilot passed out, was poisoned or had a heart failure, autopilot malfunctioned and the bird flew and crashed in enemy territory. In order to prevent it obvious measures were engineered into the very core of major systems.

Again Russians learned that lesson in WWII when they were loosing their fighters to the Germans, which organized special training camps, where they kept captured Soviet pilots, and forced them to fly captured and unarmed Soviet fighters to train their own pilots.

So attempting to judge true capabilities of Fulcrum that were exported in the 20th century is rather useless, because their systems will suffer from serious data processing delay.


EDIT: Another thing.. MiG29A pilots (atleast in the IAF) were very confident about the superiority of their ECM and RW capabilities as opposed to the blk 15 PAF F-16s. Its something that I've read about(or heard) a long time back and I thought it relevant.


As an FLF, MiG-29 is designed to operate out to only 100 kilometers from its own base, so its short range is not an issue and its onboard systems get plenty of juice. Fulcrums’ ECM is built in and integrated by design. I can’t remember the output of Fulcrum generators, but its way out there for a small fighter.

Much larger Su-27 does not have a built in ECM and when needed carries external Sorbtsiya pods. ECM eats power, power hungry gear reduces range. Flanker is built for range, while Fulcrum is a hopper.

Basically MiG-31 is the top dog with the biggest stick, Flanker is a hunter killer, and Fulcrum is a knife fighter.

Fulcrum is vectored to where it’s told to engage, throw its sticks and scram back to base. Strong ECM announces your presence and messes everybody up, and is used actively to suppress SAM sites when on strike missions. In air-to-air combat ECM is used when you got pegged first, and even then HOJ/AJ will put a dent in your day.

Fulcrums hunt in packs, with radars off and IRSTs scanning where AWACS/GCI DRLO link directs them to. MFD actually displays target info, and all the pilot sneaks up on his target with out giving up his presence/position.

When in range, the long sticks are first to go to force the target into defensive posture, and if necessary the merge will already be from a favorable position.

In the merge superior agility and higher AOA, helmet mounted “Shlem” target designator and the yet to be beaten AA-11 finishes the job.

From there its full burner, countermeasures, strong ECM, and heading for home. All this happens in a coordinated ambush type of an encounter, and surviving targets are spread out, out of position and in low energy state, there to be picked off BVR either by Flankers or Foxhounds that were watching the entire ordeal from high above.

Fulcrum is NOT a free spirited bird that roams the skies in a hunt for its pray, it’s an up close and personal assassin that gets “walked” to where its victim is.

VVS means multi-layer defense.

From ground up;

Fulcrum
Flanker
Foxhound

Some called it “F”pack. All there’s to it.

We kind of had the same thing but never on the same level.

F-16
F-18
F-15
F-14

Tomcat is gone, F-16 is a disaster in my opinion, because what could have been a great bird was turned into a jack of all trades which ended up being mediocre in any one thing, F-15 is an absolutely excellent bird but in a total picture it stands alone, F-18 is an aerodynamic disaster but it was necessary since neither the Falcon nor the Eagle could survive harsh Navy life, Tomcat was a marvel in its own, but by the natural law of evolution it was eclipsed by the Foxhound and retired.

So the Russian concept had 3 types of fighter/interceptor aircraft which all worked together in one network, while we had a super star quarterback, (the Tomcat), hot shot jock (the Eagle), the geek-of-all trades (Falcon), and a run-of-the mill workhorse (Hornet.)

Now our F-15s are growing old, F-16s are not selling anymore and completely exhausted their design potential, even the Australians don’t want the SuperHornet, and out next gen is a never ending controversy of budget overruns, major manufacturing failures and ever extending deadlines.

Say what you may, but I loved the Avro Arrow, Grumman X-29, Rockwell X-31 and even the F-5.

Compared to these true wonders of Western technology, only F-15 comes somewhat close to what we could have flying now. Instead we were sold on the “stealth” bluff, while not thinking that while we like to play poker for fun, others play chess to survive.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by iskander
 


I believe the issue was that what you say above was in effect true, but when sold the MiG-29A, the IAF was assured that whatever was provided was sufficient to keep high servicable rates(70%+) for the a/c.
However the extreme converse happened and servicability for the newly inducted fighter dropped to 25%.
This was a major issue esp since the MiG-29A was itself a panic buy to counter the F-16A/Bs in the PAF.
Now whether the Soviets couldn't provide enough assistance due to their internal turmoil issues in the early 90s or the issues were due to lack of co-od/comm between the two countries, who knows..



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Daedalus3
 



Now whether the Soviets couldn't provide enough assistance due to their internal turmoil issues in the early 90s or the issues were due to lack of co-od/comm between the two countries, who knows..


All that I attribute to politics. It did not matter which ex-Warsaw country played ball and which did not, Fulcrums were designed to be used hard and then replaced with a fresh, fully overhauled unit, so while its construction was extremely rugged (12G load), its designed war time service life was very short, just as with EVERY Soviet Front Line Fighter since WWII.

Actually Russians don not refer to Fulcrum as having a fuselage, since the lifting body design was entirely new, the official classification was just “body”.



posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by longbow
 
the f-16 has better technology in it than the mig29 and is easier to fly and some fighter jets have govenors to restrict the amount of speed and angle of attack for pilots dont get killed from so much gs



posted on Dec, 5 2008 @ 12:17 AM
link   
So in other words the Russians sold a bunch of lemons. Lets put this in laimens terms and use cars as an example. Say you bought a fleet of SUV's from comrade car dealer.They all work great. Then he goes out of business and the weekly visits from his techs to push the secret reset button (bookmarks) stop. Shortly after that it starts taking three minutes to roll down the windows, and only three out of 4 work any more, the radio only picks up every other station, the trunk wont open, your headlights only work on Tuesday, etc.etc., until you end having to cannibalize 4 to keep one working, and barely at that.
For an aircraft "designed with export in mind" , doesn't seem like they did a very good job of that.
Purpose specific design philosophy, "front line fighter","High Alt Interceptor" talking about understanding the history of Russian Purpose specific design philosophy, and a2a tactics. There's one thing that seems to have gotten missed, which is an utterly drastic change from soviet block era design, production, and maintenance philosophies of build it quick, cheap, easy to fix, and build them by the tens of thousands.
These are their first true "High Tech" fighters, and have some serious flaws.

Which is better than the other?........ hmmmmm........
Wouldn't a true answer to that question come from head to head competition. Regardless of what roll each was intended to perform, it comes down to the fact that these aircraft have met in a2a combat.
F-16s and F-15s having shot down over 130 Mig29s with ZERO losses.
Whether these losses were due to a lack of combat preparedness, poorly trained crews (both air and ground), in my opinion a combination of both, shouldn't that be entered into consideration.

Don't think of them as which plane is cooler. These are weapons systems, to be used in concert with many other facets of an integrated battlefield management system. One has proven itself to be exceptional with a near perfect success rate, and another which could be described as shakey at best.
So decide which is best if you wish, but always keep this in mind.
These are instruments of death.
Their sole purpose of existence is to terminate human life.
When you think about it from that perspective it makes the petty bickering seem pretty ridiculous .

[edit on 5/12/08 by Jbird]



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 02:33 AM
link   
If you are still interested in this topic, I will invite you to watch this video at 03:21 ~ 03:25
MiG-29 impressive turn



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Asia Minor
It is simply common knowledge that the MiG Fulcrum is a better fighter. Better radar, targeting system overall avionics. There is no comparison. Legendary fighter versus overhyped junk. this topic is silly as everyone knows the answer. There is no logical deabte


Really? Up to current date, two MiG-29 have been shot down by F-16, with no losses.

Here are the engagements:

24.03.1999 F-16AM (Holland) - 1 x MiG-29 (Serbia)
4.05.1999 F-16CJ (USAF) - 1 x MiG-29 (Serbia)





new topics




 
0
<< 12  13  14   >>

log in

join