I never liked the F-16 becasue of its short legs and single engine, in fact the Falcon was accepted as the desgin of choice even tho it did not meet the design specifications to begin with. I don't know if it is true anymore, but it used to be that if n F-16 lost engine power it only has about 10 seconds of hydrolic power before it controls lock up

The Mig is also an all weather craft unlike the F-16.
The Mig has better range
The Mig is faster (bot not by much)
The Mig has a higher ceiling
The Mig has a better climb rate
The Mig has a a 30mm cannon compared to the F-16s 20mm Vulcan
The Mig has 2 engines

With eqully trained pilots in a 1v1 head on encounter my money is on the MiG just on the comparisons of the craft

[edit on 15-1-2005 by Jehosephat]

I'd personally take a Blk 52-60 Viper before I'd go for a Mig-29. It's beyond combat proven. And it's systems are arguably superior to even the SMT version of the '29. Especially with the new IR system and the JHMCS... That isn't to say that the SMT isn't a beast and shouldn’t be taken seriously...

I never liked the F-16 becasue of its short legs and single engine, in fact the Falcon was accepted as the desgin of choice even tho it did not meet the design specifications to begin with.

Hm, so the notorious '29 claims the longer legs? I don’t think so!
The F-16 was designs as a extremely fast WVR knife fighter. Before it was even given the go ahead for production the requirements changed. The only reason for the mix-up at first was because the USAF didn’t want the F-16 to steal some of the F-15s production thunder.

The Mig is also an all weather craft unlike the F-16.

Please tell me you are kidding.

The Mig has better range

Please, are you joking?

The Mig is faster (bot not by much)

And? By the time he hits operating altitude he is in fear of bingo.

The Mig has a higher ceiling

It's a low altitude fighter... Nothing to it's advantage and certainly a combat loaded one would reach nearly that altitude.

The Mig has a better climb rate

What are we doing? Playing time-to-climb games?
Once again its a low-medium altitude light fighter.

The Mig has a a 30mm cannon compared to the F-16s 20mm Vulcan

Too bad the '29 pilot wont have time to use it as an HMS slaved Aim-9x will put it out of order.

The Mig has 2 engines

Yep, 2 very hungry engines to further shorten its already embarrassing range.

hmm so the Su-30mki has been proven to be better then f-15c
and now Mig-29 is better then an f-16?

I don't completely believe it but the numbers speak for themselves. Even though F-16 has a better record, you have to keep in mind that the US pilots get far more airtime then any other air force in the world. With the same pilot training, one fully equipped f-16 vs. a fully equipped and upgraded mig-29, i'll honestly put my money on the MIG.

Man, I could only dream that they had like battlebots style wars between jets. That'd be such a dream come true!

Originally posted by ChrisRT
Translated: NO, YOUR SO WRONG!

Well at least you go do is give my solid proof of why I am wrong instead of just point out I am wrong. I mainly looked at the specs of the 2 planes and compared them.

Tho I really dont understand why you bring missiles to a comparison of internal Guns, thats like bringing a gun to a knife fight, and ignore the fact the other has a gun too.

A MiG-29 will definetly win a dogfight,but BVR? here I think it will be 1.5 MiG-29s lost for every F-16. The F-16 is made inferior to the MiG-29 in terms of technology,but a good old AAMRAAM or Sidewinder with the latest radar will take it out.

the MiG isn't a pushover for the F-16 tho that is for sure. Like all planes it has its limitations and drawbacks.. but that is what every fighter pilots needs to learn about any craft they'll face

No, the F-16 doesn't overwhelm a Mig, but it is constistantly better. If American F-16 and Migs had gone at it over the skies of Europe, the F-16's, and America, would have had air superiority.

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
No, the F-16 doesn't overwhelm a Mig, but it is constistantly better. If American F-16 and Migs had gone at it over the skies of Europe, the F-16's, and America, would have had air superiority.

You missed out the Su-27s during the cold war and Su-30s/37s now

Russia doesn't have anything but some modified Su-27's. They aren't able to supply their own airforce with SU-30's.

[edit on 16-1-2005 by Disturbed Deliverer]

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
Russia doesn't have anything but some modified Su-27's. They aren't able to supply their own airforce with SU-30's.

[edit on 16-1-2005 by Disturbed Deliverer]

Yep,pathetic,but the modified Su-27s can still kick the crap out of an AESA equipped F-15

But w4rLrd I thought you were under the impression that AESA F-15s would defeat Su-30 MKIs any day???

why the change of mind??

Originally posted by W4rl0rD
You missed out the Su-27s during the cold war and Su-30s/37s now

Soviets had only 90 Su-27 until the end of cold war. And 500-600 Mig-29. Compare that to 450 F-15 and over 1200 F-16 (not to mention naval F-18) and you have better picture of air power.

Seekerof, Please stop rediculing, it's so annoying, you are supposed to set an example being a mod...

ChrisRT, you could do without the sarcasm...

keep this site pleasant...

ANYWAY...

The MiG-29 might have a 30mm gun, the 20mm gun has more ammo and a better rate of fire...Besides, a double barrel gun overheats faster...

I also agree the AMRAAM equipted F-16C's will be more than a match against a MiG-29A or B with outdated weaponry...

However, the latest MiG-29SMT has improved radar and the R-27 (Alamo) missile, R-77 (Adder) and R-73 (Archer) missile will be more than a match for a F-16, even the Block 52-60 will be outmatched...

And the Dutch F-16 that shot down the MiG-29 (Yay for motherland!) was not really under fair circumstances...

I'd bet my money on the MiG-29 in a knife fight, but i'd trust my own life with the F-16 since I know it better...

However, the latest MiG-29SMT has improved radar and the R-27 (Alamo) missile, R-77 (Adder) and R-73 (Archer) missile will be more than a match for a F-16, even the Block 52-60 will be outmatched...

The AMRAAM is a better missile than any of these. The avionics of the F-16 are superior.

The F-16C/D has updated avionics just like the Mig-29SMT. So, if the old Migs had inferior avionics, and little has changed in the Russian industry, why would they suddenly be able to better the West?

Who cares? The AMRAAM can operate completely seperate from the aircraft. It's 90% accurate.

R-77 has longer range then the AMRAAM by about 50km I thought?
The newer MIG-29SMT can carry this missile and has better radar, so what's the argument about?

That test between German MIG-29s and F-16Cs was rather interesting to read. Seems like flying a MIG-29 would just be "annoying" because you have to hit all those switches. The helmet mounted vision is kind of nice though. But you have to remember the Germans have the old, Cold War era MIGs that haven't been updated. I would say the new MIG-29SMT and F-16C are fairly evenly matched, with the MIG having an edge on missiles and armament, while the F-16C has the edge on avionics and "pilot-friendliness." Give the MIG-29SMT thrust-vectoring and its a little better.

I think I'd take the F-16C out of the two. However if you bring the flanker into the equation, I'd dump the F-16C in a sec. To be honest, I never really liked the MIG-29s, I just liked the way they looked compared to most American jets.

The longest range Archer missile is 40 km's. The AMRAAM has a range of over 50 km's (it's put at over 30 miles, you do the math). The AMRAAM is 90% accurate. It has its own targeting system, so it can operate independent of the plane.

It's hands down superior.

As for the Flanker and F-16, the F-16 wasn't made for the Flanker. You'd have to compare the F-15's to the Flanker, and the F-15 wins there.