Mig 29 better than F-16 ?

And besides...which is rarely, if ever, acknowledged on this forum, the F-15C has been, and still is the unmatched air superiority fighter in numbers, range, and integration in the world today. Before the flaming starts, yes, there are superior planes out there, but not anywhere near the number of airframes, experienced, highly trained pilots, and advanced avionics/weapons programs... The jet simply sets the bar for air-to-air combat...

Originally posted by Stealth Spy
I seriously doubt the BVR capabalities of the F-16.

As a matter of choice, i dislike its unstable airframe too

I'm afraid you are wrong here.

While the F-16 was not designed for high-end BVR engagements, it outclasses the MiG-29 anyday of the week. The MiG-29 has bad radar, terrible human interface, and it lacks more advanced BVR missiles. The Fulcrum is absolutley worthless in BVR combat.

While it does have a very high AOA, of 45 degrees, compared to the F-16's 26 AOA limit, the F-16 has higher instantaneous and sustained turn rates than the MiG-29. The F-16 can also sustain gee's better than the MiG-29, because the MiG-29 (like the Flanker series) has more structural limits and high-wing loading, not to mention the pilot has a 30 degree inclined seat and better pit visibility in the F-16.

The F-16 now utilizes the AIM-9X and JHMQS, giving the F-16 an advantage over the Archer equipped Fulcrum. The AIM-9X has a +90/-90 degree off-bore capability (with future upgrades to 180 deg), comapred to the Archer's +45/-45 deg.

[edit on 16-1-2005 by Hockeyguy567]

Originally posted by W4rl0rD

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

Haha, keep telling yourself that, sheesh.

What's your source on stock Su-27s "kicking the crap" out of AESA (v2) equipped F-15Cs? at least tell me your idea of how this would happen? Do you know any of the operating characteristics of v2? hmm... LoL

wow, so we go talking about fighters, then people start talking about which missiles are superior., and ignore the planes.

The AIM-9X was specifically designed to maintain par with the Archer and before 2004 the the Archer was superior

Talking about fighters without talking about what they're armed with is just not practical. In reality, the avionics and missiles are the most important thing.

And the AIM-9X is a short range missile. How would that counter the Archer? The AMRAAM is superior to the Archer, and it was out in the early 90's.

but f16 work very weel in iraq and we dont hear about fail it
have you aproving?

The R-73 is a rear-fired misile for god sakes!.. It is not in the same class as the AMRAAM so PLEASE don't compare them!!

Its like comparing a bomber and a fighter!!..Compare the AMRAAM with BVR missiles that the Su jets have..

And as for the F-15 C being superior to Su-30MKI, that arguement is at stalemate now..because there just isn't enough data to prove any 1 jet the victor..Su-27 I don't know..I think AESA F-15c are better..

www.globalsecurity.org states that the R-77 Adder "AAMRAAKski" is equal and in some ways superior to the American AIM-120 system...

The Archer is a completely different missile! it's more comparable to the AIM-9 and is superior to stock AIM-9s still in use, not all AIM-9s are AIM-9Xs right now...

I know the offbore capabilities are higher on the AIM-9X but the AA-11 didn't even see a update yet so soon the Russians will upgrade them to AA-11M or something like that...

I support the American/allied boys out there above Iraq and Afghanistan, but if you keep ignoring Russia's capabilities, you will but our boys at risk...think about that...

We haven't ignored Russia's capabilities. No one could ever call the American military complacent. F-22/F-35's will keep air dominance as long as F-15/F-16's did. The FCS program will give America's infantry an edge like they've never seen before.

Originally posted by Jehosephat
wow, so we go talking about fighters, then people start talking about which missiles are superior., and ignore the planes.

The AIM-9X was specifically designed to maintain par with the Archer and before 2004 the the Archer was superior

The Archer is an overrated missile, it did very poorly in Ethiopia, it only hit fleeing (non-maneuvering) targets.

According to AvWeek and Jane's, the AIM-9X is the best short-ranged AAM in the world.

Who uses it in Etheiopia? What types of aircraft do they fly?

As far as I heard, the Archers performs excellent in MODERN aircraft which have properly trained pilots...Do you have a link at all?

Ethiopia used the Mig-29's, armed with Archer and Adder missiles, and most likely had Russian mercenaries as pilots. They couldn't shoot down anything, and 10 planes were lost to the Eritrean air force. The Archer and Adder seemed to perform especially bad.

couldn't that be more of poor maintinace and supplies? It costs quite a lot and takes quite a bit to have a fully trained crew for a fighter.

They were recently equipped by the Russians, and had Russian pilots. I don't think that was the problem. The Russian stuff just didn't perform well.

Of course, I have been unable to find the exact circumstances of the events in question. I've just read some vague statements. Maybe someone on here has a little more knowledge.

I've herd too much about russian merc pilots in the Korean War, Kosovo, and now Ethiopia!!..God now you'll say they flew for Iraq in the Iran-Iraq and Gulf WAr!!

If the equipment fails so much, how did it ever get out of it's testing face? It doesn't make SENSE...

What kind of aircraft were they up against, surely it was Russian stuff too...don't tell me it was Western equipment, then I know this is just some prop-aganda lie...

Equipment like this doesn't fail, why would Russia build missiles that fail? this is just as bad as the accusations by Engineer that the Kh-11 missiles were that horribly bad!

HELL, According to the Americans, everything Russian is bad enough to go right to the scrap-head and everything American is a gift from god him self!

Perhaps they were using out-dated fighters and equipment (MiG-21), no current Russian equipment like the Archer...

Just answer this, WHY would Russia build DISfunctional equipment? something they designed to defend their own homeland?

We are talking about the same country that was a fearsome enemy in the cold war, they designed the famous AK-47 assault rifle all current assault rifles are based on (Galil and G-36 comes to mind), They build the Archer back in the cold war...HOW could they be THAT bad?! I don't buy this, I wouldn't even buy this if I was a patriotic American fighter jock...

I have never said there were Russian pilots in Kosovo. I never said there were mercanaries in Korea. The presence of Russian pilots in Korea is fact at this point. The Russians most likely did supply pilots to Ethiopia. They also had Mig-29's, Archers and Adders

If you don't believe me, go look it up for yourself.

Well Russian designs have always been good, but their economic system of building the stuff produced equipment inferior to much of what America produced. It was Russia that almost started WWIII with their K-19 submarine that almost blew; it was Russia that didn't place a shield around their Chernorbyle (however it's spelled) nuclear plant to keep in radiation in case an accident happened; of course one did, and thanks to them the world cancer rate went way up.

And America doesn't act like everything it produces is some "gift from god..." but Americans take pride in their military equipment that we make because usually it is of very high caliber. But not all of it is American. Aside from the M-16, many of our rifles and pistols in the U.S. military are of German design. The main gun on the M-1 Abrams tank is German. The Apache and Cobra attack helicopters I believe use French avionics systems.

Coast Guard helicopters use French engines, and many U.S. tanker jet aircraft are powered by engines jointly designed between an American (I forget which) and French corporation; they are the most successful aircraft engines ever made (the French are actually some damn fine engineers when it comes to avionics systems, helicopters, and aircraft engines; they just can't fight for beans).

French, sheesh; leave it to them to supply both sides; the United States uses French stuff in the military, and the Iraqis and soon, probably the Chinese, are going to be using French equipment. Damn Frenchies....

And then America itself also produces some very nice equipment as well. Germany, France, United States, Great Britain produce the best military equipment (and Russia too if you count their aircraft).

Russia made some crappy tanks, but they actually were good at tanks originally; just the old Soviet idea was LOTS of expendable tanks to throw at the enemy, whereas the U.S. idea was lots of tanks, though not as many as the Soviets, but don't make 'em so expendable.

The Soviet Hind helicopters were also of high caliber; still are, though they don't have the same high-caliber avionics of most U.S. attack helicopters.

I'm sorry if I anger Americans on the board, but I just like countries being treated equally and I don't like it when misinformation is spread about capabilities, this happens on boths sides, like the Russians VS Stealth...and Americans with the missiles...

The Russians will say that stealth is easily detected while the Americans say that the Russian missiles are pathatic...so the truth is probably in between...

I am not out to defend Russia or America, I am out for the Truth, what this site is all about...I find it hard to believe that the Russians, the ones who make the best missile systems in the world, the same systems that shot down the U-2 spy plane could be so inferior just a few decades later...