4th Gen Fighter Performance Comparison Thread

[Hummingbird]

Part two:

 

Combat Scenario

 

The ultimate comparison of two fighter aircraft comes down to a combat duel between them. After the Berlin Wall came down the reunified Germany inherited 24 MiG-29s from the Nationale Volksarmee of East Germany. The lessons of capitalism were not lost on MAPO-MiG (the Fulcrum’s manufacturer) who saw this as an opportunity to compare the Fulcrum directly with western types during NATO training exercises. MAPO was quick to boast how the MiG-29 had bested F-15s and F-16s in mock aerial combat. They claimed a combination of the MiG’s superior sensors, weapons and low radar cross section allowed the Fulcrum to beat western aircraft. However, much of the early exploitation was done more to ascertain the MiG-29’s capabilities versus attempting to determine what the outcome of actual combat would be. The western press was also quick to pick up on the theme. In 1991, Benjamin Lambeth cited an article in Jane’s Defence Weekly which stated that the German MiG-29s had beaten F-16s with simulated BVR range shots of more than 60 km. How was this possible when the MiG-29 cannot launch an AA-10A Alamo from outside about 25 km? Was this a case of the fish getting bigger with every telling of the story? The actual BVR capability of the MiG-29 was my biggest disappointment. Was it further exposure to the German Fulcrums in realistic training that showed the jet for what it truly is? It seems that MAPO’s free advertising backfired in the end as further orders were limited to the 18 airplanes sold to Malaysia.

 

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. A single F-16 would be able to discriminately target individual and multiple Fulcrums. 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. A Viper pilot can launch AMRAAMS against multiple MiG-29s on the first pass and support his missiles via data link until the missiles go active. He can break the radar lock and leave or continue to the visual arena and employ short range infrared guided missiles or the gun. The Fulcrum pilot must wait until about 13 nautical miles (24 kilometers) before he can shoot his BVR missile. The Alamo is a semi-active missile that must be supported by the launching aircraft until impact. This brings the Fulcrum pilot closer to the AMRAAM. In fact, just as the the Fulcrum pilot gets in range to fire an Alamo, the AMRAAM is seconds away from impacting his aircraft. The advantage goes to the F-16.

 

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 Fulcrum’s engines smoke heavily and are a good aid to gaining sight of the adversary. Another advantage is the F-16’s large bubble canopy with 360° field-of-view. The Fulcrum pilot’s HUD doesn’t help much in gaining sight of the F-16. The F-16 is small and has a smokeless engine. The MiG-29 pilot sets low in his cockpit and visibility between the 4 o’clock and 7 o’clock positions is virtually nonexistent.

 

Charts that compare actual maneuvering performance of the two aircraft are classified. It was the researcher’s experience that the aircraft have comparable initial turning performance. However, the MiG-29 suffers from a higher energy bleed rate than the F-16. This is due to high induced drag on the airframe during high-G maneuvering. F-16 pilots that have flown against the Fulcrum have made similar observations that the F-16 can sustain a high-G turn longer. This results in a turn rate advantage that translates into a positional advantage for the F-16.

 

The F-16 is also much easier to fly and is more responsive at slow speed.

The Fulcrum’s maximum roll rate is 160° per second. At slow speed this decreases to around 20° per second. Coupled with the large amount of stick movement required, the Fulcrum is extremely sluggish at slow speed. Maneuvering to defeat a close-range gun shot is extremely difficult if the airplane won’t move. For comparison, the F-16’s slow speed roll rate is a little more than 80° per second.

 

A lot has been written and theorized about the so-called “Cobra Maneuver” that impresses people at airshows. MAPO claimed that no western fighter dare do this same maneuver in public. They also claimed that the Cobra could be used to break the radar lock of an enemy fighter (due to the slow airspeed, there is no Doppler signal for the radar to track) or point the nose of the aircraft to employ weapons. Western fighter pilots were content to let the Russians brag and hope for the opportunity to see a MiG-29 give up all its airspeed. The fact that this maneuver is prohibited in the flight manual only validates the fact that this maneuver was a stunt. Lambeth was the first American to get a flight in the Fulcrum. Even his pilot conceded that the Cobra required a specially prepared aircraft and was prohibited in operational MiG-29 units

 

Another maneuver performed by the Fulcrum during its introduction to the West is the so-called “Tail Slide”. The nose of the jet is brought to 90° pitch and the airspeed is allowed to decay. Eventually, the Fulcrum begins to “slide” back, tail-first, until the nose drops and the jet begins to fly normally again. The Soviets boasted this maneuver demonstrated how robust the engines were as this would cause western engines to flameout. The first maneuver demonstrated to me during my F-15 training was the Tail Slide. The engines did not flameout.

 

The MiG-29 is not without strong points. The pilot can override the angle of attack limiter. This is especially useful in vertical maneuvering or in last ditch attempts to bring weapons to bear or defeat enemy shots. The HMS and AA-11 Archer make the Fulcrum a deadly foe in the visual arena. The AA-11 is far superior to the American AIM-9M. By merely turning his head, the MiG pilot can bring an Archer to bear. 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)

 

Fulcrum pilots have enjoyed their most success with the HMS/Archer combination in one versus one training missions. In this sterile environment, where both aircraft start within visual range of each other, the MiG-29 has a great advantage. 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. The weapon/sensor integration with the HMS and Archer makes close-in missile employment extremely easy for the Fulcrum’s pilot. My only one versus one fight against a MiG-29 (in something other than another MiG-29) was flown in an F-16 Block 52. This was done against a German MiG-29 at Nellis AFB, Nevada. The F-16 outturned and out-powered the Fulcrum in every situation.

 

The Fulcrum’s gun system is fairly accurate as long as the target does not attempt to defeat the shot. If the target maneuvers, the gunsight requires large corrections to get back to solution. Coupled with the jet’s imprecise handling, this makes close-in maneuvering difficult. This is very important when using the gun. 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.

 

If the fight lasts very long, the MiG pilot is at a decided disadvantage and must either kill his foe or find a timely opportunity to leave the fight without placing himself on the defensive. The Fulcrum A holds only 300 pounds more internal fuel than the F-16 and its two engines go through it quickly. There are no fuel flow gauges in the cockpit. Using the clock and the fuel gauge, in full afterburner the MiG-29 uses fuel 3.5 to 4 times faster than the Viper. My shortest MiG-29 sortie was 16 minutes from brake release to touchdown.

 

It should not be forgotten that fights between fighters do not occur in a vacuum. One-versus-one comparisons are one thing, but start to include other fighters into the fray and situational awareness (SA) plays an even bigger role. The lack of SA-building tools for MiG-29 pilots will become an even bigger factor if they have more aircraft to keep track of. Poor radar and HUD displays, poor cockpit ergonomics and poor handling qualities added to the Fulcrum pilot’s workload and degraded his overall SA. It was my experience during one-versus-one scenarios emphasizing dogfighting skills, the results came down to pilot skill.

 

In multi-ship scenarios, such as a typical four versus four training mission, the advantage clearly went to the side with the highest SA. Against F-15s and F-16s in multi-ship fights, the MiG-29s were always outclassed. It was nearly impossible to use the great potential of the HMS/Archer combination when all the Eagles and Vipers couldn’t be accounted for and the Fulcrums were on the defensive. The MiG-29’s design was a result of the Soviet view on tactical aviation and the level of technology available to their aircraft industry. The pilot was not meant to have a lot of SA. The center of fighter execution was the ground controller. The pilot’s job was to do as instructed and not to make independent decisions. Even the data link system in the MiG-29 was not meant to enhance the pilot’s SA. He was merely linked steering, altitude and heading cues to follow from the controller. If the MiG-29 pilot is cut off from his controller, his autonomous capabilities are extremely limited. Western fighter pilots are given the tools they need to make independent tactical decisions. The mission commander is a pilot on the scene. All other assets are there to assist and not to direct. If the F-16 pilot loses contact with support assets such as the E-3 Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft, he has all the tools to complete the mission autonomously.

 

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.

 

Designed and built to counter the fourth generation American fighters, The MiG-29 Fulcrum was a concept that was technologically and doctrinally hindered from the beginning. Feared in the west prior to the demise of the Soviet Union, it was merely an incremental improvement to the earlier Soviet fighters it replaced. Its lack of a market when put in direct competition to western designs should attest to its shortcomings. 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?

 

Lt. Col. Johann Köck, commander of the German MiG-29 squadron from

September 1995 to September 1997, was outspoken in his evaluation of the Fulcrum. “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. He added that the best mission for NATO MiG-29s would be as a dedicated adversary aircraft for other NATO fighters and not as part of NATO’s frontline fighter force.

[Virun]

My only one versus one fight against a MiG-29 (in something other than another MiG-29) was flown in an F-16 Block 52. This was done against a German MiG-29 at Nellis AFB, Nevada. The F-16 outturned and out-powered the Fulcrum in every situation.

 

So, basically, they compared old MiG-29A equipped with downgraded weapons with modern US F-16? Not even MiG-29S?

[Tirak]

So, basically, they compared old MiG-29A equipped with downgraded weapons with modern US F-16? Not even MiG-29S?

 

Were any significant changes made to the control linkages between the MiG-29A and MiG-29S? That and lack of situational awareness seem to be the predominant issues that he cites. I'll grant that gun fire control could have been better in later models, but without serious overhaul of the controls, I don't see a home used MiG-29 being more sprightly at the controls than an export version.

[SDsc0rch]

So, basically, they compared old MiG-29A equipped with downgraded weapons with modern US F-16? Not even MiG-29S?

 

 

thats right - because the truth is the -29 went from being a dog to an actual contender, huh?

 

lol

[Basher54321]

Yeah, the F-16 can definitely pull off some impressive high AoA stunts, despite its' CAT I/III AoA limiter. I wonder if it can be overridden? Because I've definitely seen F-16's pull off 40+ deg AoA flight before.

 

 

No override switch as such (no not the MPO switch either) - technically however the AOA limiter can't stop every situation - for example if you ever heard of a deep stall it is when the F-16 gets stuck between 50 to 60 degrees AOA.

 

In that airshow video above it is pitched up <25 degrees AOA - which is standard for an airshow - you cant bypass the limiter in that situation.

 

The only F-16 that had the limits removed I know of and demonstrated high Alpha cobras etc in controlled flight was the MATV/VISTA with to Thrust Vectoring - ( 125+ degrees Alpha).

[Virun]

Ahem, guys, mig-29S significantly different from Mig-29A. Especially exported Mig-29A for Warsaw pact countries.

 

1) Radar can track several targets simultaneously

2) Radar is more protected against jamming

3) It has built-in jammer

4) Missiles with much more energetic reserve

 

Actually if someone wants to compare Mig-29A and F-16 that he should bring F-16A or early blocks of F-16C. And talking about amraam as advantage against mig-29A...lol. It was introduced in USAF after fall of Soviet Union, especially in significant number. Moreover German AF had only R-27R1 & R-27T1 which were downgraded versions of original missiles. In other hand in that time Soviet/Russian AF already had R-27ER... And it's funny to see how he mention that Mig-29 were always shot down by F-15/16 when even Mig-23 shot a few F-16.

[Hummingbird]

No override switch as such (no not the MPO switch either) - technically however the AOA limiter can't stop every situation - for example if you ever heard of a deep stall it is when the F-16 gets stuck between 50 to 60 degrees AOA.

 

In that airshow video above it is pitched up <25 degrees AOA - which is standard for an airshow - you cant bypass the limiter in that situation.

 

The only F-16 that had the limits removed I know of and demonstrated high Alpha cobras etc in controlled flight was the MATV/VISTA with to Thrust Vectoring - ( 125+ degrees Alpha).

 

There's another video of one doing a slow pass at 26 deg AoA, which is right on the limit AFAIK. Doesn't CAT I limit AoA to ~28 deg? (I know some say 26 deg)

 

I guess to only way to bypass the limiter is by a quick instantanous pull.

[Hummingbird]

Ahem, guys, mig-29S significantly different from Mig-29A. Especially exported Mig-29A for Warsaw pact countries.

 

1) Radar can track several targets simultaneously

2) Radar is more protected against jamming

3) It has built-in jammer

4) Missiles with much more energetic reserve

 

Actually if someone wants to compare Mig-29A and F-16 that he should bring F-16A or early blocks of F-16C. And talking about amraam as advantage against mig-29A...lol. It was introduced in USAF after fall of Soviet Union, especially in significant number. Moreover German AF had only R-27R1 & R-27T1 which were downgraded versions of original missiles. In other hand in that time Soviet/Russian AF already had R-27ER... And it's funny to see how he mention that Mig-29 were always shot down by F-15/16 when even Mig-23 shot a few F-16.

 

But the controls would be the same, thus it would feel the same to fly basically.

[Basher54321]

There's another video of one doing a slow pass at 26 deg AoA, which is right on the limit AFAIK. Doesn't CAT I limit AoA to ~28 deg? (I know some say 26 deg)

 

I guess to only way to bypass the limiter is by a quick instantanous pull.

 

 

It is 25 degrees max in the documentation (might allow point degree over say) and no a pull against a single axis wont bypass the limiter.

 

I wouldn't get too hung up its not a big deal - e.g. if they really gave a toss they wouldn't have prevented it getting to its clMax, maybe not rejected the Canard Delta config, or even fitted TV to the current fleet.

Edited May 6, 2015 by Basher54321

[Basher54321]

Ahem, guys, mig-29S significantly different from Mig-29A. Especially exported Mig-29A for Warsaw pact countries.

 

1) Radar can track several targets simultaneously

2) Radar is more protected against jamming

3) It has built-in jammer

4) Missiles with much more energetic reserve

 

 

The East Germans had MiG-29As (later re-designated as MiG-29Gs) from around 1988 (Block 40s were also being delivered from 1988 ) - thus the comparison in the first post was made because the MiG-29Gs were used by NATO for actual DACT training in the early 90s. Afraid they didn't have any other MiGs to fly against.

 

However they could at least put a valid comparison together without having to speculate!

Edited May 6, 2015 by Basher54321

[Pilotasso]

Did Russia maintain the policy of the soviet union to supply gimped engines for export costumers post 1990?

[Hummingbird]

It is 25 degrees max in the documentation (might allow point degree over say) and no a pull against a single axis wont bypass the limiter.

 

I wonder how they then override it if not with quick changes in pitch at low speeds.

 

As mentioned the lift limit is 35 degrees, which would mean that beyond that you're completely stalled.

[Basher54321]

I wonder how they then override it if not with quick changes in pitch at low speeds.

 

As mentioned the lift limit is 35 degrees, which would mean that beyond that you're completely stalled.

 

 

Outside of a stall, departing it would likely get your desired result.

 

What that pilot says about the limit being "a safety margin due its lack of longitudinal stability" is incorrect.

Edited May 6, 2015 by Basher54321

[Seaeagle]

thats right - because the truth is the -29 went from being a dog to an actual contender, huh?

 

lol

 

No - because the truth is the F-16 went from being a dog to an actual contender

 

lol

 

I wish people would stop posting that shallow "research paper" - its full of factual errors, unsupported claims and biased comparisons that makes the author's claimed credentials dubvious to say the least.

[Hummingbird]

No - because the truth is the F-16 went from being a dog to an actual contender

 

lol

 

I wish people would stop posting that shallow "research paper" - its full of factual errors, unsupported claims and biased comparisons that makes the author's claimed credentials dubvious to say the least.

 

Apologies, I just recently found it online and thought it was interesting.

 

Anyway that's what this thread is about, comparing and discussing previous comparisons etc..

[Seaeagle]

Apologies, I just recently found it online and thought it was interesting.

 

Anyway that's what this thread is about, comparing and discussing previous comparisons etc..

 

No problem. Its just that it has been posted several times on this forum and frankly isn't worth the attention :D

[Tirak]

No - because the truth is the F-16 went from being a dog to an actual contender

 

lol

 

I wish people would stop posting that shallow "research paper" - its full of factual errors, unsupported claims and biased comparisons that makes the author's claimed credentials dubvious to say the least.

 

 

Um, how was the F-16 a dog? Engine reliability issues aside the F-16 has always been a nimble little bastard, I fail to see how you can categorize it as being sluggish when issues with many early pilots were that it was too sensitive...

 

Also, this isn't a research paper, it's an interview from an aggressor pilot who flew both aircraft. He makes comparisons based on experience. His credentials are in no way in question.

[Seaeagle]

But the controls would be the same, thus it would feel the same to fly basically.

 

No because the MiG-29(9.13) and MiG-29S(9.13S) had improvements to the FCS - still a mechanical system and enhancements may be subtle, but its nevertheless different to the 9.12.

[SDsc0rch]

...and biased comparisons that makes the author's claimed credentials dubvious to say the least..

 

haha! whatever..

 

howabout the germans - i suppose they're biased too?

 

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.

 

i get it, its all great conspiracy to hold the russkies down :rolleyes:

[Tirak]

No because the MiG-29(9.13) and MiG-29S(9.13S) had improvements to the FCS - still a mechanical system and enhancements may be subtle, but its nevertheless different to the 9.12.

 

I've been looking for, but not found, any information indicating the updates to the flight control system made the aircraft more responsive. The upgrades listed for the 9.13 upgrade that I've found give greater aircraft stability and improve control at high AoA, along with increased deflection possible of the control surfaces, allowing it to turn harder, but nothing regarding it responding to control inputs with the rapidity of western aircraft like the F-16. Do you have any information regarding the controls being more responsive in the MiG-29S compared to export versions of the fighter?

[combatace]

Part two:

 

Seriously, I don't think this paper was written by someone knowledgeable rather it feels like it was written by and arm chair journalist.

 

Once he says, MiG is difficult to fly then he says its relatively easy to fly, the he says it is sluggish because the stick traverse to opposite extremes is larger(but MiG's stick sits between legs so it had to be longer and so will have longer traversing). Then he says its flight characteristic are bad because it requires higher attention but then MiG is not a complex machine so pilot can surely dedicate his time on flying. Again he says MiG can flywell but pilot needs to pay more attention and work harder when in WVR, gun employment but then isn't that necessary.

MiG has ability to manually over ride AOA limiter and F-16 can't(it will depart from normal flight), still MiG had bad flight characteristics. Only thing I found bad is MiG can't sustain high AOA longer but it can attain higher AOA if needed to use its guns.

He says MiG is good with HMCS and R-73 but he finishes the paragraph by saying that US fighters will have Aim-9x in 2007 but forgets to mention that R-73 has had lots of upgrades without changing designation until major one or R-73E.

In BVR he says both can detect target at same distance but F-16 can launch at longer distance but this guys is forgetting that until 1996 Aim-120A/B had almost the same range as R-27R and being a bit faster can reach target faster. And if F-16 can fly in flight of 2, I am sure MiG pilot won't go macho and enter the arena alone.

 

Finally, I don't think rather then being an unbiased paper it seems to me like a fanboy article.

Edited May 7, 2015 by combatace

[Sleksa]

That comparison of the mig and the f-16 seems really biased from the get go.

 

The variant discussion for example is comparing the earliest mig-29 versions sold to warsaw pact nations to a post-cold war update of the f-16. To me it makes about as much sense as comparing the latest versions of the mig sold to India with updated r-77's and other systems, against the very first versions of the f-16 which would've gone to combat with nothing but sidewinders on them.

 

Secondly comes the boastful argument about the combat experience between the mig-29 and the f-15/16 and how the mig-29's were solidly beaten. However what this argument doesn't take into question is that in all of these situations the scenario was a single small, wartorn country's airforce whose bulk was still made of third generation planes and ~20 mig29's at various states of repair(balkans/iraq).

 

On the other hand what the few dozens migs were up against was the collective might of nato's thousands of fighters, perpetual smartbombing, satellite intel/assitance, hundreds of jamming aircraft, thousands of cruise missiles, tens of thousands of smartbombs and dozens of awacs planes running the show.

 

From this perspective I'd say it's not really valid to say the f16's combat experience is saying all you need to know, when the said experience is equivalent to ganging with your friends to kick a midget on the ground who's been stabbed repeatedly before the "fight".

[Seaeagle]

Um, how was the F-16 a dog? Engine reliability issues aside the F-16 has always been a nimble little bastard, I fail to see how you can categorize it as being sluggish when issues with many early pilots were that it was too sensitive...

 

I don't "categorize it as being sluggish" Tirak - it was just a wordplay on this:

Originally Posted by SDsc0rch:

thats right - because the truth is the -29 went from being a dog to an actual contender, huh?"

 

...in response to the argument that it isn't particulary clever to judge the combat capabilities of a platform in its initial configuration by comparing it to another in a newer and upgraded form. I was refering to the bit concerning the F-16C's superiour BVR capability via radar upgrade/AMRAAM, when the fact is that the F-16 in its original form didn't actually have any BVR capability at all - no radar guided AAMs and a radar with a range good for little more than cuing its Sidewinders :)

 

Also, this isn't a research paper..

 

Then why did he say it is:

 

I've got over 500 hours in the MiG-29 and 2000 hours in the F-16 (I also flew the F-15A/C and the F-5E). The following is an excerpt from a research papaer I wrote while working on a Master's Degree in aerospace engineering.

 

His credentials are in no way in question.

 

I see - then perhaps you can point me to something that proves he is who he claims to be?.

[Seaeagle]

haha! whatever..

 

howabout the germans - i suppose they're biased too?

 

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.

 

He says they said - I have read plenty of accounts by Luftwaffe MiG-29 pilots that says otherwise while giving a far better insight to the aircraft and its pros and cons than he did.

 

i get it, its all great conspiracy to hold the russkies down :rolleyes:

 

Bollocks.

[Seaeagle]

I've been looking for, but not found, any information indicating the updates to the flight control system made the aircraft more responsive. The upgrades listed for the 9.13 upgrade that I've found give greater aircraft stability and improve control at high AoA, along with increased deflection possible of the control surfaces, allowing it to turn harder, but nothing regarding it responding to control inputs with the rapidity of western aircraft like the F-16. Do you have any information regarding the controls being more responsive in the MiG-29S compared to export versions of the fighter?

 

No I was merely pointing out that the FCS was modified as compared with the "baseline" 9.12 and therefore doesn't fly in the same way. The improvements you mention are the ones I was referring to - I don't know if the FCS is more responsive to control inputs as such, but then I would say that greater overall stability and improved control at high AoA would positively affect the feel of "sluggishness" somewhat :)