New MIGs are coolers

[Shinigami]

Long time not posting but here I go again to start a debate:

 

I recently came form Venezuela and I was able to see a mockup battle between a F-16 and Su-30 MKK it was awesome!!!! sorry for the eagle fans they got their arss kicked very badly and both of them was on equal terms.

It was a head up battle they both were ground radar controlled (though Su-30 has BVR and I think the F-16 also) to the entry point and then the fight start.

 

Impressive the maneuverability of the F-16, he did his best but wasn't able to go out of the killing zone of the flanker.

 

R-73 rocks!!!!! in both radar guided and heat seeking.

 

One question still linger in my brain if they were using BVR the battle would have being different????

[Mnemonic]

I would love to see proper implementation of MiG-25 or MiG-31

[GGTharos]

You're not starting anything with old F-16A's vs a new Su-30MKK. There were no eagles present.

 

Long time not posting but here I go again to start a debate:

[Pilotasso]

Long time not posting but here I go again to start a debate:

 

I recently came form Venezuela and I was able to see a mockup battle between a F-16 and Su-30 MKK it was awesome!!!! sorry for the eagle fans they got their arss kicked very badly and both of them was on equal terms.

It was a head up battle they both were ground radar controlled (though Su-30 has BVR and I think the F-16 also) to the entry point and then the fight start.

 

Impressive the maneuverability of the F-16, he did his best but wasn't able to go out of the killing zone of the flanker.

 

R-73 rocks!!!!! in both radar guided and heat seeking.

 

One question still linger in my brain if they were using BVR the battle would have being different????

 

Venezuelan F-16's don't have BVR capability. Their equipment are F-16A standard in the 1980's and are outdated by now. Probably taking flare eating AIM-9L's or earlier. If the Su-30 had lost that would have been a tremendous upset, given the pilots were equally skilled on both sides (probably flew on both types too).

 

having said this I don't believe it was easy. ;) The Flanker can turn tighter at slow speeds but the F-16's are terribly responsive and quick in changing the geometry of the dogfight.

 

EDIT: F-16's are not eagles, They are falcons :D

 

You must mean R-27 because there are no radar guided versions of the R-73.

Edited May 20, 2013 by Pilotasso

[jazjar]

Well I think if there is info available, then well let us have it. From my understanding the Russians are a lot less careful with who gets info on those things than the Amerikanskis are...

[Shinigami]

Any way the falcon got ripped jajajajaja. Now serious Pilotasso you are right my bad I was so trilled by the mockup that write it wrong. A question has anybody see a mockup with F-15 and Mig-29 upgraded version both?

 

Shinigami Out...

[Pilotasso]

The migs that are accessible to the west for mock engagements are usually the older ones (and likely the most numerous) AKA mig-29A.

 

Having said this I don't expect modernized migs to differ significantly in terms of agility , neither will they show off their new capabilities to the 4 winds anytime soon. :)

 

EDIT: whats with that banner huh? :D

Edited July 29, 2013 by Pilotasso

[Shinigami]

What about red flag exercises, I think that India brought some of his Mig-29, though USA make the encounter awfully favorable for they, It was pretty tight.

[Boberro]

It is weird on the most excercises there is common opinion Russian birds annihilated, destroyed, vaporised, [insert_your_type_here] US equipment.

 

In reality, wars proved something different :)

[Pilotasso]

They had mixed teams and Eagles were limited on support and missiles simulated, plus the bisons used the terrain to their advantage only Indian Pilots knew well, all in all it was difficult to analyse if India or USA was best, except for some isolated HUD shots both sides showed after the drill.

[GGTharos]

If you're talking about COPE India, it was 30 Indian planes vs 4 F-15E's defending a static target and limited to STT shots, even if they were simulating an active missile.

 

In this situation, there's nothing to compare.

[Pilotasso]

Yes that was what I was talking about :)

[FanBoy2006.01]

It is weird on the most excercises there is common opinion Russian birds annihilated, destroyed, vaporised, [insert_your_type_here] US equipment.

 

In reality, wars proved something different :)

 

I think it is because that is exactly what happens.

 

But the US and allies then develop tactics to deal with these fighters before hand (When they get intel on a specific aircraft.). So they use their strengths and try to exploit the enemies weaknesses.

 

For instance. Fighter pilots flying conventional aircraft like the F-16 and F-15 are developing tactics of how to dogfight against thrust-vectoring aircraft like the Su-30 MKI by flying against the F-22. A Youtube clip of this was posted on these forums.

 

Remember that Top Gun and Red Flag predates aircraft like the MiG-29. The USA started to simulate the capabilities of the MiG-29 and Su-27 as soon as they became aware of them. They didn't wait till they got one in hand.

 

Correct me if I am wrong here. As far as I know, the MiG-29s downed by the USA was all from missile shots with no real ACM (Dogfights). The USAF used force multipliers (Like AWACS.) and used their superior avionics against Serbian MiG-29s to get the upper hand.

 

The only case where a F-15 and MiG-29 got into a dogfight was during the Gulf War (1991.) and the MiG-29 crashed shortly after the merge. That did not seem to be the fault of the MiG-29 but rather pilot error.

 

The pilot that flew the F-15 also said that they were instructed not to dogfight with the MiG-29 because it was viewed as superior to the F-15 in ACM! That was after the West got to see the capabilities of of the reunified Germany's MiG-29s.

 

One thing that I have heard many times, that come from American fighter pilots is: "If you aren't cheating then you aren't trying!".

[Pilotasso]

Woah, a showdown between an F-16 and an MKI would indeed be dramatic :D

[Kaktus29]

@fanboy.. why US allies won in air wars versus soviet union products was strategic nature, not plane A is better than plane B..

 

USSR never challenged US in a way to actually destroy USA ally..for this would mean escalation of the fight that could become nuke war.. imagine this scenario where Israel starts loosing a war, USSR keeps piling 100 fighters upon 100 fighters to Egypt to replace any looses that could occur, and bring the best radar, RWR, and all that is necessary(which USSR never did btw, USSR always sold weapons to Libya,Egypt, Syria that were not just LESS capable than Russian versions used at home but were asured to be less capable than what Israel had..)..why? for same reason today Russia makes sure Israel is "okei" with what Russia sells to Syria, Iran etc.. certain weapons that can tip the balance are forbidden, and if Russia would deliver them anyway it would mean more or less from Israeli-USA side an act of war..

 

Since USSR was weaker economically throughout the cold war it is understandable that USSR allies always fought with a hand tied in the back while US allies fought with 100% full power of western technology. so understanding which plane is better in such conditions by comparing this "looses and air battles" is worthless ..

 

Whatever comparison was done in Germany after USSR collapsed showed MiG-29 superiority in air combat versus F-16, .. in reality the looses sustained by Mig-29 in conflicts were always under the most unfavorable conditions.. same would happen otherwise..imagine USSR having F-15, F-16, and USA having Mig-23, Mig-29.. Israel would have still won, cuz US would deliver 1000 of fighter to Israel if they needed them, and Egypt would run out of 100 USSR f-16s and that would be that.. USSR would not deliver extra planes to replace for above stated reasons and there you have it, ..trolls 30 years later would say Mig-23 is better than F-15..

 

wars that have been fought are of strategic importance and reason, small things like which plane has better radar hardly compute in the calculus of who is going to win.. unless 2 major power hit it off, ..if war by proxy its more of an agreement who has the higher ground-which is higher economic growth, money to sustain fire..

 

in Vietnam USSR delivered about 100-150 Mig-21 and yet this small air force which hardly had time, space to train vietnamese pilots had to fight a richly experienced, trained, financed 2000+ air force of USA.. and they managed to shoot down US planes.. this alone should tell you how "worthless" USSR planes were..

[pepin1234]

If you're talking about COPE India, it was 30 Indian planes vs 4 F-15E's defending a static target and limited to STT shots, even if they were simulating an active missile.

 

In this situation, there's nothing to compare.

 

 

We can compare everything we want and we have the right to do it. The same case with the Yugoslavia war and Irak war, If US compare everytime his victory presuming they have made a glorious Job, when in the reality the air combat in both war was ridiculous.

[Shinigami]

@fanboy.. why US allies won in air wars versus soviet union products was strategic nature, not plane A is better than plane B..

 

USSR never challenged US in a way to actually destroy USA ally..for this would mean escalation of the fight that could become nuke war.. imagine this scenario where Israel starts loosing a war, USSR keeps piling 100 fighters upon 100 fighters to Egypt to replace any looses that could occur, and bring the best radar, RWR, and all that is necessary(which USSR never did btw, USSR always sold weapons to Libya,Egypt, Syria that were not just LESS capable than Russian versions used at home but were asured to be less capable than what Israel had..)..why? for same reason today Russia makes sure Israel is "okei" with what Russia sells to Syria, Iran etc.. certain weapons that can tip the balance are forbidden, and if Russia would deliver them anyway it would mean more or less from Israeli-USA side an act of war..

 

Since USSR was weaker economically throughout the cold war it is understandable that USSR allies always fought with a hand tied in the back while US allies fought with 100% full power of western technology. so understanding which plane is better in such conditions by comparing this "looses and air battles" is worthless ..

 

Whatever comparison was done in Germany after USSR collapsed showed MiG-29 superiority in air combat versus F-16, .. in reality the looses sustained by Mig-29 in conflicts were always under the most unfavorable conditions.. same would happen otherwise..imagine USSR having F-15, F-16, and USA having Mig-23, Mig-29.. Israel would have still won, cuz US would deliver 1000 of fighter to Israel if they needed them, and Egypt would run out of 100 USSR f-16s and that would be that.. USSR would not deliver extra planes to replace for above stated reasons and there you have it, ..trolls 30 years later would say Mig-23 is better than F-15..

 

wars that have been fought are of strategic importance and reason, small things like which plane has better radar hardly compute in the calculus of who is going to win.. unless 2 major power hit it off, ..if war by proxy its more of an agreement who has the higher ground-which is higher economic growth, money to sustain fire..

 

in Vietnam USSR delivered about 100-150 Mig-21 and yet this small air force which hardly had time, space to train vietnamese pilots had to fight a richly experienced, trained, financed 2000+ air force of USA.. and they managed to shoot down US planes.. this alone should tell you how "worthless" USSR planes were..

 

Very interesting approach, I had not thought about that. You can see this in recent event like the sell of S-300 to iran.

[Vekkinho]

One of the main reasons of such results is in the planning. YuAF Fulcrum pilots, i suppose same can be said for Ser bian pilots never trained or planned such scenarios where enemy Awacs sees better areal picture than Gci radars located few miles from battlefield. Lack of spares, sticktime and tactics sure helped a lot. Most of the Allied pilots had more stick time per person tha n all of the Fulcrum pilots together.

I was away from FC And DCS for 9 or 10 months and man it took me two or three weeks to get back into button mappings of my HOTAS.

Edited August 13, 2013 by Vekkinho

[GGTharos]

What's that in the F-16's gunsight?

 

 

What's that in the F-14's gunsight?

 

 

 

Whatever comparison was done in Germany after USSR collapsed showed MiG-29 superiority in air combat versus F-16, ..

[Shinigami]

Those excercises showed that MiG-29 was superior in dog fight. due to the helmet mounted sights in MiGs and off-boresight missiles not to mention excellent passive IR tracking sensor.

but in larger scale excercises when using AWACS and some other air battle controls were proven to be much better and the kill-ratio turned against MiGs.

[GGTharos]

Is that superiority why the MiGs are in the gunsights of F-14's and F-16's, or is it that the AWACS and AMRAAMs flew the F-14's and F-16's there for those BFM setups?

[Esac_mirmidon]

I supposed German Fulcrum pilots had similar HUD records with F-16/F-15 in sight in 90´s

 

JG 73 Pilots were the best trainned Mig-29 pilots in the world and a lot of NATO pilots where trainned in how to fight and win against Fulcrums. The german pilots learned how to decoy and decept BVR missiles forcing F-15 pilots to make they best to defeat Fulcrums.

 

Conclusions from German Air Force about Mig-29 was that the Fulcrum in BVR is inferior to almost any NATO fighter. Bad cockpit ergonomics, very poor radar and weapons control management, short range making Mig-29A only suitable to pinpoint defense around airdromes. All very important shortcomings

 

But, WVR the Fulcrum was superior to any NATO fighter of that time, only by a marginal amount, but the HMS-R73 combo proved very effective against any NATo fighter at that time.

 

So German Fulcrum HUD recorded tapes must be keeped somewhere, maybe if we are lucky enough, some day we will see they.

[GGTharos]

I'm sure they have them, but you won't see anything useful on the HuD if HMS is used.

 

The point is that people don't understand what 'superior' actually means, or more to the point, they fail to understand that this word alone lacks qualifiers.

 

If the word meant what certain people thought it means, then you'd almost never see a MiG-29 in a teen fighter's gunsight. As it turns out, that wasn't the case.

[Esac_mirmidon]

Yes it´s true GG.

 

The same word could have different meanings depending who use it. XD

 

It´s very difficult to separate BVR from WVR, or extract conclusions in fighter trainings where the ROE´s are limiting what could happen in real combat scenarios.

 

The fact it´s that Mig-29A or S are seriously in danger facing almost any NATO fighter in BVR. It needs a very talented pilot to decoy and defeat BVR missiles to progress into a WVR, and even more efforts to reach an advantage position to exploit the maneuvrability and good characteristics at low speed of the Fulcrum with R-73 and HMS to defeat a well trained F-16 or F-15 pilot.

 

It´s possible but very difficult.

 

The gap now with more modern russian fighters is closing, but it would be very interesting to see a fight between early Mig-29A and Su-27S with R-73 and R-27 against RAF Phantoms only with SARH missiles, and F-15 only with sparrows and sidewinders. Even F-16 at 80´s only with sidewinders.

 

AMRAAM´s enter service with F-15 in 1991, 1992 for F-16 and 1993 for the Navy.

 

Mig-29 entered service in 1983 with RuAF, and Su-27 in 1985.

 

All BVR combat with SARH missiles, no ARH, sidewinders and Archers, training against numbers. Very interesting XDDD.

Edited August 13, 2013 by Esac_mirmidon

[Shinigami]

In combat provided that the MiG-29's 7.5g above 0.85 mach can be avoided it should beat any F-16 due to its BVR capability , higher thrust/weight ratio and lower wing loading. While in recent exercises between USAF F-16 and German MiG-29A's showed that in ACM the greatest advantage the MiG-29 had was it's helmet mounted sight coupled with the AA-11 Archer which gives it a kill zone greater than any aircraft serving. F-16 pilots found that any aircraft within 45deg's of the nose of a MiG-29 was always under grave threat. The ability to target aircraft well of boresight has proved to be such a success that helmet mounted sights have become requirements on any new fighter program.

 

This is and extract from a inform regarding Mig-29 vs F-16 form IAF

Edited August 13, 2013 by Shinigami