you should tell that to him, it is easy to know who he is as the article s from Defesanet. But of course i guess you know better than a test pilot former FAB officer who flew around 100 types (including Rafale and F/A 18 E/F)… The missiles indicated are AASM so max range is around 60 Kms.

Btw why don’t you take a look at the air superiority config??? It clearly states a COMBAT time at max range.

What is your problem exactly? That you feel insulted because I called 1700 km radius of Rafele unrealistic?

Well with CL EFT, MiG-29 has 4231 kg usable fuel. Its optimal cruise fuel consumtion is 4.8 km/nm, translating to 881m, assume missiles launched at the middle, and end up with 795 km combat radius, Of course you will brag about climb etc, but then, more careful calculations which includes reduced drag from dropping EFTs etc will reveal something similar. Now how this 795 km theoratical radius compares with real life radius of 290 km (which involves dogfighting, reserve fuel and keeping station)? Shrinks to 36%.

MiG says their MiG-29 has 1430km combat range on internal fuel. Flight manual says with 3131 kg internal fuel, it needs 3.9 kg/nm fuel consumption, translates to drag equivalent of 2 archers and 2 empty pylons, thats it..

With similar circumstances, your Rafale’s 1700 km theoratical combat radius will shrink roughly to its 1/3rd just as well. Your test pilot is an idiot if he claims othervise, then yes I will say I surely know better than him. But I am sure he knows this difference, he is just simplifying or doesn’t telling about it.

You are very much sounding like the fanboys BlackArcher mentions:

Even acknowledging the short-legged nature of the MiG-29, it kind of clears up the air on how fanciful brochure figures that get bandied about by some fanboys in relation to certain fighters are completely and utterly unrealistic. We have some guys here on this forum quoting 1000+ NM combat radius figures for certain fighters and attributing it to low drag and magic..

On an overly simplified comparison;
Rafele has 20% more wing area than MiG-29, assuming cd0 stays same, increase drag as much.
Rafaele has 5% less weight when fully fueled, induced drag -assuming linear relation- decreases as much.
M88 has 6% higher SFC than RD-33, fuel consumption will increase as much.

So ballpark specific range of Rafale will be (1.2*0,95*1.06)^-1 = 82% of MiG-29

This reveals, with 5x EFTs, its theoratical combat radius should be 230% of MiG-29’s CL EFT, 1828 km on utmost theoratical circumstances, and 660 km in the realistic circumstances as MiG-29’s 150nm.
This reveals, with 3x EFTs (2×1500 + 1×1250), its theoratical combat radius should be 190% of MiG-29’s CL EFT, 1510 km on theory, and 550 km in the same realistic circumstances of MiG-29’s 150nm.

This approximation on actually favours Rafale, as it ignores extra drag from various several EFTs Rafele carry.

from this graphs , if i understanding it correctly , air to air missiles launched from fighter flying at around 15 km will have longer range again target flying at equal or higher altitude (like 25 km ) than again target flying at lower altitude (like 10 km) ? which mean to shorter enemy AAM range you should fly at low altitude like 5 or 6 km instead of 20 or 25 km is that true ?

Correct, however it very much depends on missile, launch altitude and target specifications.

why the combat radius here look so short compared to the one on google ? (from your calculation it look like mig-29 combat radius is only 1/3 of F-18E , 1/4 of F-35 and 1/7 of rafale , is it’s range really that bad ?)

Because google ones are simply advertised combat radius with a dozen unrealistic assumptions.

Its said Su-27 has 1760km combat radius. While its not a lie, its true only if it takes of on dry thrust with 4 missiles, climbs high, fires 2 missiles at 1530 km away, it will barely return back on bingo fuel. In a more realistic scenario, its expected to use AB, maneuver stay on station etc etc. All quoted radii of F-18E F-35, Rafale are meaningless in real life scenarios. Its even better to compare them by ferry ranges.

btw wasn’t the mig-29 able to fly with full afterburners for 55 minutes at 50k feets ? with top speed of Mach 2.25 that translate to much longer range

True, on paper, If you calculate full AB fuel constumption for given condition (number you give is for roughly M1.7 at 16000 meters). That is ultimately edge of the envelope for a clean MiG-29 however. MiG-29 will need fuel to take off, struggle to climb and accelerate to that point, and it will also need bingo fuel.

also why fighter cruise at 20-30k ft rather than 50-60k ft? (mig-29 have ceiling of 59,100 ft but often cruise at only 30k ft , why is that ? wasnt higher altitude mean less fuel consumption ?

True, but high altitude also means less lift. Aircraft needs to increase the AOA to compensate it, and this degrades L/D ratio. Max range AOA for MiG-29 is quoted as 4.5 degrees. So aircraft will maintain this AOA and increase altitude as the aircraft gets lighter. At minimal drag and 13000kgs weight, its optimum cruise is at 44000 feet, compared to 42000 feet of F-16 @ 24000lbs, MiG actually cruises relatively high.

And the MiG-29 has a combat radius of approx 150 NM with a centerline tank.

Even acknowledging the short-legged nature of the MiG-29, it kind of clears up the air on how fanciful brochure figures that get bandied about by some fanboys in relation to certain fighters are completely and utterly unrealistic. We have some guys here on this forum quoting 1000+ NM combat radius figures for certain fighters and attributing it to low drag and magic..

Of course, realistic numbers are way less then what is quoted but combat radius depends on mission. Our german pilots clear it much better;

“But if we start a mission with 4400-kg of fuel, start-up, taxy and take off takes 400-kg, we need to allow 1000-kg for diversion to an alternate airfield 50-nm away, and 500-kg for the engagement, including one minute in afterburner. That leaves 2500-kg. If we need 15 minutes on station at 420 kts that requires another 1000-kg, leaving 1500-kg for transit. At FL200 (20,000 ft) that gives us a radius of 150-nm, and at FL100 (10,000 ft) we have a radius of only 100-nm.

So we understand 150nm combat radius is for CL-EFT MiG-29 for 1 min dogfighting, and 15 min station. By using his numbers, MiG-29 can reach 250 nm without waiting on station, and carrying EFT.

Just out of curiosity; I wanted to cross-check his claim with MiG-29G flight manual:

Now what MiG-29G manual suggests;

-Total fuel with CL tank is 4658 kg, but 4231 kg usable.
-Manual doesn’t mention about taxi or take-off fuel usage I will take his word and use 400kg
-MiG-29 has 800kg bingo-fuel limit, not 1000kg; he possibly counted some of the non usable fuel.
-MiG-29 consumes 9.2 kg/sec at Full AB at 5000m, M1.0, taking this as average means 552 kg, for combat
-MiG-29 consumes 38 kg/min at max endurance at 16000 kg weight. 570 kg for staying 15 minutes on station, not 1000kg.
-MiG-29 consumes 200 kg for military accelerations between max endurance and max range, which he didn’t mention

So for travelling, MiG-29 has 4231-400-800-552-570-200 = 1709 kg remaining.

So MiG-29 consumes 4.8 kg/nm at optimal cruise at 20000 feet (yields M0.68 speed) which gives 356 nm flight range, or 178 nm combat radius.

Of course, this is all for optimal points, ~150nm looks pretty reasonable. I may make similar calculation for F-16 to see how much range could it travel..

Another rare payload;

[ATTACH=CONFIG]235240[/ATTACH]

Su-25 with FAB-500 M62 at outermost pylon, R-60 at innermost pylon, and 2xFAB-500 M62s on MER. I didn’t know any of those 3 was possible.

Of course; LM/Boeing/Mcdonnel douglas guys are not fools; they are perfectly capable of developing systems work just as well. However, its pretty much expected that 4th gen fighters would dominate 3rd gen, as it happened in gulf war, and anywhere else in the world. One of the unique aspects of the engagement I’ve mentioned is its the only event that a 4th gen fighter was shot down by a more obsolete fighter of a previous generation. And its done by using ONLY what was decleared useless. Even today despite years of technological advancements, IR BVR missiles and IRST (and off-topic but also R-33) are still considered useless in this very forum.

The overwhelmingly more likely case is that they are for fairly reasonable assumptions, a co-altitude target at relatively high altitude.

Why likely? Only because that way it will support your argument?

you choosing what you want to believe…. You are choosing what information you will accept and rejecting information that doesn’t support what you want to believe.

No YOU are chosing what you want to believe. I just take numbers I see. If you have something reliable to prove R-27ER has less range than AIM-120B, I am all ears. Otherwise what you are doing is to provide baseless assumptions to show numbers given by almost any source, and mathematics involved are all wrong. You are calling me incapable of admitting my error, but you stick to your laughable assumption that max range of AIM-120B quoted is not actually its max range, which is greater despite no single source agrees with you. I think its time I say “you are chosing what you want to believe”

A logical thinker might note that discrepancy and conclude that perhaps the AMRAAM’s quoted range doesn’t assume a huge altitude differential. Of course, that doesn’t fit with your preconceived notions and can thus be dismissed. :stupid:

No; A logical thinker might note many more “logical” possibilities;
a) he might be talking about AIM-120C, (entered service during the time he was piloting the MiG-29) which actually quotes for a much higher number than R-27R for a change.
b) Its true R-27R and AIM-120B is quoted to have similar max range, however if two missiles have same max range one with less drag and better intercept algorithms will have greater effective range which in case is AIM-120B over R-27R. I never said R-27R has greater effective range, it may or it may not. (They have same ballistic reach, but R-27’s greater wing area will cause much more drag while maneuvering but also allow for better maneuverability… very well debatable.)
c) Launch conditions/scenario he is in would also affect; An F-16 can launch an AIM-120, and leave the area, allowing a second F-16 to provide mid course updates, effectively turning the engagement into tail-on chase. Without something comperable to TKS-27, APD-518, its very likely MiG-29 cannot share guidance with other Migs, nor it cannot leave the area because of the SARH missile.
d) Human factor; Pilot or not, he is talking purely hypothetical; I don’t think he live fired an R-27R againist an F-16, or an F-16 live fired an AIM-120 againist him. I don’t think he can even conclude by his experience that R-27R is a good missile when in range. Or human factor involves, he might simply be doing something wrong or simply lying about it.

But no, our “logical thinker” wants to believe “quoted max range is not the real max range”; way too biased to swallow the number he is given stupid:

He did said F-16 accelerates best (compared to MiG-29 or F-15), which is wrong for the most part of the flight envelope. He is also wrong about F-15’s M2.5 is limited to 50000 feet, flight manual says its limited to 45000 feet. He could not have operated F-15A to M2.35, as its top speed without Vmax is M2.25 when completely clean, and M2.07 with empty pylons says flight manual. He is also wrong about M2.35 is not operational limit, its M2.3, above that is transient. He is also wrong on that F-16 is more maneuverable than MiG-29, numerically speaking MiG-29’s maneuverability is superior in any criteria in most of the envelope when compared to GE Powered Block 50 F-16’s, says luftwaffe’s MiG-29G manual and blk50 manual.

So judging by what is known, and what he stated; He did pimp-up F-15’s specs a little, F-16 is inflated very much, and MiG-29 is deflated. And he DID exeggerated his accomplishments in the aircrafts he piloted. He is objective as he can get, but what he speaks is hardly law, and biased towards his F-16 nonetheless.

It all depends how you measure, the devil is in the details as always.

Well it provides two effective kill ranges for head on (65,5km) and tail on (16,5 km), for no vertical seperation and a formula for launch range with vertical seperation. At maximum allowable vertical seperation -as again given by manual- R-27RE reaches 117 km launch range. This figure is actually far less then you would find on net, APA or many other sites usually quotes it as 130 km.

Think about it; Its known original R-77 had greater range to AIM-120B, but less than AIM-120C. Its also known from Vympel R-77 has way LESS range than R-27RE, which is the prime reason why Indian MKIs still carry R-27REs together with R-77. So range comparsion is R-27RE>R-77>AIM-120B am I wrong on this one?

The pilot that actually flew the Mig-29 and fired its weapons as part of a controlled weapons exploitation had this to say:

He used R-27R, period. I never ever said R-27R had greater range than AIM-120B, because it doesnt.

Now that was obviously a shorter ranged version of the AA-10 than on the Su-27, but there is zero chance that the long-burn motor would take the range of the AA-10 from “nowhere the same legs as an AMRAAM” to “R-27RE has 234% range of AIM-120B; its effective KILL range is 31% greater than AIM-120A’s MAX range. “

Now, you have shown your true colors. AIM-120A range = 50 km, AIM-120B range = 72 km AIM-120C range = 105 km, all without adding single kg to missile’s weight; and dimensions even shrinked. -C variant uses exact same propellent as -B, but warhead is reduced by 5 kgs and added to propellant.

You dont have slightest doubt about that don’t you? You swallow 50% improvement in range by mere 5 kg additional propellant and clipped wings. You have no problems with doubled range with same missile dimensions.

Yet you find zero chance for such range improvement between R-27R and R-27RE; 100kg additional propellant doubles the original; 70cm longer missile; R-27RE is 40% heavier than R-27R.

This is the same crap APA always tries to pull. They take one datapoint that might actually be factual under some extraordinarily rare conditions (“maximum” radar detection ranges) and then leap to conclusions about a much more general scenario.

Ok, tell me which datapoint should I take? I took published max ranges, and there is 180% ratio for “B” and 260% for “A” variants. I took lesser manual data, there is 162% ratio for “B” and 234% for “A” variant.

You are right that max ranges are for rare conditions, but that does apply to AIM-120’s published ranges. So right, a R-27RE wont definitely hit a target from 100 km away, but AIM-120 wont hit from 60. Half those ranges and they will still struggle to hit a 9G capable target. There are 2 missiles; missile#1 reaches 117 km in “extraordinarily rare conditions”, missile#2 reaches 72km in another rarest set of condition. So when they are facing with ordinary conditions, are you REALLY saying missile#2 will outreach missile#1?

Yes, Gardeniya is a jammer. There are certain things it is supposed to do. The F-16’s radar is designed to resist those things. How does that balance out in practice? Well that isn’t clear… and the F-16 can/does carry a variety of jammers itself. How do those perform against the Mig-29/AA-10… same problem.

Your first sentence that makes sense; I think how balances out is simple, jammers will work until a certain range and after that radar will burn through jamming. At what range? Debatable.

Of course in your little scenario the Mig-29 has a wonderfully working jammer and the F-16 doesn’t:

Well I thought it would be better for F-16 not carry jammer pod. Add one ALQ-131; it limits aircraft to 5Gs. Good luck evading missiles with that.

Essentially just assume the Russian fighter has a missile with “234%” greater range, assume it has the sensors and situational awareness to use that range, assume the Russian jammer is working and that the Western fighter has no similar capability… gee, who do you think will win?

Well, it does have the range, numbers say so. Should I lie and say it doesnt, even if evidence states to contrary? Because thats exactly what you are doing.

Sensors&situational awareness = ? better missile range does not merely mean range. It means it has the energy to reach this range. This means at closer ranges, it will have way more energy to maneuver. Clearly MiG-29 have radar range to utilize R-27R to its max range. Fire a R-27RE to that range and it will kill instead of merely reaching.

Russians have a working jammer on MiG-29 9.13, and F-16 doesn’t have one. Carrying one limits F-16 to 5Gs, and also to M0,8 depending jammer carriage pylon. Should I lie about that one too?? If you accept the cons, just attach one to your F-16 and write your scenario?

or in the case of a few here ignore completely because it doesn’t say exactly what they want it to.

I never said his comperative analysis are wrong. One more time, I’ve only said some parts of his tone is annoying. I’ve already said if he were MiG pilot and said similar things about F-16 I would still be annoyed. Then someone declares me russian fanboy. After so much repetitions, I don’t know how one can be so thickheaded to take this from his wrong side.