AndraxxusWhat garbage? R-27RE capabilities? Taken from Su-27 manual. I am now throwing garbage to assume missile is the same on MiG-29?
Jammer? Well Gardeniya L203 IS a jammer and all 9.13 carries one. By definition it happens to jam radars? By its working principles, it hides vector data and range from the enemy radar, but reveals its direction -to appropirate equipment- while doing so. Where is fanboy garbage here? Do you want me to say “yes its a jammer but cannot jam any radar esspecialy not like small, airborne ones on F-16, despite that is what its designed/carried for”. Is this more logical to you? Now who is the fanboy here?
You don’t like HOJ? Well without knowing the vector data and range, passive mode of ANY missile on earth simply head towards the emmitting source. It cannot follow ballistic trajectory, because it risks overshoot, it cannot use an intercept course because it doesnt know where target is heading. This is the way things work. Don’t like? That’s your problem, welcome to the real world.
AndraxxusEverything you have written here is just poor speculation and guesswork and you have not provided any independent sources to back up any claim.
Well obviously I am speculating, and thats my own speculation so I cannot provide a source for that. For any data/number I have provided you can ask for a source, or at least spaculate something different for yourself if you are calling mine poor? I did said debatable as I drew my own conclusions.
The whole scenario itself is irrelevant anyway – what exactly are you trying to prove?
a)That Active-radar-homing or Track-while-scan is not necessarily always a game changer, like the message I’ve replied suggests? b)or that ordinary MiG-29 9.13 of 1990s still had good BVR capabilities without TWS or ARH?
Russia stronk!
Try to be smarter, I’ve already said I don’t like MiG-29. I will even go on to say I do like F-16 more than MiG-29. That however does not make an F-16 pilot insulting MiG-29 as not being a fighter, which is ethically wrong and technically not right either. Do comprehend this part at least.
There are too many errors there to even start to have a serious discussion.
Who said I want to discuss anything with YOU? Someone unable to grasp the message of what I am saying?
AndraxxusTWS radar and active radar missiles are enormous advantage in this. (Also weapons load – he didn’t mention it but MiG-29 could carry just two AA-10’s, another big limitation).
TWS? No, you can very well scan the area without tracking targets. When enganging, STT allows for better range and more reliable tracking of maneuvering targets. In 4vs4 scenario between F-15/16 and MiGs pilots on both sides will assign their targets use STT. TWS is if you desperately lack SA or engaging multiple targets at the same time. Debatable, but hardly a realistic scenario.
Two missiles? More than enough. By the time they are expanded aircraft will already be in visual range.
ARH missiles? All other things equal yes. Again debatable, but a R-27RE equipped MiG would be just as capable as AIM-120B equipped adversary; R-27RE has 234% range of AIM-120B; its effective KILL range is 31% greater than AIM-120A’s MAX range. In such conditions, while ARH missile allows more reliable terminal tracking and launch&leave capability, you have to enter KILL range of the enemy just to fire your missile. If you ve F-16 pilot, irrelevant if enemy’s missile has low PK because its SARH, there is a 2-3 minute flight in the 60km zone where enemy can shoot and you can’t. Furthermore, MiG-29 will be actively jamming so without vector data, F-16 will no idea of its heading and cannot utilize AIM-120 in loft trajectory but instead use HOJ, which linearly follows the jamming source, nearly halving the max range.
In such scenario MiG pilot has the initiative, and he can safely launch R-27RE at 60 km -well within at the kill range-, then put a 45 degree angle and reduce his closure rate. If F-16 pilot is lucky and have evaded the first missile, he has lost his SA, and due to energy he wasted while evading he is in kinematically disadvantegous position. If he manages to gain SA quickly, balance shifts towards F-16; while at ~35 km, he is effectively in no-escape-zone of R-27RE, but MiG needs to illuminate its target. If he does that, he will run into AIM-120. Two outcomes would be, if R-27 reaches F-16 first; F-16 evades it he is in kinematically in pathetic position to be killed by IRST/R-73s. if AIM-120B reaches MiG first; MiG breakes target lock and evades missile, wasting energy so energy amounts are leveled with F-16. F-16 has an advantage that he still has a target lock, but F-16 is well in range of HMS/R-73. If on the previous condition F-16 pilot cannot establish SA quickly, then MiG will launch his second missile before F-16, and best F-16 pilot can do is to withdraw.
Such theoratical play is broken with R-27R equipped MiG-29 9.12. Missile has less range than AIM-120B and F-16 has the initiative; it can launch its missile first; and its irrelevant if MiG launches his missile later, because it will be too busy evading that it wont be able to guide its missile. In these conditions ARH is a decisive advantage. Despite what out good pilot said, good combination of IRST and R-27T in conjuction with his radar is his best bet, at least it has a chance to disturb F-16 so MiG could survive for CAC. But without R-27T capability on export 9.12s, I don’t see how a MiG can gain upper hand without F-16 pilot making a mistake.
You see, two scenarios, ARH does not make someone automatically win.
Andraxxusi dont understand the butt hurtedness here.
Well you obviously don’t since you are calling my comments “butt hurtedness”. His relatively objective comparisons are welcomed. He can say he hated MiG-29 he piloted and I would still respect his opinion. When he goes beyond that, even slightly towards insult or despise due to his nationalistic bias; he loses all his credibility in my eyes.
AndraxxusOh c’mon, his exact quote is “It’s a good airplane, just not much of a fighter when compared to the West’s 4th-generation fighters.”
Clearly he is accounting for a lack of active BVR missile.
75% of F-16s in EU didn’t have AIM-120 capability 90s, too. His quote is merely annoying; Is having bigger BVR missile the only thing that makes an airplane fighter? Then according to his logic; by the time he flew MiG-29, then current Skyflash equipped Tornado ADV or Super 530D equipped Mirage 2000 were pretty inferior to then current 9.13Ss in virtually any BVR criteria. So what? Were they not much of a fighter before MiG-29? Or as F-22 introduced should we call F-15/16/18 “not much of a fighter” now? Thats very disrespectful thing to say when people still design/build/use/fly/buy them.
Its not about MiG-29 vs F-16. If a MiG-29 pilot flew a Dutch F-16A at the same day and said “F-16 is not much of a fighter because all it carries is AIM-9”, I would oppose such tone too.
He can state the obvious that MiG he flew didn’t have much capabilities in BVR arena againist AIM-120 capable opponents and thats it.
AndraxxusNATO operates Link-16 with a similar purpose.
And when Link-16 got operational on F-15/F-16?s 1997? Link-16 has no means of automatically steering aircraft towards anywhere.
So MiG-29 uses datalink as main navigation tool? From what I understand it uses an inertial navigation system. Did export Fulcrum used it as well?
Well technically MiG-29 uses primarly TACAN and secondarily INS as navigation, but with constant updates from datalink. If MiG-29 steers of course, GCI gives course corrections. Export fulcrums didn’t have datalink, they relied on TACAN stations. As MiG-29 was never meant to operate beyond FLOT, so that was deemed enough.
I think you’re being way too harsh. The guy simply reports on what hardware he was able to test out adn I am grateful for his comments.. It is not his fault that Germany never got MiG-29Ms.
Well you are right, but I find some of his comments insultive to all those MiG engineers and operators. Comments like “MiG-29 is not a good airplane but not much of a fighter like F-16” is not simply a report.
– I have never heard about 9.12S. I think you might be mistaken here..
– it was 9.13 which added Gardeniya jammer. 9.13S added N019M radar and R-77 capability (the missile later not adopted for Russian service)
From what I’ve learned from its manuals and Midland MiG-29 book;
Object 9.12; Initally built for Soviets, later for export. Around 700 produced from 1982 to 1993.
Object 9.12A; for export to warshaw pact; downgraded. Produced from 1986 to 1993
Object 9.12B; for export to warshaw pact; downgraded. Produced from 1987 to 1991.
Object 9.13; Built for Soviets; Around 600 built between 1986 and 1991. Adds internal gardeniya jammer.
Object 9.13S; Built for Soviets; Around 50 built; Add gardeniya ECM, N019M and R-77 capability.
Object 9.12S; Built for Soviets; Around 20 built; adds N019M and R-77 but lacks internal ECM. Handed back to MiG after 1991; formed the basis of all MiG-29SMT;
Object 9.12SD; one prototype converted from 9.12S; adds refuelling capability.
Object 9.12SM; two converted from 9.12S adds A-G capability. None entered service.
Object 9.17SMT; Original MiG-29SMT upgrade, prototypes built from converted 9.12S and one 9.12SM frames. Entered into RuAF service starting with the conversion of S/n 2960520165 converted to 9.17.
Object 9.18SMT2; Modified SMT upgrade, 9.12S numbered 777 was the unique prototype for this. Entered into RuAF service with cancelled Algeria deal.
Others;
Object 9.15-1; Original MiG-29M prototyes.
Object 9.15-5; Production MiG-29M; supposed to be production MiG-29M but not produced.
Object 9.21; One 9.12S ; converted to advanced digital avionics testbed.
Object 9.25; Supposed to be multirole variants of MiG-29M. two prototyped produced.
Object 9.61; Sole 9.15-5 converted to MiG-29M2. Its technology then added to 9.41K.
Object 9.31; Original MiG-29K, developed into 9.41K which is the current one.
Currently only 9.12S in military service is former 999 Silver, which was sold to bangladesh air force with F/n 36501.
AndraxxusYes. It was testing 117 and now it is testing… something new.
Do we have pictures of it flying? I am curious about how “something new” looks like.
AndraxxusFor the F/A-18C, did you use dats with the -400 or the -402 engines?
I don’t remember as that excel chart dates to March 2014, however my NFM-200 has data only for F404-GE-400 so I possibly (99%) used that.
Andraxxus“The N019 was further compromised by Phazotron designer Adolf Tolkachev’s betrayal of the radar to the CIA, for which he was executed in 1986. In response to all of these problems, the Soviets hastily developed a modified N019M Topaz radar for the upgraded MiG-29S aircraft”
Says wikipedia in MiG-29 article. And also this:
AndraxxusI believe production of 9-12 Fulcrums ended ca. 1990 and Soviet Air Force received only 9-13 series aircraft after that. Not that many 9-13’s were produced before the fall of the Soviet Union (couple of dozen?) and they weren’t exported before fall of the Soviet Union, although some were in post-Soviet era.
IIRC; Soviet 9.12A production ended immediately in 1986, when they learned the radar designer -I can’t remember the name) sold CIA information about N019 radar. Then there were two variants 9.12S with uprated avionics and new missiles, and 9.13S which added jammer to it. 9.12A only built for export since then.
Was there really much difference between an East German MiG-29 and a Soviet air force example? To what extent were they downgraded?
They removed a)Laszlo/Lazur datalinks b)SRO IFF system c) Some radar modes like free search and ECM penetration capabilites d) Late MiG-29s had 26deg AOA limiter and higher instantenious maneuverability, export models used older limiter with 24 deg. d) Some had lack of R-27T compitability (R-27RE/TE was never compatible with 9.12) e) Some didn’t have wing EFT compitability. f) minor differences between instrument sets like climb rate indicator.
AndraxxusThe only remotely valid ones on that graph are the F-16, F/A-18C, MiG-29, and F-5E, since those were from an actual LM presentation.
No even they are pretty invalid. In the past I took the liberty of taking acceleration data from their flight manuals and draw them together to make the REAL LIFE version of it; it did took some interpolations for MiG-29 though;
[ATTACH=CONFIG]235129[/ATTACH]
Sources: F-16 = GR1F-16CJ-1-1, F-18C = F18AC-NFM-200, F-18E = F18EA-NFM-200, F-5E T.O-1F-5E-1, MiG-29 = MiG-29 flight manual aeroydnamics booklet.
Andraxxus#1 Those Su-35 numbers are laughable. Su-27S on 22000 kg at 10000 meters has clearly inferior acceleration to F-16C MiG-29 F-18C on 50% fuel at low transonic speeds. I don’t think Su-35 will improve on it that much. Its not even an apples to apples comparison, a Su-27S on 22000kgs will have similar range to fully fuelled F-16/F-18, or a MiG-29 with EFT.
#2 Looking sleeker is no indication of anything. 1/2*ρ*Cd*A*V^2, says for the same environment, drag Coefficient and wing area are the only factors to determine drag. While we don’t know its Cd0, PAK-FA has greater wing area than any fighter out there. For a given L/D ratio, any weight needs to be balanced by lift, affecting drag.
So unless you are sure PAK-FA has smaller wings, smaller Cd, and lighter airframe and better L/D ratio, you have insufficient data to conclude PAK-FA is less draggy than anything.
AndraxxusHe stated that the Mig-29’s BVR capabilities were essentially nonexistent in the real world and that for a Mig-29 to survive to WVR against a Western opponent with AMRAAM the Western fighter would have to be having “a bad day.” (no surprise)
Ok I’ll play, oversimplifying;
before AIM-120 compatiability introduced to F-16Cs in 1991, F-16 had no BVR capability, and F-15 was stuck with AIM-7. So generation-vise
1-MiG-29A versus F-16A/B blk 5-10-15 blk25 and preamraam blk30/32s? There was no contest there.
2-MiG-29A versus F-15A? AIM-7M and R-27R/T are very comperable missiles, with R-27 having an advantage in range and having a IR seeker variant; F-15A had better radar and an ECM, but no datalink, but MiG-29 had a datalink smaller and harder to detect. Range combat radius etc were a drawback for MiG, but it was much cheaper than F-15. F-15 was only slightly better in my opinion.
Then early 1990s;
3-MiG-29S vs F-16 blk30. MiG-29 got R-27RE/TE missiles, N019M radar -which solved most of its processing problems-, and internal Gardeniya ECM. and F-16 got AGP-68 and AIM-120A/B. R-27RE had nearly double range of AIM-120A, and 30-50% range than B variants at the cost of being SARH. Debatable, but I would pick MiG-29S due to fact its the one with datalink, longer ranged missiles and and jammer; ARH does not offset all those in my eye.
late 1990s early 2000s;
5-MiG-29SM 9.13 vs F-16 blk50 and F-15 MSIP II/III; all added more on multi role capability, but F-15/16 also got AIM-120C compitability and SM got R-77 compitability. Due to finally mitigating the clear range advantage MiG previously held, todays F-16 (which also recieved its link-16) and F-15 are obviously better than MiG-29.
If author is stupid enough to compare MiG-29A with F-16 block 50 and say MiG-29 has no clear BVR ability, its his problem. Guess what, its 20 years obsolete by now. If you look the opposite, today’s MiG-29SMTs, despite lack of russian funding/development, would easily make fun of any AIM-7 equipped F-15A in BVR arena. This doesn’t mean F-15 has no practical BVR capability.
AndraxxusWow, sorry I offended you, I did not know humor was banned on this forum. I even had a smiley face on there.
Ok, re-reading what I’ve wrote, it appears I’ve sounded a bit harsh too. I stand by my ideas but I apologize for my tone of speech, which was not my intetion (english is not my native language anyway)
I for one appreciate accounts from operational personnel with hands-on experience. It has little to do with a positivist view on things, but I rather think it can add interesting perspectives which can be good for discussions. Perhaps you’ll find as many opinions as there are pilots.
Agreed on that, I was simply pointing out a pilot’s opinion doesn’t preclude further discussion. You may value them more, and I would value manufacturer given data more; its a personal choice.
“The radar was actually pretty good and enabled fairly long-range contacts.”
Well F-16 uses interleaved scan low-med pulse repetition frequencies, wheras MiG-29 can utilize ILV,MED or HI PRF. An experienced pilot will disable ILV and use high PRF mode in optimal circumstances its designed to operate; like upper semisphere/low background clutter, and necessarily high-speed approaching targets). It technically allows much better range, but requires more processing power for lower semisphere targets (which RLPK-29 lacks), and blinds the radar againist retreating targets.
In fact high operating PRFs and lack of processing power for each pulse return is something equally affects N001 N019 and APG-63 radars. He possibly didn’t used MiG-29 too much.
I believe ILV scan of N019 is problematic, because manual recommends using MED-PRF if target aspect is not known. Why not interleaved mode, I don’t know. With N019 operating at MED PRF, it should be pretty comperable but inferior to APG-66.
1. The Mig requires constant trim corrections, and in general the hydraulic controls felt sloppy (constant attention to fly)
2. The BVR capability of the Mig was nonexistent in reality due the complexity of the firing sequence, and that the Mig-29’s radar could only lock on one target at a time.
3. Poor navigation system
I would disagree on this also. Its a matter of choices, training and habits. Some people manual transmission car over automatic, and even find it easier safer and more comfortable. Commenting some western pilots about some eastern aircraft does not make these true.
Comlexity/Ergonomics complaints I could remember: MiG-29 switches between search, track and missile guidance modes automatically, if it loses target track, it automatically switches to search mode. This may be annoying and badly designed to a certain western pilot (cant remember the name) but if he had spend 20 years with these, F-16 would have looked annoying and badly designed to him. Likevise, MiG-29 displays radar info also on HUD, which was another complaint from another western pilot. Imagine how a seasoned MiG-29 pilot would feel on F-15. He would likely have very bad comments on usability of radar.
Situational Awareness: Really, please someone enlighten me how really MiG-29A lacks SA when compared to F-15A/C or F-16A/C? Screens? All 3 have seperate RWR and Radar displays. All 3 merge their own radar displays with off-board info fed via datalink. Again habits apply, spent 20 years flying a MiG, and you wouldn’t want sh!tloads of lines and circles; my plane, my target, enemy planes, frendly planes and that’s it. On RWR end, when an experienced MiG pilot flies F-15, he would hate looking at an annoying CRT screen showing green boxes squares letters and numbers. He will find it too complex and hard to understand.
Poor navigation system; I know this is consesus among many western pilots but; Really.. Poor??? I find MiG-29’s navigation system to be one of its best features. MiG-29 was designed to recieve its guidance via laszlo/lazur datalinks. It could take-off, fly to its nav points and land on autopilot. More amazing is, during combat, if “leader” Su-27s and MiG-31s or AWACS and GCI’s give an order MiG-29, its autopilot would automatically maneuver MiG for most optimal attack position (climb accelerate etc), determined by the radar (this is why it automatically switches between radar modes). When launch conditions are met, a voice signal and HUD sign simply tells the pilot to launch his missile. Usability is debatable, but such deep navigation features are still not present on any variant of any western aircraft.
German MiG-29Gs had their datalinks removed and were operating MiG-29 on -backup- TACAN based navigation. Compatible TACAN stations were already lacking in numbers inside Germany, then they decide to move them around europe for DACT, outside of TACAN stations; no wonder pilots complain about it; remove the primary and secondary means of navigation from F-16, and it will have difficulties too.
I think it also answers why I disagree about “MiG-29 constant attention to fly” complaint. It was meant to be fly in autopilot unless something goes wrong.
AndraxxusWe can’t have articles like this on here, surely fanboys are better qualified to say what the “best” fighters were/are, not some guy that actually flew them! :
Very annoying assesment to write on a forum. You are looking childish while trying to dismiss many people’s posts as fanboyism. So what? If a pilot says something, there is nothing to discuss over it? Pilots are THE single most biased sources particularly toward’s their own Air Force’s aircraft. Only the most brainwashed of the fanboys tend to take pilots as oracle of knowledge and a source to backup their claims or pimp up their favourite aircraft. What is funny is they also dismiss other pilots as liars and untrustworthy.
For example, quoting this pilot talking about F-15 and F-16;
Both jets bring excellent handling qualities and visibility to the equation. What you really don’t want to be is the MiG pilot who faces off against either jet in this scenario.
Quote of another pilot on this article
The pure joy of the F-16, though, was in the furball (complex dogfight with many aircraft), where the aircraft had the edge over the F-15 and a significant edge over everything else. With the F-16’s incredible agility and power, the pilot could get close and stay close.
Then, suprise! A quote from German MiG-29 pilot;
…..the MiG-29 is a superb fighter for close-in combat, even compared with aircraft like the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18. This is due to the aircraft’s superb aerodynamics and helmet mounted sight. Inside ten nautical miles I’m hard to defeat, and with the IRST, helmet sight and ‘Archer’ I can’t be beaten. Period. Even against the latest Block 50 F-16s the MiG-29 is virtually invulnerable in the close-in scenario. On one occasion I remember the F-16s did score some kills eventually, but only after taking 18 ‘Archers’. We didn’t operate kill removal (forcing ‘killed’ aircraft to leave the fight) since they’d have got no training value, we killed them too quickly. …… They might not like it, but with a 28deg/sec instantaneous turn rate (compared to the Block 50 F-16’s 26deg) we can out-turn them. Our stable, manually controlled airplane can out-turn their FBW aircraft. But the real edge we have is the ‘Archer’ which can reliably lock on to targets 45deg off-boresight.
Which is the liar? MiG pilot or F-16 one? IMHO this leaves both to be invalid, and leaves everything to be discussed.
For the record, I liked the article in overall, and for the record I neither like MiG-29 nor I think its a better aircraft overall than F-16 of F-15. However I do sense the typical negative bias towards MiG that I would expect from a USAF pilot. As a result, there are some points his ideas are invalid and wrong to me.
Sign In
