Yes, in some areas in terms of TECHNOLOGY it was 10 years behind of F-16A. In terms of CAPABILITIES it was 10 years ahead of it. Never mix these 2 different concepts again. If something is made out of steel instead of titanium, but fly just as good or better, its only mean what constructors of said steel plane have done much better job than constuctors of titanium plane. Nothing more.
F-16A isnt even in some league with Mig-29A in terms of weaponry and FCS. Its a whole generation behind it.

P.S. My book says “The first F-16A achieved initial operational capability in 1979”.
Mig-29S could be compared to F-16C, slightly inferior in some areas (visiblity, range) and overhelmly superior in others (R73, HMS, IRST, Datalink)

Wouldn’t think so. The F-16A got in service in Januar 1979, the prototype flew in 1974 (actually the prototype was in some ares different from the later serial aircraft). The C-Vesion entered service in 1984.
The MiG-29A entered operational service in 1983/84. No advanced version was ever fielded in the Sviet Union.

The F-16C can deploy BVR-weapons. The MiG-29A has fairly poor man-machine interface, lacks comprehensive FCS and is much more demanding for handling. The F-16 did include some major new technologies. The MiG-29 was not a bad design (never said that), but obviously Russian industry was not willing or not able to include technologies like relaxed stability, a truly capable radar with easy interface and better maintanable components. Its dogfight-capability is outstanding. But from the technology point of view it is far inferior. The performance falls steep for anything except dogfighting. And it is actually the first Russian aircraft to be more expensive (in relative terms) than its American counterpart.

Serbia faced that threat obviously they lost, because Russia and the Warsaw pact were unable to help.

unable, unwilling and non-existant any more (at least the WP states were mostly NATO members at that time).

The Americans know under same numbers, the MiG-29 will beat the F-15.

They know lots of things better than you do. And they know how to use the weapon systems. Iraq didn’t (in 1980 to 1988), Syria didn’t (1982, 1973), Egypt didn’t (1967, 1973), Vietnam was told.

In technology the MiG-29 is the best

Complete BS! the MiG-29 is a very conventional aircraft. When it was fielded in 1983 first, it was in terms of technology 10 years behind a 1976 F-16A. Cockpit outdated, flight controls outdated, weaponary outdated, radar outdated, engine worse, much heavier, very conventionally built. Why did the Soviets start a re-design in form of the -M even before the first MiG-29 saw service? They knew that the plan to outperform 4th generation US fighters failed with the basic MiG-29. Only agility and close-combat performance was OK, but Falklands and Libanon 1982 showed that agility at low speeds is not of big importance any more.

The Americans acknowledged that and for that reason they know they need the F-22.

Americans wanted to replace their by then 20 year old aircraft. Normal life-cycle. The F-22 shows impressivly the 10 to 20 year advantage American industry has in technology over Russia. Unlikely that Russia will ever bring an aircraft in the class of the F-22.

NO i have not asked any thing foolish niether falsify facts, the overall superiority of the Western Fighters against the MiG-29 is basicly a fabrication, if you field a larger number of aircraft, AWACS, destroy the radar network, the oppositing force has few fourth generation fighters and besides you have AIM-120 well 4 MiG -29s is not a super score when they shot you down an F-117 and probably more.

Russia is not as a failure as you say, first in Vietnam the US lost, you are not considering Russian claims or Iraqi or Serbian you only give credit to US or Western claims, SAMs always have being the way to disguise kills in Air to Air there are air to air victories reported by Russia, Syria, Iraq and Serbia.

But if you always say the F-15 is a super fighter when faces Russian aircraft but in excersices even the `Panavia Tornado can beat it, if the claim it is english well you can say the panavia Tornado is an excellent interceptor but if you changed to MiG-29 no way.

For the Russians F-15s have been shot down and according to Russia an F-117 was shot down by a MiG-29, this was reported by several sources.

The Russians also claimed more Israeli fighters shot down than the Syrians. The Russians (or at least some authors you like to quote) seem to feel shabby due to the bad combat record of MiG-23/-25 and -29. Then they are looking for any kill and look for the final prove.

In Vietnam the Americans didn’t lose, not in the air war over Vietnam. They did not manage to gain the level of superiority as desired, but at no stage of the campaign were the North Vietnamese able to keep the Americans out of the air space or to inflict unsustainable losses. The North Vietnamese joined some considerable advantages, first of all the immunity of their bases. Against a determined enemy without political boundaries the North Vietnamese wouldn’t have had any chance (all referring to air war). Dollar value of hardware used doesn’t count much, Soviet Union spent hell a lot of money on that war, too.

The F-117 wasn’t shot down by the MiG, and even if, did the MiG achieve the kill due to turn rate, acceleration, or any other BS advantage so marvelous? A T-38 can score a kill if directed in visible distance to an undefended and slower target.

Flogger, you simply don’t understand and I see no improvement. I have never said the F-15 is a super fighter. You have not the slighest idea about how air conflicts really take place, and I don’t see any willingness to learn. A MiG-23 can easily beat an F-15 if used in the right manner. The Soviet system was feasible, for defence of Eastern Germany air space. It proved bad for all arabic states.

Once again: the main reason why the combat record of MiG-23/-25 and -29 is so bad, is that only loser nations used it. All nations using the MiG-23 in combat haven’t had the infrastructure as the Soviets in eastern Europe. They had to fail against every enemy flexible in tactics.
So, if you want to do a favor for your favorite aircraft, just don’t mention the combat record.

The Serbs and Iraqies were well trained, fact the Iraqies shot several F-14, F-15, F-16, F-18, Panavia Tornadoes and other aircraft.

the Serbs were also good, capable even to shot down an F-117.

What you want to hide is this real factor, numbers count, NATO fileded in Both Wars more fighters than either Iraq or Serbia, the US won`t play that game of fairness that is only for movies.

Soviet tactics are not bad what happens Soviet tactics requiered large numbers of fighters to overwhelm an enemy

Iraqis achieved nearly all kills by surface-to-air weapons. Against Iran their air force did actually not excel. The Russians were unable to deliver adequate support in terms of advisers. The Soviets failed in this discipline not only in Iraq, but also in the Middle East 1967 and 1973 (and 1982). Even in Vietnam the picture did not look very favorable after all, while it still represents the best performance of Soviet fighter aircraft since 1953.

The shot-down of the F-117 is not due to overall skill of forces. Please, Flogger, by picking these kind of examples, falsiying the facts and calling all other people biased you make yourself a joke.

NATO had superior numbers. Don’t doubt it. I don’t want to hide anything. You asked the stupid question of the MiG-29s combat record, knowing that it only lost. It never made the difference. It didn’t perform better than a MiG-21 in the same role. No engagement since introduction of the MiG-29 can prove any ability. That is fact. What do these facts say about the aircraft? Not much.
Air Defense is a complicated system and the fighter used of much lower importance than most people think. The Russians took this into account by building the MiG-23 in large numbers. If your AD-system is bad, the best fighter in the world won’t help much.

The MiG-29 has a 300 m/s initial rate of climb higher than the F-16.

The initial rate of climb is about 30 m/s better for the MiG-29. What a great difference. Is that all you can deliver?

Only one MiG-29A has been lost to an F-16 and that was thanks to an AIM-120. The F-15s have shot down around 8 MiG-29s but always these fought with superiority in numbers and AWACS.
The F-15s are not better simply they had the strategic and tactical advantage, larger numbers and fought older MiG-29s.
The F-15 fought fighters that were very limited in radar ground control and almost nil AWACS support.

This proves that US uses its fighters according to the manual. The users of MiGs were seldom able of doing so, normally applying wrong tactics (Soviet manuals) with usual lack of pilot skill, CCC or just some kind of usable doctrine. It is not the figher, it is the system that proved to be useless.

Modern MiG-29C and MiG-29M or MiG-29SMT won`t fall easy specially if they can field a larger number than any western opositing fighter force.

Nope, won’t be better than F-16C, except that F-16C is flying (and produced) since early 80s. For a western air force a MiG-29 is as expensive as an F-16, normally even more expensive. Get an update of your numbers! MiG-29 sold to third world countries, excluding training, spares and always assuming no cost for manpower.
A MiG-29SMT is a reasonable aircraft but has no noticeable advantage over an F-16C. It is heavier, needs more fuel, has inferior range. It’s Russian and not American, maybe that is the biggest advantage

You are all omitting one important factor – aerodynamics.. A brick wall with higher T/W ratio than MiG-29 is not necessarily automatically more maneuvrable. We are not talking about space fighters, folks..

The MiG-29, like the F-18 and supposingly the Su-27, have higher zero-lift drag and normally a steeper transonic drag increase. Reason is the AoA-optimised configuration and the lower wing-load. That effectively adds surface not needed for supersonic flight. Relaxed-stability is a mean to counter this partially, the Suchoi used it (with considerable teething), the MiG didn’t.

However, that doesn’t make these designs bad. They just need more thrust to brake the sound barrier. They have lots of thrust, so no matter. Of course, you’ll have a penalty in transonic regime (after drag divergence app. M0.9 for a fighter).

The F-16 was able to achieve good performance with small airframe. Therefore it is in my opinion the “best” fighter for the mission (short to medium range defensive fighter and light air2ground). The F-18 was navalised and had to cover a wider spectrum of operations. Additionally, the era of extreme agility slowly came to an end. All design offices in the world recognized that agility of the F-15-level was sufficient in most situations.

In terms of aerodynamics in transonic regime the MiG-23, Starfighter and F-5 were best. The ladder even had good agility (and was small & light).

Overall, the MiG-29 was the best you could get out using old design techniques and specifications for a 4th generation problem. The design is good, but its lack of technology was a problem and was countered in the subsequent models (-M and other). Like many Soviet fighters, the first version was somehow a very sad thing lacking in several areas. Like all its predecessors it needed substantial redesign after First Flight.

Never buy anything before the M-version! 😀

Perhaps the finest dogfight of the fourth generation, has had limited success according to many and in Russia is consider to have shot down even an F-117, some claimed it shot down some Panavia Tornados,

Had been the finest dogfighter an aircraft that has been uncapable to reach it`s Max potential as a dogfighter?

The MiG-29 surpasses the F-15, F-16 and F-18 in turn rates and acceleration, has excellent short range missiles and a HMS, was the first aircraft capable to do the Pugachev`s Cobra, more than 1500+ have been produced.

In recent years has recovered the export segment it lost to it`s bigger brother the Su-27, new variants promise an excellent multirole capability.

The claims are all proven wrong.

The MiG-29 biggest problems were their users. They are to blame, because they were all losers. If the Israelis had 29ers in any conflict the picture would look different. The MiG-29’s dogfight ability is surely in the same league as the F-16, with advantages depending on the author. However, the MiG-29 is the best example that these abilities don’t make the big difference.

Less than 1500 have been produced, the Cobra manouver is in my knowledge only doable with the -OVT version. Anyways, it doesn’t give any gain in knowledge. It did not recover any real export market, it remains as a relatively unwanted thing on the world market. Once again, the reason is not faulty design but its heritage and lack of home support (no development by RuAF). After the A-version development was very limited and no version saw extensive service.

The Russians focussed very much on low-speed agility, therefore building aircraft for high-AoA. That is only of limited use at usual combat speeds of M0.7 to M0.9, where AoA of less than 15 degrees are suffcient to use maximum allowed G-limit. The numbers shown above indicate that the F-16 achieves similar performance with lower weight and a smaller airframe. The MiG-29 however does not have any cutting edge technology, so its demonstrated ability is stonishing.

Flogger,
what is the purpose? Re-use the claims you always do?