Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Latest Model Of F-16 Vs Latest Mig-29  
User currently offlineFireblade From Portugal, joined Feb 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Posted (12 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 13885 times:

In this topic compare mig-29SMT and f-16C .
Because they are both for sale .
In air combat and ground strike.
eVERYTIME USE A FACTS AND NUMBERS PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY ONE A/C IS BETTER THAN A OTHER ONE.
Make a comparation about their max speed,cruise speed,range,warload,radar,angle speed,hardpoints etc.Please don 't post things such this a/c is better because every experts say that its better.Prove your infos with numbers and links if you have some.


27 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMiG-29-Sniper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (12 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 13819 times:

HAHAHAHAHA!!! hey Fire, are you bored, or you just want to start a new cold war???

ps - done with left sade of my blueprint. when done with the top look, i'll send it to ya under some conditions... but about that, later.
Dee


User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 18
Reply 2, posted (12 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 13808 times:

Both are pretty much equal.
I would prefer the F-16 for any airforce not now using Soviet aircraft because of the infrastructure changes needed to incorporate the MiG-29 into such an operation and because the F-16 has a smaller visual profile which gives it an edge (possibly a decisive edge) in close-in combat.



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineLY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 10
Reply 3, posted (12 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 13817 times:

F-16C/D Block 60 vs. MiG-29SMT

Weapons:

MiG-29SMT - 9 weapon points.
Able to carry all modern Russian made AA and AS missiles and bombs. Apparently, it is also compatible with many western missiles and bombs.
Equipped with IRST and HMS.
Cannon.
Max weapon load is 4500 kg.

F-16 Block 60 - 9 weapons points.
Able to carry all modern US made, and compatible (e.g. AGM 142, Python 3/4 etc.) missiles and bombs.
Equipped with IRST and HMS (depends on customer).
20mm cannon.
Max weapon load is 9000kg.

Navigation and weapon guidance:

MiG-29SMT - Apparently, can use the laser distance-measurement system in its IRST to guide laser-guided ammunition. Compatible with TV-guided weapons as well.

F-16 Block 60 - Compatible with LANTIRN and Lightning Navigation and weapons guidance systems. Allows it to fly extremely low while following the contours of the ground automatically. Can use Laser and TV-guided weapons, as well as anti-radar weapons, and GPS-guided weapons. Fully operational at night and all weather conditions.

Range:

MiG-29SMT - Improved range due to the added conformal fuel tanks. Air-refueling capability, only on newly manufactured a/c. Range is up to 3000km with conformal and external tanks.

F-16 Block 60 - Improved range due to the conformal fuel tanks. Air-refuelling capable. Range without CFT but with external fuel tanks is over 3000km, with CFT, is unknown.

Speed:

MiG-29SMT - Maximum speed is somewhere between Mach 2 and Mach 2.5

F-16 Block 60 - Mach 1.95

Stealthiness:

MiG-29SMT - uses special materials and paints to reduce radar signature. Actual effectiveness of those measure is classified. The MiG-29 is, however, larger and heavier than the F-16, thus, it would be more difficult to hide. The black trails that are left by its RD-33 engines make it easier to detect visually. The two engines probably make it easier to detect using IR sensors.

F-16 Block 60 - Uses special materials and paints to reduce radar signature. Small. Only one engine.

Cockpit:

MiG-29SMT - Improved HUD and cockpit displays. "Hands on throttle and stick". View down and back is still not very good.

F-16 Block 60 - Improved HUD and cockpit displays. "Hands on throttle and stick". Very good view in all directions.

Engines:

MiG-29SMT - RD-33 18000lb x2, total thrust 36000lb.

F-16 Block 60 - Pratt and Whitney F-100-PW-229 (Block 62), 29000lb thrust.
Or
General Electric F-110-GE-229 (Block 60), 29000lb thrust.


Draw your own conclusions.

LY744.



Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
User currently offlineSuperflanker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (12 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 13811 times:

Sorry i missposted my re click here to read it:
http://www.airliners.net/discussions/military/read.main/4369/


User currently offlineLY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 10
Reply 5, posted (12 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 13805 times:

That's not all you get for the extra money. See my post. You also get the capability to avoid radar detection by flying at 200ft following the contours of the ground automatically, and more.

As for the speed, altitude seiling, and the MTOW, that is due to the fact that the MiG-29 is a twin engine fighter. Maximum speed and altitude are not important in combat, because the a/c will rarely reach such speed and altitudes, and even there, it would not be safe from the enemies missiles.

A thing I like about the MiG-29 is its survivability. It has 2 engines which are mounted about 2-3 ft. apart. That and its naturally tough structure would enable the Fulcrum to take pretty rough damage. But then again, it is outwieghted by the fact that the MiG-29 is easier to detect, so there are more chances that it would be hit.

Another advantage of the MiG-29 is the fact that it could be operated from very rough fields. That is not a very effective commercial tool, though.

LY744.



Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
User currently offlineFireblade From Portugal, joined Feb 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (12 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 13804 times:

some of your infos are wrong:
f-16 warload is 4500kg not 9000kg!!!!!!
mig-29SMT warload is 5000kg not a 4500
mig-29smt range is 3500 f-16 range is 3900km[fas.org]
mig-29smt 8 hardpoints not 9.
About the speed weel you don't use your speed only for fight but for reaching faster in trhe lets say place you need too[else f-22 max speed would be M 2 not a M 2.5 if you don't need speed.
Also greater altitude isn't useless else .If it why do they make f-22 20000m ceilling no lets say 15000m.
MIg-29 has about 10% of mig-29bs' RCS IN THE FOR hemisphere what about f-16C?
So it's luck like that's only advantage of f-16C is for ground strike but if you include the money do you think that 3 fulcrums[two new SMTs 2times 15mil + 1 mig-29a] could be beaten by one f-16C?


User currently offlineSuperflanker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (12 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 13800 times:

That was my infos post your own in future
Sloboden


User currently offlineFireblade From Portugal, joined Feb 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (12 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 13799 times:

My name's Slobodan with O not e


User currently offlineSuperflanker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (12 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 13797 times:

Sorry But still those were my infos.

User currently offlineFireblade From Portugal, joined Feb 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (12 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 13795 times:

And who are you MAPO MIG cheef designer?

User currently offlineSuperflanker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (12 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 13793 times:

Why not that would bve great?

User currently offlineLY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 10
Reply 12, posted (12 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 13790 times:

I know that there are some conflicting data about those a/c out there. But I believe that the info that I've posted is correct.
F-16's weapons load is deffinetely not 4500kg. A typical F-16 configuration: 3 external fuel tanks, total weight of approximately 4500-5000kg. 2 1 ton bombs, 2 AIM-120's, 2 AIM-9's. That adds up to 7000 to 7500 kg.

Doesn't the MiG-29 has a hardpoint under its fuselage? I guess you're right about that, though.

It is very nice to have a high maximum speed, but using your afterburner is very, very fuel inefficient, and makes the a/c an easier target for IR sensors. Also, the a/c won't be able to get anywhere near that max speed if it has weapons and/or external fuel tanks on, so that evens the chances out a little. It is also why the F-22's Super-Cruise ability is so important.

I have an important correction to make to the info I posted earlier.
I've found out that the MiG-29K and M have the ability to follow the contours of the ground automatically using their main radar, so, I assume that the MiG-29SMT has that ability as well.

LY744.



Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
User currently offlineFireblade From Portugal, joined Feb 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (12 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 13795 times:

Well somebody is wrong you or fas.org[place where i took my info]
About hardpoints i'll do a little research and than post that OK?
Alex you still don't answer my question about f-22.
Why did they make the M 2.5 full burner?
And another thing speed is measured with NORMAL warload not with a empty plane[such a record flancer remember]
So mig-29 speed with NORMAL warload is 2.45 and f-16 spedd with NORMAL warload is 2.05.
'a/c can not reach near the max speed with external weapons and/or tanks on ..."
That's BS bro all 4gen a/cS' has external weapons.


User currently offlineLY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 10
Reply 14, posted (12 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 13785 times:

fas.org's F-16 page says that it can carry "4 2000lb bombs, 340 US gal. external tanks, and 2 AIM-9's". That adds up to approximately 5000kg.

As for speed and external loads, well, I don't have any proof handy, so I guess you are right until I can prove you wrong.

I'll post more later today (Hopefuly).

See ya!

LY744.



Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
User currently offlineSJC>SFO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (12 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 13787 times:

Lets keep in mind that though on the outside the aircraft are extremely comparable, pilot training is a huge factor. How many countries who operate these aircraft besides the US, Russia, and Israel have top rate pilot training... and this question isn't rhetorical, I honestly don't know of any others. Care to enlighten?

User currently offlineLY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 10
Reply 16, posted (12 years 10 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 13765 times:

From looking at some F-16 configurations, I have come to the conclusion that the maximum warload of an F-16C/D (Block 40) is at least 5800kg (+/- 200kg). If you want to know how exactly I got that number, let me know.

As for the F-22 having a maximum speed of 2.5 mach: We can't be sure what its real top speed is, because that is classifide, but mach 2.5 sounds reasonable. The F-22 is designed to replace the F-15, which also has a top speed of mach 2.5. Since the F-22 is supposed to be mainly an air-to-air fighter, they wouldn't want to give up anything that could compromise its abilities.

LY744.



Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
User currently offlineSin777er From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (12 years 10 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 13764 times:

The F-22 is too expensive!

User currently offlineRodrigo Santos From Brazil, joined Sep 2001, 87 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (12 years 10 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 13767 times:

To my knowledge, the F-22 is not capable of Mach 2.5. For lower RCS, they decided not to use variable intake (they did the exact thing on the B-1B). The Gripen and F-18 intakes are also fixed. On those cases, this option was made trying to reach simplicity. All this planes are not capable of reaching or flying over Mach 2. Thus, we can conclude that the over Mach 2 requirement is not so important. At least the Stealth and cost/simplicity beats it.


User currently offlineFireblade From Portugal, joined Feb 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (12 years 10 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 13752 times:

Alex
we missunderstood ourselves.I was talking about warload for example su-35 warload is 8000kg max and su-35 could also carry 8000kg of fuel max.So it's payload is 16000kg + 18400kg empty mass that's 34400kg its certain max takeoff mass.
So f-16 WARLOAD [that's only weapons ] is max 4500 kg
also mig-29 SMT warload is 5000kg.About f-16cS' max payload [that's warload + fuel] i don't have certain data.


User currently offlineLY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 10
Reply 20, posted (12 years 10 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 13748 times:

Actually, the figure of 5800kg is the mass of the weapons and fuel it can carry on its hardpoints only.
That does not include internal fuel.
Those external fuel tanks could be easily replaced with bombs.

LY744.



Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
User currently offlineFireblade From Portugal, joined Feb 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (12 years 10 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 13741 times:

Actually you were right F-22 afterburning mode is m 1.7
without afterburners 1.58.Hm
http://www.f-22raptor.com/airframe_airframe.htm#2.0_General_specifications


User currently offlineRodrigo Santos From Brazil, joined Sep 2001, 87 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (12 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 13741 times:

That little difference between the max speed and max cruise speed means that the Raptor will use its afterburners very rarely.

Back to the topic issue, what’s the price difference between the F-16 and the MiG 29?


User currently offlineFireblade From Portugal, joined Feb 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (12 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 13736 times:

f-16c cost[60 serie] 34.3 millions US $
Full equiped Mig-29 SMT cost 15.5 mils .
So with the same amount of money you could bought yourself 2 mig-29smt 2x15.5=31 and one old mig-29a about 3-4 mils.
Even if you don't like fulcrums do you think that one f-16c could beat those 3 fulcrums?  Innocent


User currently offlineLY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 10
Reply 24, posted (12 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 13735 times:

"Even if you don't like fulcrums do you think that one f-16c could beat those 3 fulcrums?"

Actually... Yeah. If those 3 fulcrums are flown by poorly trained pilots, and are not equipped with all the weapons they supposed to be equipped with (As happened in Iraq and Yugoslavia), then yeah, one F-16 has a good chance of beating 3 Fulcrums. Especially if the F-16 is supported by other means, like AWACS etc. (As happens in most Western countries). But then again, in such conditions, those 3 Fulcrums could be replaced by 3 F-16C's, and they would still be beaten (by a well armed, supported, and flown by a skilled pilot MiG-29, for example).

LY744.



Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
25 Fireblade : Yes i forgath to say ceteris paribus [under the same other sucamstences]. Alex did you read my post at latest Dmitrys' topic 5th gen a/c? I'm really w
26 Rodrigo Santos : 15 million for the Mig?? That sounds too cheap to me! The number I have is 20 million US, and that´s already very cheap!
27 Fireblade : well the correct number is 15.5 millions . But mig-29smt cost 20 millions if you purchase less than 16 units
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Latest Model Of F-16 Vs Latest Mig-29
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Ethiopia Vs Eritrea /su-27 Vs Mig-29 posted Sat Nov 17 2001 01:54:49 by Warlord
Can The MIG-29 Fly Backwards? posted Thu Nov 16 2006 19:07:54 by DIJKKIJK
F-16 Vs F/A-18 posted Thu Aug 10 2006 03:25:49 by Da man
MiG-29/Su-27 Question posted Sat Dec 31 2005 20:25:00 by MD90fan
MiG-29 Canopy Question posted Mon Aug 1 2005 07:40:24 by MD-90
Hungarian MiG-29 Down, Video posted Thu May 12 2005 21:41:34 by FlyKiWi
Large Scale Display Model Of AF-1 Exhibit posted Fri Feb 18 2005 05:51:45 by Advstol
Overflight Of 2 F-16's In My Area posted Fri Feb 6 2004 05:28:03 by Shamrock1Heavy
Pros And Cons Of Manned Vs. Unmannned. posted Mon Mar 3 2003 00:27:40 by CX747
Two Mig-29 Colide Over Slovakia posted Thu Nov 7 2002 06:45:24 by Andrej
MiG-29 Flight Controls posted Tue Sep 9 2008 22:02:30 by Blackbird
Mig-29 Air Intake Question. posted Wed Apr 30 2008 14:57:41 by Stickers
F-16 Vs F/A-18: Who Wins? posted Fri Feb 22 2008 18:30:44 by Jawed
MiG 29 Down Near Belgrade posted Tue Jul 7 2009 02:04:43 by JoKeR
MiG-29/Su-27 Aerodynamic Question posted Thu Sep 11 2008 19:38:15 by Blackbird
MiG-29 Flight Controls posted Tue Sep 9 2008 22:02:30 by Blackbird
Mig-29 Air Intake Question. posted Wed Apr 30 2008 14:57:41 by Stickers
F-16 Vs F/A-18: Who Wins? posted Fri Feb 22 2008 18:30:44 by Jawed

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format