Fireblade From Portugal, joined Feb 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0 Posted (12 years 2 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 11621 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.
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 20 Reply 2, posted (12 years 2 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 11543 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.
LY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 10 Reply 3, posted (12 years 2 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 11551 times:
F-16C/D Block 60 vs. MiG-29SMT
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.
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).
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.
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.
MiG-29SMT - Maximum speed is somewhere between Mach 2 and Mach 2.5
F-16 Block 60 - Mach 1.95
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.
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.
MiG-29SMT - RD-33 18000lb x2, total thrust 36000lb.
F-16 Block 60 - Pratt and Whitney F-100-PW-229 (Block 62), 29000lb thrust.
General Electric F-110-GE-229 (Block 60), 29000lb thrust.
LY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 10 Reply 5, posted (12 years 2 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 11539 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.
Fireblade From Portugal, joined Feb 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (12 years 2 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 11538 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?
LY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 10 Reply 12, posted (12 years 2 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 11524 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.
Fireblade From Portugal, joined Feb 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (12 years 2 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 11529 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.
SJC>SFO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (12 years 2 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 11521 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?
LY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 10 Reply 16, posted (12 years 2 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 11501 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.
Rodrigo Santos From Brazil, joined Sep 2001, 87 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (12 years 2 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 11503 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.
Fireblade From Portugal, joined Feb 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (12 years 2 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 11488 times:
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.
LY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 10 Reply 20, posted (12 years 2 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 11484 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.
Fireblade From Portugal, joined Feb 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (12 years 2 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 11472 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?
LY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 10 Reply 24, posted (12 years 2 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 11471 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).
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