Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
MIG-29 Vs. F-16  
User currently offlineSU508 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (15 years 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 4148 times:

Mig-29 vs. F-16?

17 replies: All unread, jump to last
User currently offlineApuneger From Belgium, joined Sep 2000, 3036 posts, RR: 10
Reply 1, posted (15 years 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 4080 times:

F-16 definitely, even it was just for the fact that the Belgian Air Force has them!


Ivan Coninx - Brussels Aviation Photography
User currently offlineMonocleman From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 137 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (15 years 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 4063 times:

F-16. From the nuts that hold on the landing gear, the 16 was designed to be a fast, agile air superiourity fighter. It's much more maneuverable, and in a dogfight with its better armament (M-61A1 Gatling) and much higher visibility it would almost undoubtedly come out on top.

User currently offlineLY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (15 years 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 4073 times:

If you are talking about superiority, I like the F-16 better, because of it's "multi-purposeness", something the MiG-29 (even in the newest versions) lacks. The F-16C/D block 50 has excellent ground attack capabilities, it can utilise a wide range of guided weapons, like laser and video guided bombs and missiles, under different light and weather conditions, and still be able to protect itself from enemy fighters. The MiG-29 is an excellent interceptor, it is faster than the F-16, it is prettier (almost as beatiful as the SU-27), and I think it is often underestimated.
In close combat between those two a/c, the smaller and lighter F-16 would probably have a slight advantage.
Anyways, I think they are both great aircraft.


Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
User currently offlineTEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (15 years 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 4049 times:

The F-15 Eagle has better odds against the MIG-29 Fulgrum than the F-16. Don't forget the F-15 is the world's only jet fighter that still has a 120 to 0 kill ratio. It shot down a number of Iraqi MIG-29s during Desert Storm.

User currently offlineDC-9CAPT From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (15 years 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 4055 times:

It's not the plane, it's the pilot

User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 30408 posts, RR: 57
Reply 6, posted (15 years 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 4046 times:

It isn't the crate but the person who sits in it......

The Red Baron

User currently offlineIndianguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (15 years 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 4036 times:

This is not to belittle the F16 which is a delightful little plane.

But the Mig-29 when fitted with certain avionics can fly circles around the F16.

Indian Air Force Mig-29's have recently been fitted with a locally made BVR(Beyond Visual Range) package that can detect and shoot down F16's from over 80 kms away, this is before the F16's radar can even lock on to indian Migs or Jaguars!

The clincher however is that the Mig-29 is more versatile than the F16, as it can be used in roles ranging from Precision Strike, Low-Level Ground Strafing, Maritime protection and ofcourse interception in which it excels.

User currently offlineWasilenko From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (15 years 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 4025 times:

I am russian and I am sick of all the people who abuse Russian aviation!

User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 30408 posts, RR: 57
Reply 9, posted (15 years 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 4023 times:

One thing about the MIG, Unlike the F-16, if you lose and engine you can still make it home on the other one.

That is one of the reasons the Canuks selected the F-18 over the F-16.

User currently offlineGunfighter 6 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2001, 404 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (15 years 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 4018 times:

Altough the F16 is a beautiful plane, I must say the Mig is a much stronger plane.

The F-16 is limited by its flight systems, the mig on the other hand is not. In addition the Mig or the soviets have a more advanced missle system than the american's have. the AIM9 and AIM120 can only hit aircraft 180 degree in front of them. the MIG beats this by a 360 degree shooting angle.

The F16's Westinghouse APG68 radar might be more advanced than the mig's radar system however the APG does not work in dense fog or bad weather situations
The Mig compensates that with its Radar mounted on the nose.

You can debate this forever. both aircraft have their pro's and cons.

User currently offlineWasilenko From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (15 years 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 4012 times:

Did you people know that all Russian made fighters can use american missiles!

User currently offlineAerotech From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 259 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (15 years 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3976 times:

The F-16 would win any given battle for a number of reasons. It's still the world's only relaxed static stability flight control aircraft. (Operationaly) This means in cruise conditions the aircraft is extremely unstable, with the controls making thousands of corrections every few seconds, but pull it into a turn, and it really comes alive! All that instability is now channeled into turning hard and fast. That's takes care of a gun range fight. Moving out, (Remember the Mig-29 has a very archaic cockpit from the days of the F-4) the F-16 has a super avionics package, and will work in conjunction with AWACS for the best possible amount of S.A. It will fly at the transonic envelope at 30,000ft., right at the heart of it's own envelope to put a lift vector on the Mig to achieve a kill, bar-none. The Atoll or Alamo do not have a 360 degree envelope, only the fire contol helmet does. The F-16 does not have this because it doesn't need it. America operates in the realm of using AWACS and better S.A. to acheve a kill B.V.R, whereas Russia beliveves in the close-in-range kinfe fight. The F-16 will be employed first using the American tactic. It will use LANTIRN to see through the clouds and NVIS to see through the night. If it expends all Amraams and Sidewinders, it will move into the Russian style tactics, where it will still win with a smaller turning radius due to it's statically unstable design. The F-16 was'nt meant to fly, (in cruise) it was meant to fight.

User currently offlineSU508 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (15 years 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 3940 times:

Ok, I'm the one who made this pol.

Mig-29 RULES ok? F-16 has one engine. Mig-29 has two.

I know F-16 has so much electronic crap that you can send e-mails from on-board but that does not help it much to win an air combat.

Mig-29 is a wonderful, beautiful fighter. Not the best of course. But it can easily kick F-16's butt.
F-16 is simply a piece of airborne junk. The only USAF plane that I like is F-15.

But just for future reference Su-37 RULEZ!!!


User currently offlineChdmcmanus From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 374 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (15 years 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3931 times:

Wow, and I was under the impression that this was a tech / ops forum. The impression of the post by wasilenko and SU508 seem to be a petty argument of some sort rather than anything of a tech/ops nature, I commend those who have written the basis for their opinions rather than simply "taking sides".

As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't amount to a hill of beans. It's the pilot that makes an aircraft perform, and the ground crew, AWACS, and everyone else on the team that put it there, not the other way around. Take a look at the following list,
Caldwell - 28
Nowotny - 258
de Bergendal - 8
Beurling - 31
Chi-Sun - 11
Renzy - 32
Birksted - 10
Juutualainen - 94
Clostermann - 32
Hartmann - 352
Szentgyorgyi - 43
Finucane - 32
Visconti - 26
Lucchini - 26
Nishizawa - 103
Van Arkel - 5/12
Gray - 27
Helgund - 15
Skalski - 19
Cantacuzene - 60
St J Pattle - 41
Johnson - 38
Bong - 40
Kozhedub - 62
Galic - 36
These are the leading aces of WWII from each country involved. What does this have to do with the mig29/F16? Most of these pilots were not flying the most advanced aircraft if the air, but they won. Regardless of which modern jet has an "invincible mode" or a "stealth switch" or a "super-duper-pilot-puncher-gun" in the end if the pilot doesn’t use it effectively, or the mechanic didn't tune it properly, you will die at the hands of a better trained adversary, regardless of acft type. The F-16 and MIG 29 are both amazing acft, they are each at the pinnacle of design and technology, if this is what you want to discuss, great, bring it on, if not, keep it in the Civil or hobby forum, it will waste less space.

"Never trust a clean Crew Chief"
User currently offlineEssentialPowr From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1820 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (15 years 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3919 times:

This is a great topic...

The F16 is certainly a proven design; and in fact has proven somewhat more versatile than the Mig 29. It has better range, and is a better multimission platform than the Mig29. It performs all of the missions Indianguy listed, in addition to jamming and the Wild weasel mission, which requires a more capable radar package than what the Mig 29 currently offers. More importantly, UAE is to receive the block 60 a/c which will have AESA (no US F16s have it). Probably the most critical part of a strike warfare package is that of electronic jamming, which has typically meant a dedicated platform such as the EA6b that both the US Air Force and Navy use. The block 60 a/c radar will have an active, electronically scanned array
that provides integral radar jamming capabilities. The Mig29 doesn't have it, but there is probably little that doubt that companies in Israel would offer an upgrade as they have for so many Russian designs.

On the other hand, the Mig 29 is incredibly robust and in a pure dogfight mode can probably outfight an F16 in this regime. It has a higher thrust to weight ratio and a slightly larger wing, which equates to even better turn performance. The former East Germans in Mig29s with Russian off boresight, helmet cued AAMs (I think NATO AAphid/Archers?) were touted as probably the best pure dogfighters in the world at the time the wall fell. (The US did not have parity with that missile at the time, but that has changed.) It has an IR targeting/cueing capability, but rather short range as compared to its radar. Engine smoke is visible from the Mig, and that is certainly a drawback, and we've seen a higher incidence of engine failures than on Western designs. But it is a tremendous dogfighter, very impressive to see, and certainly a value right now.

User currently offlineEssentialPowr From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1820 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (15 years 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 3908 times:

One other comment...

The better trained and prepared pilot is probably the ultimate determinant.

Go Navy!

User currently offlineJtw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (15 years 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3898 times:

In May 1995 a group of F16's and Mig29's conducted simulated air combat in a training exercise in Italy. If you want to read an account of the excercise and the opinions of the participating pilots you can follow this link:


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic MIG-29 Vs. F-16
No username? Sign up now!

Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops 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!
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

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

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Airbus Flaps Vs. Boeing Flaps posted Tue Aug 21 2007 21:29:04 by UAL747
Fowler Flaps Vs "Barn-Door Flaps" posted Thu Aug 16 2007 19:14:01 by Blackbird
Trent 900 Vs. EA GP7200 Fuel Burn posted Fri Aug 10 2007 12:40:31 by Superstring
757 Overwing Vs. Single Point Fueling posted Sat Aug 4 2007 15:25:52 by Boeing767mech
737-200 Vs 737-200Adv,727 Vs 727Adv posted Fri Aug 3 2007 23:10:15 by TheSonntag
Seniority Vs. Merit Based Promotion posted Wed Jul 25 2007 23:18:51 by Starlionblue
Aircraft Registration Number Vs. Tail/Fleet Number posted Tue Jul 24 2007 21:07:14 by Aogdesk
Brakes Vs Reverse Thrust (thinking Of TAM) posted Thu Jul 19 2007 00:04:07 by Flybynight
Long Delays Vs. Cancellation posted Wed Jun 27 2007 08:42:18 by ANother
777 Vs. 787 Tailcone Shape posted Tue Jun 26 2007 14:07:16 by Mir

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format