Which performance aspects of a fighter were most crucial?

[tomo pauk]

The MiG-29 was not twice the size of F-16, that would be the F-15 and Su-27. The MiG-29 was the size of F-18A.

Well they weren't able exploit that advantage. There was only one VR dogfight between a MiG-29 and an F-15 and the MiG-29 was destroyed.

We don't know who have had the position advantage, was there a surprise or not, was the victim aware of the attack or not, state of radars and electronic countermeasures (especially on Iraqi aircraft in general and at that MiG-29 in particular*) both active and passive, missiles used by victor (AIM-7, despite WVR?) and, if fired, by victim, who have had numerical advantage, and indeed the pilot's skill.
The EF-111 maneuvered the Iraqi Mirage F1 to crash against the ground, that would not proove that EF-111 was a better fighter (it was not a fighter anyway).

FWIW: link

*the state of aircraft in Iraq should not be assumed to be as of 100% or working order, like it was the problem with eg. Serbian MiG-29s their pilots took anyway in combat vs. NATO

 

[dedalos]

If the Gulf War cold be used as a starting point, the MiG-29 has done pretty poorly in combat, mainly because of pilot training IMO. F-15s shot down at least 3 MiG-29s, I believe an F-16 got one, all with no losses

I dont see how the golf wars or the attacks against the serbian cities can prove the superiority of the American fighters over the Mig 29 as far as manouverability is concerned.In all these actions, American fighters had massive numerical superiority, plus AWACS support, plus electronic war support, plus pilots with many many more training flying hours, plus, plus...
I have read that The Typhoon and the Su 35 may outfly the F22 in certain conditions but thas something of little importance. The F22, as a weapon system, has a clear edge

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I dont see how the golf wars or the attacks against the serbian cities can prove the superiority of the American fighters over the Mig 29 as far as manouverability is concerned.In all these actions, American fighters had massive numerical superiority, plus AWACS support, plus electronic war support, plus pilots with many many more training flying hours, plus, plus...

It's Gulf War for your info...

We were discussing a manevering engagement where the rare VR combat was encountered and what transpired as a result of it; nothing was said about comparing the two aircraft directly. If you want some education about MiG 29s vs F-16 in a VR fight, read this...

Luftwaffe MiG-29 experience - positives and negatives

But to further expand your horizions, think about this - if you allowed yourself to be engaged in a close in visual range dogfight in real world combat, about 10 things have already gone very wrong. You use every resource avalible to kill your enemy before they even have a chance.

Bottom line, the MiG-29 seems to be a very good combat aircraft, it's combat record doesn't reflect that for the reasons you already pointed out.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The MiG-29 was not twice the size of F-16, that would be the F-15 and Su-27. The MiG-29 was the size of F-18A.



We don't know who have had the position advantage, was there a surprise or not, was the victim aware of the attack or not, state of radars and electronic countermeasures (especially on Iraqi aircraft in general and at that MiG-29 in particular*) both active and passive, missiles used by victor (AIM-7, despite WVR?) and, if fired, by victim, who have had numerical advantage, and indeed the pilot's skill.
The EF-111 maneuvered the Iraqi Mirage F1 to crash against the ground, that would not proove that EF-111 was a better fighter (it was not a fighter anyway).

FWIW: link

*the state of aircraft in Iraq should not be assumed to be as of 100% or working order, like it was the problem with eg. Serbian MiG-29s their pilots took anyway in combat vs. NATO

This is the one I'm talking about, 19 Jan 1991

"Rodriguez, call sign "Rico" scored the first two air-air direct hits of his Air Force career in the Gulf War. His first hit occurred when he and his wingman Craig "Mole" Underhill came across two Iraqi MiG-29 "Fulcrums". The two F-15s quickly locked up the MiG-29s, which turned east to avoid them. However, an AWACS then reported two more MiG-29s coming in fast at them from the west a mere 13 miles away. The two F-15s and two MiG-29s charged straight at each other. Underhill quickly fired an AIM-7 at the first MiG. At the same time, the second MiG-29, piloted by Captain Jameel Sayhood, "locked up" Rodriguez, who then quickly executed a dive down to the deck to avoid the radar lock and nearly collided with the AIM-7 Sparrow fired by Rodriguez's wingman which, seconds later, destroys the lead MiG. After seeing his wingman killed, Sayhood decided to bug out briefly. Rodriguez rejoined with Underhill until Sayhood reappeared. Underhill locked him up, though his computer would not let him fire the AIM-7 missile to destroy the MiG because of a glitch in his IFF which told him that the MiG was a friendly aircraft. Rodriguez and Sayhood then proceeded to merge, whereupon they both turned left and promptly got into a turning fight. As they descended towards the ground, Sayhood attempted to execute a split-s maneuver. However having insufficient altitude (about 600 ft) he crashed into the ground. Rodriguez was credited with a maneuvering kill."

 

[tomo pauk]

Thanks for that and for the link.
Captain Jameel Sayhood (while I'm not trying to take anything from his patriotism, bravery and pilotage) made a mistake - tried to split-S when too close to the ground.

Here are two quotes from the web site you've provided the link, where Luftwaffe's Oberstleutenant Johann Koeck talks about pros and cons of the MiG-29. The cons were numerous, mostly tied to sub-par combat endurance and capability of electronics:

At FL200 (20,000 ft) that gives us a radius of 150-nm, and at FL100 (10,000 ft) we have a radius of only 100-nm.
...
Our navigation system is unreliable without TACAN updates and is not very accurate (I'd prefer to call it an estimation system).
...
But even then I would still consider the onboard systems too limited, especially the radar, the radar warning receiver, and the navigation system as well as the lack of fuel.

Pros are maneuverability, HMCS and AA-11:

"But when all that is said and done, 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. (Just as we might seldom have got close-in if they used their AMRAAMs BVR!) They couldn't believe it at the debrief, they got up and left the room!

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Yep - that's directly from the horse's mouth so to speak. If you notice on the GW MiG 29 dogfight, the F-15s had several things go wrong - missles missed, IFF didn't work, continued flight into a "disadvantage" and allowing himself (Rodriguez) to get locked by the MiG-29. Captain Jameel Sayhood actually survived that fight and retired as a General.

Biff - did you ever meet Rodriguez?

 

[Glider]

There must be a market for updating the Mig29 with modern radar.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

There must be a market for updating the Mig29 with modern radar.

Agree - if they could put Martin Bakers in a MiG-19...

Then again, look up MiG-35

 

[GrauGeist]

...or the attacks against the serbian cities can prove the superiority of the American fighters over the Mig 29 as far as manouverability is concerned.In all these actions, American fighters had massive numerical superiority, plus AWACS support, plus electronic war support, plus pilots with many many more training flying hours, plus, plus...

During the Kosovo war, there were 16 nations in the NATO coalition. Of these, there were French, Italian, British, Spanish, Canadian, Belgian, Danish, Dutch and Turkish Airforce (and Naval) aircraft participating in addition to elements from the U.S.

The numbers that the U.S. fielded in the skies were not "massive".

 

[tomo pauk]

Compared with what the Serbians fielded, the numerical strength of the colaition was massive. Then toss in the 'force multipliers', like AWACS, stand-off jammers and ELINT platforms, and no wonder the war ended like it did.

As for the market for new radars for the MiG-29:
Probably countries in Asia, like India and Malaysia, plus once-Soviet countries (those that really might have some money, maybe Khazakstan, Armenia and/or Azerbaijan). The Russians seem to go all-Sukhoi, and I'm pretty sure that Ukraine will want to get rid of MiG-29s as soon as the conflict ends. Other European countries either don't have he money, or interest, or enough MiG-29s to pull a modernization of now a 30 years old aircraft.
The resolution of fuel problem is every bit as acute, though.

 

[GrauGeist]

Another thing that some folks may not realize, is that the U.S. is very aware of the MiG-29's capabilities, since the U.S. purchased 21 MiG-29s from Moldova in '97 and I believe that they are still used at Nellis AFB

 

[BiffF15]

Yep - that's directly from the horse's mouth so to speak. If you notice on the GW MiG 29 dogfight, the F-15s had several things go wrong - missles missed, IFF didn't work, continued flight into a "disadvantage" and allowing himself (Rodriguez) to get locked by the MiG-29. Captain Jameel Sayhood actually survived that fight and retired as a General.

Biff - did you ever meet Rodriguez?

Flyboy,

Yes I have. I showed up at Eglin AFB in Aug 92 and most of the Mig killers were still there. I know Mole Underhill as well and talked with him about his flying over there.

My Guard unit also went to Laage and fought the Migs in 2000 or so then fought them again at Key West. Some of the funnest flying EVER!

Cheers,
Biff

 

[tomo pauk]

...
My Guard unit also went to Laage and fought the Migs in 2000 or so then fought them again at Key West. Some of the funnest flying EVER!

C'mon, Biff, don't let us hanging - please share what ever you are allowed to

 

[BiffF15]

Tomo,

Wilco. Later this morning when I'm sitting in front of a computer!

Cheers,

Biff

 

[grampi]

The Mig 29 is 57' long by 37' span, the F-16 is 49 by 32 in the same areas.

Full loaded weight ( not max. take off ) is Mig-29 34,000 lbs. verses 27,000 for the F-16.

By neither measure does the Mig-29 come close to roughly twice the size of a F-16.

If you're done with semantics, the point remains...the 16 is considerably smaller and lighter and therefore it should be more maneuverable...

 

[tyrodtom]

If you're done with semantics, the point remains...the 16 is considerably smaller and lighter and therefore it should be more maneuverable...

You've gotta be kidding.
The F-16 is 85% the size of the Mig-29, and 79% the weight, that's not even remotely close to half the size.
Let's face it, you just didn't know.

How's that for semantics ?

 

[drgondog]

If you're done with semantics, the point remains...the 16 is considerably smaller and lighter and therefore it should be more maneuverable...

The Thrust to weight ratio and the wing area and the relative drag of the two fighters will determine manueverabily. Thrust vectoring is also an important feature

 

[Greyman]

Neat article on the MiG thing: How To Win In A Dogfight: Stories From A Pilot Who Flew F-16s And MiGs

 

[grampi]

You've gotta be kidding.
The F-16 is 85% the size of the Mig-29, and 79% the weight, that's not even remotely close to half the size.
Let's face it, you just didn't know.

How's that for semantics ?

You're so focused on my statement "roughly half" that you're missing the point...the point is the F-16 is considerably smaller than a MIG-29, therefore it should be more maneuverable...

 

[tomo pauk]

You've gotta be kidding.
The F-16 is 85% the size of the Mig-29, and 79% the weight, that's not even remotely close to half the size.
Let's face it, you just didn't know.

How's that for semantics ?

We might also toss in the weight-to-thrust ratio.* MiG-29 has 100 kN of trust, dry, or ~163 kN of thrust on afterburners. That gives, on your figure of 34,000 lbs, 320 lbs/kN or 208.5 lbs/kN.
For the F-16C, it is 76.3 kN or 127 kN of thrust; on 27,000 lbs makes 353 lbs/kN or 212.6 lbs/kN.
The MiG-29 has 409 sq ft wing, the F-16 is at 300 sq ft. Wing loading of MiG-29 will be 83 lbs/sq ft, vs. 90 lbs/sq ft.

F-16 was a maneuverable aircraft, and it have had several things going for it, when compared with MiG-29. However, flatly stating that it was more maneuverable than MiG-29 does not seem to have facts to back that up.

*I know it's 'thrust to weight ratio', the vice-versa eases my math