Why are early model MiG 29s always compared to later 4th Gen jets.

[CrazyGman]

I find it a little annoying the most of the time the early MiG 29s like the ones we have in dcs are often compared to later letters, blocks, and lots of western 4th gen fighters.

 

I don't know why people never seem to compare the equivelent of the early 80s MiG 29 with its contemporaries like the F-16a that had no data link, and no radar guided missles.

 

Instead we get comparisons vs their performance in desert storm or in Yugoslavia, where they were still the base A model MiG29 going up against F-15Cs and F-16Cs and AMs, where they were out numbered and had no AWACS support.

[Mike_Romeo]

I don't know why people never seem to compare the equivelent of the early 80s MiG 29 with its contemporaries like the F-16a that had no data link, and no radar guided missles.

Because they are talking about DCS and not RL. People want a MiG for DCS that can hold it ground againt the F-16/18 that we have in dcs. They are arguring by comparring how bad the MiG-29C ,that we have in DCS, is compared to F-16/18.

[Paganus]

One reason might be because F-15C's were already in production by 1979. They entered service before the MiG-29. Why isn't that a fair comparison?

Edited October 21, 2020 by Paganus

[Seaeagle]

One reason might be because F-15C's were already in production by 1979. They entered service before the MiG-29. Why isn't that a fair comparison?

 

One reason might be because F-15Cs in Desert Storm and Yugoslavia weren't in their 1979 configuration - MSIP, MSIP II, AMRAAMs etc.

[CrazyGman]

One reason might be because F-15C's were already in production by 1979. They entered service before the MiG-29. Why isn't that a fair comparison?

 

You really need to compare it to the F-16a which is kinda in the same niche the MiG 29a was going for. Yeah it needed to fight the F-15c but the Su-27 Flanker was always the peer fighter for that fight. Fulcrums were more designed to counter the earlier F-15A's in a cost effective way, and replace the older MiG 21s-23s

[SovietAce]

Perhaps they always wish to see western stuff as better. I´ve seen countless articles comparing older 29s without R-77 capability to AMRAAM carriing F-16s. Ofcourse then you can make a point that F-16 is better in BVR, which is not suprising. And that what matters most in modern combat right :).

[Apok]

This is because most real world fights were with export MiG-29A`s. Iraq had no R73s for example, only R60s. And Yugoslav/Serbian 29s were in poor condition/no maintenance to start with. Radar/RWR or AC generators reported dieing on them in flight.

You will never see comparisons with more modern 29s because ppl dont really know thier avionics or are aware of those versions.

You have Indian MiG-29UPG,Serbia now has SD version-similar to Slovak ones, Syria has MiG-29SM(-ish),Egypt has MiG-29M/M2(new airframe like KUB or 35), Peru has SMP, Azerbaijan has MiG-29UM1 like Ukraine, Russia runs MiG-29SMT (not to mention KUB or new 35s, those are based on bit different airframe then versions before them).

 

You can always compare F-16A(early ones with no BVR ability) with MiG-29A so they see whats it like to compare something to start version.

Edited October 22, 2020 by Apok

[Dragon1-1]

The problem is, in a nutshell, that in DCS, we have a MiG-29A and the F-16CM. :) I think that's why people are complaining. MiG-29A is equal if not better when compared to F-16A, most notably thanks to its SARH missiles, Lazur, IRST, R-73 and the helmet-mounted sight.

 

[Dudikoff]

The problem is, in a nutshell, that in DCS, we have a MiG-29A and the F-16CM. :) I think that's why people are complaining. MiG-29A is equal if not better when compared to F-16A, most notably thanks to its SARH missiles, Lazur, IRST, R-73 and the helmet-mounted sight.

 

To be fair, the closer contemporary of the MiG-29 we have in DCS (i.e. not early production 9.12) would be the F-16C. At least Block 25 (which started entering service from late 1984), but F-16C Block 30/32 (1987) and Block 40/42 (1988 ) are not that far off, either.

[Seaeagle]

 

To be fair, the closer contemporary of the MiG-29 we have in DCS (i.e. not early production 9.12) would be the F-16C. At least Block 25 (which started entering service from late 1984), but F-16C Block 30/32 (1987) and Block 40/42 (1988 ) are not that far off, either.

 

But we do have the 9.12 in DCS :huh:(or did you mean the MiG-29S?).

 

The MiG-29(9.12) entered service in 1984, which IIRC was the same year that the F-16A Block 15 entered service, and being primarily a "counter-air" fighter with a limited A/G capability, its IMO a closer match to the MiG-29.

 

As far as I remember(could be wrong), the first F-16C(Block 25) entered service a couple of years later(in 1986), But like you said, this doesn't make much of a difference in terms of being comtemporary, but the -C version is a different type of aircraft(multirole strike fighter) more comparable to the MiG-29M.

[Skysurfer]

I mean, Tomcat and 15 entered service way before the base 29, the 18A and 16C roughly around the same time, operationally speaking. And it wasn't well into the 90's until baseline 29's had significant numbers and received some upgrades. If you look at history, similar things can be said about other russian airframes like the 27 and now 57. Apples and Oranges.

[Dudikoff]

But we do have the 9.12 in DCS :huh:(or did you mean the MiG-29S?).

The MiG-29(9.12) entered service in 1984, which IIRC was the same year that the F-16A Block 15 entered service, and being primarily a "counter-air" fighter with a limited A/G capability, its IMO a closer match to the MiG-29.

As far as I remember(could be wrong), the first F-16C(Block 25) entered service a couple of years later(in 1986).

 

I do mean 9.12 which supposedly started entering service in 1982. But, the first 250 produced units were different with ventral fins and no chaff/flare dispensers among some other smaller differences.

 

As I wrote in my post, F-16C Block 25 supposedly started entering service since September 1984 so it's a closer match to a later production standard 9.12.

 

It still doesn't have BVR weapons, but it has a better radar, better fuel fraction (meaning it might actually have some fuel for a dogfight unlike the 9.12) and those AIM-9Ms were nothing to sneeze at.

[Paganus]

I think the 1st C - block 25 has BVR. The A/B eventually get the MLU they call block 20.

[TotenDead]

МиГ-29 до появления аим-120 был ничем не хуже любого Ф-16. Ну а с развалом СССР о модернизации МиГов пришлось забыть

[Seaeagle]

 

I do mean 9.12 which supposedly started entering service in 1982. But, the first 250 produced units were different with ventral fins and no chaff/flare dispensers among some other smaller differences.

 

As I wrote in my post, F-16C Block 25 supposedly started entering service since September 1984 so it's a closer match to a later production standard 9.12.

 

I looked around for the different service introduction dates and what I found was that,

 

- the MiG-29 was first delivered to operational units in 1983(not 1982 as you said and not 1984 as I said).

- the F-16A Block 15 entered service in 1982(not 1984 like I said).

- the F-16C Block 25 was first delivered to an operational unit(in the US) in 1986, while 1984 was the year of the first flight(and operational testing).

 

In regards to the early MiG-29 variant you mentioned, I am pretty sure that this was a prototype(or at least a pre-service test) kind of thing and as such doubt it was built in the numbers you said.

 

 

[Seaeagle]

I think the 1st C - block 25 has BVR.

 

No in general F-16s weren't compatible with the AIM-7 missile - the only exception I know of, was the F-16A ADF variant(operated by the US ANG), which was a Block 15 upgraded for the purpose around 1989-90.

 

The AIM-120 wasn't applied to F-16s until 1991-92.

 

The A/B eventually get the MLU they call block 20.

 

Yes but that was much later(late 90'ies IIRC).

[Skysurfer]

Even the 9.13 did not differ significantly. No one is arguing the early 29's were no match to 16A's and even C's in WVR, they absolutely were, especially with the Archer - but if you think they were any match to Tomcats, Eagles, Hornets etc. you are fooling yourself. Western radar tech and the arrival of the AMRAAM offset the BVR advantage significantly. Before that there obviously was a short period of time where the russians had the longest stick in the form of the Alamo C and Amos (Ignoring the Phoenix here).

[Paganus]

 

No in general F-16s weren't compatible with the AIM-7 missile - the only exception I know of, was the F-16A ADF variant(operated by the US ANG), which was a Block 15 upgraded for the purpose around 1989-90.

 

The AIM-120 wasn't applied to F-16s until 1991-92.

 

 

 

Yes but that was much later(late 90'ies IIRC).

 

The 1st C Block 25 has BVR;

 

The AN/APG-68(V) is a considerable advancement over the APG-66 of the F-16A/B. The planar array in the nose provides numerous air-to-air modes, including range-while-search, uplook and velocity search, single target track, raid cluster resolution, and track-while-scan for up to 10 targets. Beyond-visible-range capability has been added in the form of a high-PRF track mode to provide continuous-wave (CW) illumination for guidance of the AIM-7 Sparrow semi-active radar homing missile.

[Seaeagle]

Even the 9.13 did not differ significantly.

 

No it was really just an "update" to address a few of the most glaring shortcomings - i.e. lack of ECM and short legs.

 

No one is arguing the early 29's were no match to 16A's and even C's in WVR, they absolutely were, especially with the Archer - but if you think they were any match to Tomcats, Eagles, Hornets etc. you are fooling yourself

 

Why would anyone think that the MiG-29 was a match to Tomcats and Eagles in BVR? - these belong to a different class of fighters. In the case of the Hornet, its APG-65 was a much better(and more modern) radar than the N019, but they were at least of similar size/power.

 

Western radar tech and the arrival of the AMRAAM offset the BVR advantage significantly.

 

Sure, but I think the point of the OP was that the AMRAAM wasn't available at the time the MiG-29 entered service - i.e. that always spouting the BVR advantage of the F-16 when comparing the two designs seems a little odd when you consider that for a long time it really didn't have any.

 

Before that there obviously was a short period of time where the russians had the longest stick in the form of the Alamo C and Amos (Ignoring the Phoenix here).

 

Thats a mixed bag - the MiG-29(which we are talking about here) was not compatible with the "Alamo C"(R-27ER) and despite having datalink, the "short burn" version(R-27R) wasn't a "longer stick" than the contemporary AIM-7M. The "Amos"(R-33) and AIM-54 are in a class of their own and both narrowly associated with a particular fighter/weapon's system.

 

 

[Skysurfer]

Yes, agreed and I know that. But the title said "compared to later 4th gens". No matter what 29 variant any "late" 4th gen will outclass it. It's just that in DCS we "mostly" only have 80 to 90's versions of soviet/russian aircraft and missiles, which are pretty dumbed down and underperforming in some areas, as well as overperforming in other areas. I guess until someone does a full fidelity 29M/SMT or any modern SU-30 variant (because let's be honest, the 35S is really out of the question here) we won't really have "equal" timeframe airframes stacked against eachother unless a mission designer choses to do so. In that regard yes, the current FC3 Fulcrum and Flanker will always be compared to whatever modern full fidelity planes we have and will have in the future.

[Seaeagle]

 

The 1st C Block 25 has BVR;

 

It did not.

 

The AN/APG-68(V) is a considerable advancement over the APG-66 of the F-16A/B. The planar array in the nose provides numerous air-to-air modes, including range-while-search, uplook and velocity search, single target track, raid cluster resolution, and track-while-scan for up to 10 targets. Beyond-visible-range capability has been added in the form of a high-PRF track mode to provide continuous-wave (CW) illumination for guidance of the AIM-7 Sparrow semi-active radar homing missile.

 

Radar capabilities aside, F-16s weren't made compatible with the AIM-7 and as such first gained actual BVR capability with the advent of the AIM-120 in the early nineties. The only exception was a single F-16A variant(ADF) upgraded to use the AIM-7 in the late eighties - i.e. only a couple of years before the AMRAAM was introduced.

 

[Seaeagle]

Yes, agreed and I know that. But the title said "compared to later 4th gens". No matter what 29 variant any "late" 4th gen will outclass it.

 

Yes but wasn't that exactly his point? :) .

 

It's just that in DCS we "mostly" only have 80 to 90's versions of soviet/russian aircraft and missiles, which are pretty dumbed down and underperforming in some areas, as well as overperforming in other areas.

 

Yes but I read the OP as a gripe about how the MiG-29 is being assessed in general - i.e. critisised for various shortcomings in comparison with heavily upgraded versions of its western adversaries without taking the off-set time frame into consideration.

 

I guess until someone does a full fidelity 29M/SMT or any modern SU-30 variant (because let's be honest, the 35S is really out of the question here) we won't really have "equal" timeframe airframes stacked against eachother unless a mission designer choses to do so.

 

Or alternatively until someone does contemporary(older) versions of the F-16 or F-18......which is probably more achievable :)

 

[Skysurfer]

Or alternatively until someone does contemporary(older) versions of the F-16 or F-18......which is probably more achievable :)

 

Yes. I always said the 16A and 18A should have been done for DCS instead. At least they would have been done by now. ;)

[Seaeagle]

 

Yes. I always said the 16A and 18A should have been done for DCS instead. At least they would have been done by now. ;)

 

Heh yeah :) Come to think of it - instead of a very long "early access" development of the most modern and complex version, it could have been cool with a gradual approach, where you start out with a simpler eighties version, then a nineties one and then finally upgrade the latter to a mid-2000 version. That way you could possibly get feature complete modules faster and at the same time have era specific versions that fit the DCS inventory better and provide for wider scenario possibilities, while ED could milk these "most desirable" types all the way......everyone wins :D

 

 

[CrazyGman]

 

Yes but I read the OP as a gripe about how the MiG-29 is being assessed in general - i.e. critisised for various shortcomings in comparison with heavily upgraded versions of its western adversaries without taking the off-set time frame into

 

 

That was my point. Even reading interviews with "Spanky" he refers to western platforms being able to out BVR the fulcrum with AIM 120s which i always feel is not a great comparison, because he's refering to the east german Fulcrums, which would have been facing off against early F-16s and F-15s at the time they were on the red side, but he's comparing them to the modern versions of the F-16s and F-15s and he never mentions how they would have faced in a cold war gone hot setting where the MiGs most common opponent would have been F-15a's and F-16a's at least if your talking about comparible numbers of aircraft