Jump to content

Quora article: Is the MIG-29 a better plane than the F-16?


SDsc0rch

Recommended Posts

I wouldn't trust this... it seems bias to me, but one thing caught my eye

 

This pilot said he has 500 hours in the MiG-29 but then says this?

 

If the pilot takes his hand off the throttles, the throttles probably won't stay in the position in which they were left. They'll probably slide back into the 'idle' position.

 

This makes no sense at all. If he flew the 29 for that many hours he would KNOW if the throttle would slide or not... and would not say probably... probably means he's just guessing. ;)

 

For this reason I would not take his word as true. If MAPO says the air frame can be stressed to 12G and he says it can't... and says Germans found cracks, well that could be just due to age of the air frame, and doesn't say how the cracks actually developed.

 

The AMRAAM works in F-16's favor, that's very true. But other than that I think they are on pair.


Edited by Kuky

No longer active in DCS...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This makes no sense at all. If he flew the 29 for that many hours he would KNOW if the throttle would slide or not... and would not say probably... probably means he's just guessing. ;)

 

Or he just meant that sometimes this can happen and that the pilot can never rely that it will stay put.

 

Saying that the entire article is a fluke because you probably misinterpreted what he was trying to express is rather far fetched.

 

My only beef with the article would be that the basic MiG-29 9.12A which entered service is compared against the 1989 F-16C Block 40/42 with AMRAAM missiles which came later still (1992 IIRC), while a more fair comparison match would have been the Block 25 or 9.13S (highly unlikely, yes, but the author should have mentioned these caveats). Most of the things would still stand more or less, except the clear BVR supremacy of the AMRAAM equipped F-16C.


Edited by Dudikoff

i386DX40@42 MHz w/i387 CP, 4 MB RAM (8*512 kB), Trident 8900C 1 MB w/16-bit RAMDAC ISA, Quantum 340 MB UDMA33, SB 16, DOS 6.22 w/QEMM + Win3.11CE, Quickshot 1btn 2axis, Numpad as hat. 2 FPH on a good day, 1 FPH avg.

 

DISCLAIMER: My posts are still absolutely useless. Just finding excuses not to learn the F-14 (HB's Swansong?).

 

Annoyed by my posts? Please consider donating. Once the target sum is reached, I'll be off to somewhere nice I promise not to post from. I'd buy that for a dollar!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't misinterpret... those were his words, and they don't make sense IF the guy has 500 hours in the plane. We all know each side wants to look good and talks good about itself, nothing new there. This comment however is clearly evidence that the guy writing the article is guessing (or he could also do it on purpose, why wouldn't he put them down a bit? They are the enemy remember?). So if he guesses this, then there is good chance he's just guessing other things also. You can believe it if you want.

No longer active in DCS...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't misinterpret... those were his words, and they don't make sense IF the guy has 500 hours in the plane.

 

Well, that's certainly just your interpretation of his words.

 

For instance, I've read the same article before and certainly didn't get the notion that the guy is "guessing" anything about the throttle behaviour. If he didn't fly the plane and experience such issues, I don't see why he would bring up this minor detail in his article in the first place.

 

I would presume the author of that article is Fred Clifton who was an exchange pilot with the Luftwaffe.


Edited by Dudikoff

i386DX40@42 MHz w/i387 CP, 4 MB RAM (8*512 kB), Trident 8900C 1 MB w/16-bit RAMDAC ISA, Quantum 340 MB UDMA33, SB 16, DOS 6.22 w/QEMM + Win3.11CE, Quickshot 1btn 2axis, Numpad as hat. 2 FPH on a good day, 1 FPH avg.

 

DISCLAIMER: My posts are still absolutely useless. Just finding excuses not to learn the F-14 (HB's Swansong?).

 

Annoyed by my posts? Please consider donating. Once the target sum is reached, I'll be off to somewhere nice I promise not to post from. I'd buy that for a dollar!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not going to comment on the validity of the article, but "those are his words" doesn't cut it as an argument, really. "Probably" can also mean "stands a decent chance" at something happening, that it is probable, or at the least, intermittent. That happens to be the way everyone I know uses the word.

 

I'd focus on things other than the altogether subjective and artsy usage of language to disprove an article, especially seeing how easy it is to disagree over the meaning of a word meant to express some uncertainty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed with Kuky, each side wants to look good andmake the others look bad. The fact that he brings up the MiG-29 combat record speaks volumes about his bias.

 

I've yet to experience an objective 4th gen fighter vs. fighter comparison, by ALL sides in the debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Compared to the Mig-29, the F-16 is in a different category for its CAS and OCA capabilities. For the fighter role they are more comparable, sure.

P-51D | Fw 190D-9 | Bf 109K-4 | Spitfire Mk IX | P-47D | WW2 assets pack | F-86 | Mig-15 | Mig-21 | Mirage 2000C | A-10C II | F-5E | F-16 | F/A-18 | Ka-50 | Combined Arms | FC3 | Nevada | Normandy | Straight of Hormuz | Syria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Probably" can also mean "stands a decent chance" at something happening, that it is probable, or at the least, intermittent.

 

Again, 500 hours in that pit would make you know it either happens or it doesn't. To you it may not mean much, to me it does. It tells me he is just guessing, and if I wonder why... well I said already, he wants to bring his side up and enemy down.

 

You have probably also seen video's of some debrief of the US pilots during red flag or something (can't remember exactly now, I think it was them "fighting" the Indian Su-30). The speaker/pilot was making jokes, laughing and of course telling how they kicked their but.

 

Now if you pay attention, in any SERIOUS debrief in any military, there is no such "attitude" with comedy remarks. They are professionals, and take their training most seriously. To laugh it off when "fighting" one of the best and modern machines your "enemy" can throw at you is simply not serious matter, which explains again why he did it, and why such debrief was released to the public... it is for morale lifting purpose which all armed forces do.

 

Its just the way things are with military, when they talk about how they fight, they always talk good about themselves and bad about their enemy. :music_whistling:

No longer active in DCS...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed with Kuky, each side wants to look good andmake the others look bad. The fact that he brings up the MiG-29 combat record speaks volumes about his bias.

 

I've yet to experience an objective 4th gen fighter vs. fighter comparison, by ALL sides in the debate.

 

We are all biased one way or another so repeating such generic statements bring no value to this discussion.

 

It would be far more useful if you would bring some arguments which would counter the points he was trying to raise in that article based on his experience. ;)

i386DX40@42 MHz w/i387 CP, 4 MB RAM (8*512 kB), Trident 8900C 1 MB w/16-bit RAMDAC ISA, Quantum 340 MB UDMA33, SB 16, DOS 6.22 w/QEMM + Win3.11CE, Quickshot 1btn 2axis, Numpad as hat. 2 FPH on a good day, 1 FPH avg.

 

DISCLAIMER: My posts are still absolutely useless. Just finding excuses not to learn the F-14 (HB's Swansong?).

 

Annoyed by my posts? Please consider donating. Once the target sum is reached, I'll be off to somewhere nice I promise not to post from. I'd buy that for a dollar!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are all biased one way or another so repeating such generic statements bring no value to this discussion.

 

It would be far more useful if you would bring some arguments which would counter the points he was trying to raise in that article based on his experience. ;)

 

But that's what I did. I pointed out that he was using guess work. I am no pilot so can't say which of his statements are true, and I've heard Russian side talk good about their aircraft. SO my conclusion is that I should take this article with grain of salt and rely on my trusty life experience which tells me he exaggerated (which both sides do). He also used most basic version to compare with more modern one with more modern weapon. He gave no specific of engagements (which I am sure he is not allowed to begin with as they are restrictive to military only) so he had to use descriptive facts... with bit of political influence :smartass: right?

No longer active in DCS...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, having having read the article, I'd say he's either unsure or making a bad joke (Presuming of course, that he has 500 hours, and in those hours, he was able to test it properly). Quoting another on 12G stress also isn't surprising; I doubt they'd let him risk a perfectly good airframe if a test was already done on it.

 

Most of the other stuff is rather standard fare though. Never been a big fan of GCI doctrine, and without doing due research on that aircraft beyond looking at Wikipedia once in a while, I've seen mentions of the idiosyncratic (Though I've also seen the word "tiring") avionics. If he has 2000 hours in an F-16, then he's certainly been spoiled by its own package.

 

Other than that, I'd have little idea what is and isn't accurate in there. It's an older article as well, almost ten years (2007 is the future, in there).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A comparison using the most basic designation and excluding any form of suffix is fallacious, at best.

 

After all, F-16 vs. MiG-29 could mean Block 60 vs. UB. That would be kind of one sided.

Reformers hate him! This one weird trick found by a bush pilot will make gunfighter obsessed old farts angry at your multi-role carrier deck line up!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A comparison using the most basic designation and excluding any form of suffix is fallacious, at best.

 

After all, F-16 vs. MiG-29 could mean Block 60 vs. UB. That would be kind of one sided.

 

Article uses AMRAAM Block 40 and Alamo 29A. One of the first things there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that's what I did. I pointed out that he was using guess work. I am no pilot so can't say which of his statements are true, and I've heard Russian side talk good about their aircraft. SO my conclusion is that I should take this article with grain of salt and rely on my trusty life experience which tells me he exaggerated (which both sides do).

 

So, just to be clear, this is the guy we're talking about.

 

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/how-to-win-in-a-dogfight-stories-from-a-pilot-who-flew-1682723379

 

He's just putting out his assessment of the base WP MiG-29A he flew from his perspective as an experienced pilot trained in the West. So, he's biased in that regard, but not nearly as someone who flew none of these planes, but brings the entire educated comparison into question based solely on hear-say and his own (potentially non-native English speaking) interpretation of a word 'probably' used in an excerpt.

 

No offense, but I find this rather silly. :)

 

And just for the record, I'm personally a fan of Soviet aviation, but I don't see anything obviously wrong in his article, especially given the perspective.


Edited by Dudikoff

i386DX40@42 MHz w/i387 CP, 4 MB RAM (8*512 kB), Trident 8900C 1 MB w/16-bit RAMDAC ISA, Quantum 340 MB UDMA33, SB 16, DOS 6.22 w/QEMM + Win3.11CE, Quickshot 1btn 2axis, Numpad as hat. 2 FPH on a good day, 1 FPH avg.

 

DISCLAIMER: My posts are still absolutely useless. Just finding excuses not to learn the F-14 (HB's Swansong?).

 

Annoyed by my posts? Please consider donating. Once the target sum is reached, I'll be off to somewhere nice I promise not to post from. I'd buy that for a dollar!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, how about this bit

 

The jet is very reliable and fairly simple to maintain. I could service the fuel, oil, hydraulics and pneumatics and had to demonstrate proficiency in these areas before I could take a jet off-station. Its handling qualities are mediocre at best. The flight control system is a little sloppy and not very responsive. This does not mean the jet isn't very maneuverable. It is. I put it between the F-15C and the F-16. The pilot just has to work harder to get the jet to respond the way he wants.

 

aren't these contradictory? First he says 29's handling is mediocre (this to me translates into pretty bad, average at best), but then he says it is very maneuverable?

No longer active in DCS...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, how about this bit

 

 

 

aren't these contradictory? First he says 29's handling is mediocre (this to me translates into pretty bad, average at best), but then he says it is very maneuverable?

 

The Su-27's handling when fly-by-wire is bypassed is awful (It's a pain to control). Its maneuverability gets a boost (When you manage to control it, it gives certain advantages).

 

A plane that is difficult to control, can still move through the sky well, just with pains taken by the pilot. That section you bolded taken as a whole instead of sound-byte'd gets you the meaning.


Edited by Dragoon47
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is flight performance well in 29's favor

 

The performance comparison put me 3000 feet line abreast with the F-15 at 10,000 feet and 300 knots indicated airspeed. At the F-15 pilot's call we each selected full afterburner and I matched his pitch rate until we got to 70° nose high. The first one to reach 100 knots would call terminate and we'd see how it played out. When the F-15 pilot hit 100 knots I still had 170 knots and was well above him

 

then this also

 

The Viper requires about 250 knots to get over the top. I could horse the MiG-29 over the top at 150 knots.

 

That's big difference

 

But at the beginning of talking about MiG-29 and BFM he said that when against F-15 and F-16 you wouldn't want to be in a MiG-29... why not? Also when MiG-29 came out, the F-16 didn't use AMRAAM at all, and MiG-29 has medium range SARH missile already. Fact that when he did this training exchange, it was years after the wall fell, no support from Russia for parts, maintenance... and there was new missile (the AMRAAM), it changed things.

 

He said the 29 is very reliable (unlike F-15's engines, especially the first one, not the -220), it has IRST and very maneuverable IR missile, the plane itself is very maneuverable, can handle slow speed much better than F-15 or F-16 both of which have to keep their speed up to stay in fight. 29 also climbs better. Simple, reliable, cheap, very maneuverable and easy to maintain... and great in BFM (and is point defense fighter) what there not to like? Also, almost forgot, the German version was slightly downgraded from Russian MiG-29.

 

The way the 29 was intended to be used (not according to NATO standards) was not used, and instead they did the training using NATO tactics, and the fact that he didn't have too many hours in it, and also has to be bit biased (its just the nature of the business, you have to face it), and he is used to the NATO ways and western style cockpit layout and everything else that goes with it... I would definitely say, if he was to be left to fight in MiG-29 squadron, after few years he would be telling it bit different. I think this was not a fair comparison, and it was biased.

 

Sorry but that's the way I see it.

 

In BVR definitely both F-15 and F-16 have the edge, no discussion there, but in BFM I'd take MiG-29 any day. But hey... maybe if I ever tried them myself, I might think different, and until that happens I will love my Fulcrum :D


Edited by Kuky

No longer active in DCS...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can I add one more thing... if ED's PFM for F-15C and Su-27 are anything solid to go by (or close to real thing)... man... the Flanker eats the Eagle for breakfast in BFM.

 

Alright... now I'm a bit biased also :D

No longer active in DCS...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, of course it is biased.

 

As for cheap and low cost, and things like that aren't typically things I'd see a US fighter pilot hearing without cynicism (Ex-F-14 pilots come to mind, possibly). Alas, he doesn't seem to spend time on that, so moving on.

 

He apparently didn't like the IRST. I'd imagine it would be more effective as a system with GCI, but GCI isn't something I'd see a NATO pilot appreciating (A fighter pilot, in their eyes, is probably akin to a captain on a ship; they get all the info, and call all the shots as mission commander). NATO pilots are given information by various sources, not explicit direction; that brings us to the next point.

 

Other than that, handling issues, even with good maneuverability, hampers Situational Awareness. Workloads like dealing with all the manual settings, and awkward avionics, while being given orders from a controller on the ground are things I'd see adding stress to an already stressful environment. I'd see it being fairly difficult to get a picture of a situation as it develops without great memory under stress or constant reminders out-of-plane.

 

AMRAAM aside, I can certainly see where his bias comes from. Does it make the MiG a terrible plane? No, but it does make it different enough that it can be seen as inferior to your personal/professional doctrine. For myself, I think the plane is neat, but I'd rather be strapped into an F-16 if I had to bet my life on one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I understand the point of this article. Yes the Mig29A is inferior to the F16C in pretty much every respect. So what? Why didn't he compare the Yak-1 to the F22 while he was at it?? What's the point of comparing an early 80's fighter to an early 90's fighter? Most people don't know the difference, and the author himself has stated that there isn't much of one between the different air-frames which is being disingenuous at best. He then proceeds to trash talk the latest variant of the Mig29 by saying yeah how many were sold to other markets? Say what? Why is that remark even included in the text, if not to make light of Russian technology?

 

Don't get me wrong the F16C armed with 90's era AIM120Cs does and should eat a Mig29A for breakfast in most situations, but the author's intent is clearly not to illustrate the differences between these two aircraft (which should be apparent to anyone even remotely familiar with these two air-frames) but to trash talk an entire line of aircraft. The author clearly wishes to convey his opinion that the entirety of the Mig29 line is useless and completely inferior to their western counterparts, as such this piece is clear propaganda. You can't infer any of that by having 500 or 5,000,000 hours in a Mig29A....


Edited by OnlyforDCS

Current specs: Windows 10 Home 64bit, i5-9600K @ 3.7 Ghz, 32GB DDR4 RAM, 1TB Samsung EVO 860 M.2 SSD, GAINWARD RTX2060 6GB, Oculus Rift S, MS FFB2 Sidewinder + Warthog Throttle Quadrant, Saitek Pro rudder pedals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is flight performance well in 29's favor

then this also

 

"The Viper requires about 250 knots to get over the top. I could horse the MiG-29 over the top at 150 knots."

 

That's big difference

 

But at the beginning of talking about MiG-29 and BFM he said that when against F-15 and F-16 you wouldn't want to be in a MiG-29... why not?

 

Big difference in which situations exactly? E.g. he also states that the MiGs roll rates at such slow speed are atrocious, the cockpit visibility rather limited and fuel consumption in afterburner about four times as the F-16 one, all rather important in BFM (not to mention rather smokey engines). The HMS/Archer combo is pretty useful and he clearly states this.

 

Also when MiG-29 came out, the F-16 didn't use AMRAAM at all, and MiG-29 has medium range SARH missile already. Fact that when he did this training exchange, it was years after the wall fell, no support from Russia for parts, maintenance... and there was new missile (the AMRAAM), it changed things.

 

How did they operate those MiGs in Luftwaffe all those years if they had no parts or maintenance?

 

He said the 29 is very reliable (unlike F-15's engines, especially the first one, not the -220), it has IRST and very maneuverable IR missile, the plane itself is very maneuverable, can handle slow speed much better than F-15 or F-16 both of which have to keep their speed up to stay in fight. 29 also climbs better. Simple, reliable, cheap, very maneuverable and easy to maintain... and great in BFM (and is point defense fighter) what there not to like? Also, almost forgot, the German version was slightly downgraded from Russian MiG-29.

 

Well, he flew it and would disagree that it's simple to fly compared to the F-16. Regarding the reliability and cheap operating costs, the radar was apparently of limited processing power (e.g. TWS mode was useless in practice until the improved processors became available with the MiG-29 9.13S) and prone to malfunctions as is the IRST while the engines needed a lot of maintenance.

 

E.g. check the Indian Air Force experience:

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?50771-RD-33-Engine-amp-Design-Problems&p=786668#post786668

 

The way the 29 was intended to be used (not according to NATO standards) was not used, and instead they did the training using NATO tactics, and the fact that he didn't have too many hours in it, and also has to be bit biased (its just the nature of the business, you have to face it), and he is used to the NATO ways and western style cockpit layout and everything else that goes with it... I would definitely say, if he was to be left to fight in MiG-29 squadron, after few years he would be telling it bit different. I think this was not a fair comparison, and it was biased.

 

Not used as intended? The MiG-29A has limited range and due to this and limited radar capability is heavily dependent on GCI guidance in locating and engaging its targets. You make it sound like this is an advantage, rather than a severe limitation (e.g. in cases of jammed communications, GCI sites taken out, etc.).


Edited by Dudikoff

i386DX40@42 MHz w/i387 CP, 4 MB RAM (8*512 kB), Trident 8900C 1 MB w/16-bit RAMDAC ISA, Quantum 340 MB UDMA33, SB 16, DOS 6.22 w/QEMM + Win3.11CE, Quickshot 1btn 2axis, Numpad as hat. 2 FPH on a good day, 1 FPH avg.

 

DISCLAIMER: My posts are still absolutely useless. Just finding excuses not to learn the F-14 (HB's Swansong?).

 

Annoyed by my posts? Please consider donating. Once the target sum is reached, I'll be off to somewhere nice I promise not to post from. I'd buy that for a dollar!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, of course it is biased.

 

As for cheap and low cost, and things like that aren't typically things I'd see a US fighter pilot hearing without cynicism (Ex-F-14 pilots come to mind, possibly). Alas, he doesn't seem to spend time on that, so moving on.

 

Cheap is a very relative thing though. I could argue that US offerings of the same timeframe were cheaper then the Soviet fighters offered for export.

longer airframe life, longer engine life, (thus lower costs per flight hour) can easily offset initial price differences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, how about this bit

 

"The jet is very reliable and fairly simple to maintain. I could service the fuel, oil, hydraulics and pneumatics and had to demonstrate proficiency in these areas before I could take a jet off-station. Its handling qualities are mediocre at best. The flight control system is a little sloppy and not very responsive. This does not mean the jet isn't very maneuverable. It is. I put it between the F-15C and the F-16. The pilot just has to work harder to get the jet to respond the way he wants."

 

aren't these contradictory? First he says 29's handling is mediocre (this to me translates into pretty bad, average at best), but then he says it is very maneuverable?

 

Well think about it this way...You have agility and maneuverability, the MiG-29 is maneuverable, but not agile (and imprecise).

 

Does that make sense?

 

I get the feeling that the RL MiG-29 is probably something like our Flanker in DCS; and now I suddenly find myself wishing we had the Fulcrum PFM right now...

 

:D

Lord of Salt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...