F-18 Vs Mig 29

[ShotMagnet]

There was a documentary made in the late '90s-early '00's where a flight of F-18s was supposed to engage in a mock dogfight with some former DDR MiG 29s.

 

Anyone happen to have a link to the video, or a link to where the video can be bought?

 

 

 

 

Shot

[Sebastian Balos]

BVR and avionics - F18 advantage, dogfight - MiG29 advantage.

[JW Collins]

I've read that the F/A-18 and MiG-29 handle quite similarly when in a "knife fight in a phone booth."

[istvan47]

In '80s the F-16 had not BVRAAMs. THe CF-18 did, but they were mainly fighter-bombers. It's difficult to use BVR weaponry while you are flying lo-lo missions. At medium levels yes (shown in DS), but this was not to be done over DDR.

 

Even a well flown MiG-23 could whip heavily an inexperienced Su-27 pilot, as the soviets descovered early in service. Every aicraft must be handled in its better qualities, not on the wrong side!

[tankerwanabe]

The early Mig-29 relied heavily on horsepower. Lets face it, the Russians poured a lot of Rubles into engine technology. But when Western pilots got to fly those Fulcrums, they found that it was almost impossible to both fly and fight in them. The cockpit was still 1950s technology. And a pilot was often distracted looking down at the controls rather keeping an eye on his target.

 

But for pure flying, the Fulcrum the thrust of the F-16, low speed handling like the F-18. And fortunatly for the West, combat radius of the Mig 21. The combat radius was a huge problem.

[RETAC21]

tsk, tsk, only applies to BVR which means AIM-7s in the timeframe most of the WP Fulcrums went into service. A time when the F-16s in NATO lacked BVR capability, so it could get into the phone booth pretty fast where the MiG-29 power and R-73s could come into play IF the WP pilots knew how to fly them.

 

Air Forces Monthly ran a couple of articles on Bulgarian MiG-29s vs F-16s including a piece by a F-16 pilot. Initially the Bulgarians didn't know how to fight the MiG-29 except for a select few, but they learned and over the years the contest has evened out. Given the test of combat, Czech, East Germans or Polish pilots may not have gotten a second chance to learn.

[alejandro_]

Initially the Bulgarians didn't know how to fight the MiG-29 except for a select few, but they learned and over the years the contest has evened out.

 

The same happened to East German pilots, but it was also because the unit had barely converted to Fulcrum by the time the Wall fell, and all of the experienced pilots were dismissed.

[istvan47]

BTW, if the things got hot, then the Europe would have been a smoking, radioactive wasterland.

 

So, not really matters if you have the upper hand with the Fulcrum or not.

 

BTW -2: the FUlcrum did have the first, viable LD capability in the FA, plus IR and laser systems and a powerful weaponry.

 

And i would not that sure that NATO flyers would have know better how to fight the '29; atleast, the 'teen-fighters' were already quite known by soviets, the same does not apply to their new stuff, that even in 1990, was a novelty for NATO evaluators.

[Sebastian Balos]

IIRC, MIG29 IRST gave a good deal of trouble regarding overheating, so it was useful only short periods of time. Radar was unreliable, RWR/RHAWS unreliable too, maintenance demanding and service life of the airframe and engines very short (some 2000-2500 h and 400 h between engine overhauls, 1500 h engine service life. However, the combination of HMS and R73 was unbeatable in dogfight. I have heard that NATO pilots were wiped out in mock-up dogfights, not East German and Bulgarian. Of course, this was in 1-1 engagement, without the use of AWACS and before AIM-9X generation western missiles. HMS+R73 gave a comfortable advantage even to not so experience eastern pilots.

 

IMHO, if MiG29 fielded in sufficient numbers (to compensate for unreliability and service availability), it would enable shooting down a considerable number of western aircraft before NATO would learn how to fight MIG29.

[istvan47]

IIRC, MIG29 IRST gave a good deal of trouble regarding overheating, so it was useful only short periods of time. Radar was unreliable, RWR/RHAWS unreliable too, maintenance demanding and service life of the airframe and engines very short (some 2000-2500 h and 400 h between engine overhauls, 1500 h engine service life. However, the combination of HMS and R73 was unbeatable in dogfight. I have heard that NATO pilots were wiped out in mock-up dogfights, not East German and Bulgarian. Of course, this was in 1-1 engagement, without the use of AWACS and before AIM-9X generation western missiles. HMS+R73 gave a comfortable advantage even to not so experience eastern pilots.

 

IMHO, if MiG29 fielded in sufficient numbers (to compensate for unreliability and service availability), it would enable shooting down a considerable number of western aircraft before NATO would learn how to fight MIG29.

 

Having followed any thing about the then 'new' Fulcrum when it was handled in Luftwaffe (WTG-61)..

 

1- first time i hear such thing about the IRST

 

2- radar was evalued as being very powerful and ECM immune by german technicians.

 

3- no bad words for RWR either

 

4- the engines were found to be much better in shape than the RB.199 of the Tornado and the J79 of F-4 Phantom, so they did not figured bad either

 

Ps: '50's cockpit? Well, in '50s i heard not much about vocal alarm advices, HUD and HMS either.

 

The MiG-29 was not the 'wonderwaffe' and 10 ft tall enemy, no. But it was not inferior to the western stuff fielded in Europe, except the F-15A/C, but not by much anyway (especially if the BVR was restricted, as there would have been thousands of aicrafts flying almost continuosly over central Europe). Some special stuff like the combination of LD/SD radar+ R-27+ IRST+ laser + HMS + R-73+ GSH-301 would have been very nasty for an unaware enemy.

[Sebastian Balos]

@istvan

 

Luftwaffe report is given at:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_MiG-29

 

were you might find the following:

 

"The employment of the MiG-29 suffers from severe inherent constraints. The most obvious limitation is the aircraft’s limited internal fuel capacity of 3500-kg (4400 kg with a centreline tank). We have no air-to-air refuelling capability, and our external tank is both speed and manoeuvre limited. We also have only a limited number of tanks.

"But if we start a mission with 4400-kg of fuel, start-up, taxy and take off takes 400-kg, we need to allow 1000-kg for diversion to an alternate airfield 50-nm away, and 500-kg for the engagement, including one minute in afterburner. That leaves 2500-kg. If we need 15 minutes on station at 420 kts that requires another 1000-kg, leaving 1500-kg for transit. 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). It relies on triangulation from three TACAN stations, and if you lose one, you effectively lose the system. We can only enter three fixed waypoints, which is inadequate. We also can’t display our ‘Bullseye’ (known navigation datum, selected randomly for security). For communications we have only one VHF/UHF radio.

"The radar is at least a generation behind the AN/APG-65, and is not line-repairable. If we have a radar problem, the aircraft goes back into the hangar. The radar has a poor display, giving poor situational awareness, and this is compounded by the cockpit ergonomics. The radar has reliability problems and lookdown/shootdown problems. There is poor discrimination between targets flying in formation, and we can’t lock onto the target in trail, only onto the lead. We have only the most limited autonomous operating capability.

"We don’t have the range to conduct HVAA attack missions - and we’re effectively limited from crossing the FLOT (Front Line of Own Troops). Our limited station time and lack of air-to-air refuelling capability effectively rules us out of meaningful air defence missions. Nor are we suited to the sweep escort role. We have a very limited range, especially at high speed and low altitudes, and are limited to 540-kt with external fuel. We have navigation problems, Bullseye control is very difficult and we have only one radio. So if I talk, I ‘trash’ the package’s radios!

"The only possible missions for NATO’s MiG-29s are as adversary threat aircraft for air combat training, for point defence, and as wing (not lead!) in Mixed Fighter Force Operations. 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. These drive the problems we face in tactical scenarios. We suffer from poor presentation of the radar information (which leads to poor situational awareness and identification problems), short BVR weapons range, a bad navigation system and short on- station times."

 

Engines are better than RB199? In what respect? RD33 is a pure-fighter engine, J79 is rather old, while RB199 is made to be as compact as possible and used for essentially a bomber. RD33 is horrible from the point of view of maintenance and smoke. In Luftwaffe report there is no mention on engines or good points of radar. Just compare the Indian experience maintaining mig29 and m2000.

 

Read the whole report again...

[Sebastian Balos]

@Stuart

 

Yes, mig29 was a typical Soviet product - rugged, with not so long life and it would most certainly be produced in large numbers. Numbers would simply compensate for the lack of availability. A typical Soviet Cold War product - why invest in advanced cooled IRST, long life engines and airframe if the service life of individual aircraft would most probably be pretty short in a 3rd WW.

 

The logistics SSSR would have in a hypothetical war would not be available to other countries in local wars. Furthermore, short service life made the things even worse. E.g., Yugoslavian/Serbian mig29s, when the initial life of some 2500 flight h was expanded, were overhauled and the life was prolongued by a mere 700 h for some 5 milion $ per aircraft. On the other hand, F16s, the initial service life of 4000 h was expanded to 8000 and finally, some were expanded to 10000 h. Yugoslavia was choosing between m2000 and mig29 in 1986/7. M2000 would be able to fly maybe even longer than f16 due to a more rigid and strong delta wing. Now, with a proper modernization, the same aircraft would be able to be kept in service since 1987, upgraded to -5 or -9 level and still be comparable to the new mig29m/m2 that are coming until the end of the 2013.

 

However, as I said before, mig29 was an unbeatable dogfighter, even with not so experienced pilots.

 

Amateurs debate about technical aspects, professionals debate about logistics.

[Paul Lakowski]

The eastern European posters generally trash Mig 29s, while Westerners praise it. Just POV I guess....or maybe they know something we don't

Edited June 8, 2013 by Paul Lakowski

[tankerwanabe]

150m combat radius, poor navigation, single radio.

 

Translation, it's an airfield defender, incapable of escort duties, with interceptor roles severely cut by limited range. But on paper, transonic acceleration and kinematics is world class.

[JW Collins]

In many respects that sounds like the early F-16A/B, but with a BVR capability.

[ShotMagnet]

Folks:

 

Link to the vid(s) I was asking after http://F-18 vs M-29. I liked the show, if only because there are fighter aircraft dog-fighting each other.

 

 

 

Shot

[RETAC21]

150m combat radius, poor navigation, single radio.

 

Translation, it's an airfield defender, incapable of escort duties, with interceptor roles severely cut by limited range. But on paper, transonic acceleration and kinematics is world class.

 

Not that bad either, it's what it is, a Frontal fighter, intended to achieve air superiority over the frontline, with little multi-role capability, built around 2 very powerful engines, with good WVR combat capabilities, and with average BVR combat capabilities (at best!) due to the limitations of Soviet technology, intended to be used under ground control.

 

Of note, the range thing was bad enough that the first thing they did was increase the amount of fuel carried in the next version.

[Sebastian Balos]

@Stuart

 

Regarding logistics, I wasn't speaking about 3rd WW, but rather about foreign customers that encountered major difficulties in maintaining migs. Usually, the stuff doesn't work as advertised, the logistics as well. On all sides.

 

R77 in 1992? Not sure about that, I always thought it entered service in 1994., well after the end of the Cold war.

 

Mig29, as any other plane could be tremendously well improved as more modern avionics and armament appeared.

 

F16 block 52 without aim9x is behind mig29a with r73 and HMS with a classic head to head engagement. BVR is another matter, huge advantage of f16 block 52. However, f16 block 52 could find mig29a first and provide a superior dogfight position and maybe prevail. mig29smt is ahead of f16a in basically all scenarios.

[istvan47]

@istvan

 

Luftwaffe report is given at:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_MiG-29

 

were you might find the following:

 

"The employment of the MiG-29 suffers from severe inherent constraints. The most obvious limitation is the aircraft’s limited internal fuel capacity of 3500-kg (4400 kg with a centreline tank). We have no air-to-air refuelling capability, and our external tank is both speed and manoeuvre limited. We also have only a limited number of tanks.

"But if we start a mission with 4400-kg of fuel, start-up, taxy and take off takes 400-kg, we need to allow 1000-kg for diversion to an alternate airfield 50-nm away, and 500-kg for the engagement, including one minute in afterburner. That leaves 2500-kg. If we need 15 minutes on station at 420 kts that requires another 1000-kg, leaving 1500-kg for transit. 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). It relies on triangulation from three TACAN stations, and if you lose one, you effectively lose the system. We can only enter three fixed waypoints, which is inadequate. We also can’t display our ‘Bullseye’ (known navigation datum, selected randomly for security). For communications we have only one VHF/UHF radio.

"The radar is at least a generation behind the AN/APG-65, and is not line-repairable. If we have a radar problem, the aircraft goes back into the hangar. The radar has a poor display, giving poor situational awareness, and this is compounded by the cockpit ergonomics. The radar has reliability problems and lookdown/shootdown problems. There is poor discrimination between targets flying in formation, and we can’t lock onto the target in trail, only onto the lead. We have only the most limited autonomous operating capability.

"We don’t have the range to conduct HVAA attack missions - and we’re effectively limited from crossing the FLOT (Front Line of Own Troops). Our limited station time and lack of air-to-air refuelling capability effectively rules us out of meaningful air defence missions. Nor are we suited to the sweep escort role. We have a very limited range, especially at high speed and low altitudes, and are limited to 540-kt with external fuel. We have navigation problems, Bullseye control is very difficult and we have only one radio. So if I talk, I ‘trash’ the package’s radios!

"The only possible missions for NATO’s MiG-29s are as adversary threat aircraft for air combat training, for point defence, and as wing (not lead!) in Mixed Fighter Force Operations. 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. These drive the problems we face in tactical scenarios. We suffer from poor presentation of the radar information (which leads to poor situational awareness and identification problems), short BVR weapons range, a bad navigation system and short on- station times."

 

Engines are better than RB199? In what respect? RD33 is a pure-fighter engine, J79 is rather old, while RB199 is made to be as compact as possible and used for essentially a bomber. RD33 is horrible from the point of view of maintenance and smoke. In Luftwaffe report there is no mention on engines or good points of radar. Just compare the Indian experience maintaining mig29 and m2000.

 

Read the whole report again...

 

Wikipedia is the new Bible i see..

 

About the RD-33 engines: the early '90s sources i have did state that, after the 500 h revisions, the engines were in better shape than the ones of similar western systems, i.e. RB-199.

 

You will be aware that, the US engine industry is not the whole western engine industry! The european weren't that superior than the soviets in that respect.

 

About the endurance of MiG-29, two points:

 

while it's true that, MiG-29 did not have the right endurance (especially if compared with the previous MiG-23 BTW), and while the anti-FOD systems should have been phased-out replacing it with, let's say, 2,200 more pounds of fuel..

 

1- AFAIK, the MiG-29 was capable to fly at mach 2 for about 300 km: just try to do that with a F-16 or a F-18.

 

1a- Shall i add that, the MiG-29 is capable to go at 20,000 ft in less than 60'?

 

2- i have one report about the trial of a MiG-29 UB. With 3,000 liters onboard, this plane took off and in spite of its endurance limits (with 1,000 liters LESS than the single seat version), it performed a complete acrobatic test, with 9 G turns, rapid climbs and the like.

 

It spent no less but 35-40 minutes before landing, and all this at medium-low levels.

 

How to compare it with western stuff? I have another flight report about a two-seat fighter. This time was the VIGGEN (dual seat trainer). The same flight envelopment lasted for just 26 minutes.

 

I know that the Viggen is not the best stuff about endurance/range, but still, the MiG-29UB outlasted the Viggen about 50% more.

 

BTW, the F-18 Super Hornet is still complained as to have too short legs, not talk about the F-18A/D.

 

 

 

[bojan]

...

 

1a- Shall i add that, the MiG-29 is capable to go at 20,000 ft in less than 60'?

...

 

MiG-21bis is better then that, so what?

[RETAC21]

The point is flying over your head, Istvan. As a system, the MiG-29 was worse than the Western fighters.

[BansheeOne]

Cut him some slack, he is only turning nine today.

[Sardaukar]

Some interesting stuff with F-18C here:

 

 

Edited June 10, 2013 by Sardaukar

[Sebastian Balos]

@Istvan

 

Copy paste error, the quote was correct, though. Here it goes the link: http://www.16va.be/mig-29_experience.htm

 

RD33 -RB199 after revision? What does that mean?

 

Point 1 - So, MIG25 is better still than MIG29? F16 may barely reach mach 2, F18 can't do that at all. So what? MIG17 was a better dogfighter than F4. Was it better fighter overall? No.

 

Point 2 - so, UB is a better plane than a single seat, wunderwaffe, or what?

 

MIG29UB? That plane didn't carry radar, so I'd certainly rather be in a Viggen. Viggen was evaluated as worse in dogfight than F16, so no wonder MIG29 was better. The question is what would happen before the dogfight.

 

F18 range? Pointless for this topic. It's longer than that of MIG29, allowing more flexibility. If its not enough for the user, then perhaps the user is more ambitious?

[Sebastian Balos]

@Stuart

 

Yes, the Russians were pretty close in medium-long range missiles to the US and ahead of e.g. the French, and well ahead in WVR missiles/HMS than both. While the US dropped the idea with F4, the Russians were wiser and recognized the potential behind this combination. Even if MIG29 was less maneuverable than F16, R73+HMS would give it the edge in dogfight. Too bad they didn't follow their previous routine in developing radar and IR guided version as on e.g. R-27.

 

We all have our favourites... MICA is one of mine, especially the IIR version, particularly in frontal engagement, which may be the reason the French didn't adopt HMS until now. It's very effective against stealth planes as well...