Both of these aircraft are quick and versitile. They both can be land based or used on carriers, but which of these two do you think has the right stuff?
As always that depends on the pilot! [;)]
I would say however that given two equally skilled pilots, the MiG 29 would have the edge as they say it is about equal to the F-16 in terms of maneuverability, which I find hard to believe.
Mike
The F-18, cause it ain’t got no Russian stuff in it!![:D][:D]
I think that the F-18 is defently better because of the technoly put in it and our skilled Navy Piolts (but might not be as good vs. a Su-27 or something like that!!)[8D]
H. Recker
The skill of the pilot means a lot, I saw a demonstration of MiG-29s at an airshow back in the early 1990s, the Canadian Hornets demonstrated straight after. From a maneuverability standpoint, tough call, VERY tough call (Canadian Hornets are A and B versions by the way)
I don’t know if the F-16 pilots were lazy that day or what, but they had nothing on the MiGs for show stopping moves.
These days (post Socialist) a lot of 29s are catching up in avionics with Western stuff, so the out dated notion that the old Russian technology would hold it back hardly applies anymore, most of them are now full glass cockpits and top of the line digital radar systems.
One technological advantage I can see for the MiG is that it has the infrared target aquisition system (that “fishbowl” just ahead of the cockpit) Its not new technology (F-101s, 102s and 106s had it) but there must be something to it as its making a comeback on both the Eurofighter and Rafale.
In these days of radar homing missiles where the pilot has to keep flipping the radar on and off to keep the bandit from getting a missile lock on him, that infrared “fishbowl” could be a real advandage, especially if his adversary didn’t have one.
You could take this argument all the way back to comparisons between the Sabre and MiG-15 over Korea. Once American pilots got to fly the MiG a bit, they realized how lucky they were that they weren’t taking on very experienced combat pilots in the North Koreans. It was the American pilots’ fairly recent combat experience (most being WWII vets) more than the Sabre’s technology that really gave them the advantage. Remember the Sabres had WWII era armament (six .50 cal machine guns) while the MiG had some seriously modern teeth in the form of a pair of 20mm and one 37mm cannons.
It is generally accepted that the Russian missle tech is about 5+ years ahead of the US. Some will argue that a few of their missles are a full generation ahead of the US.
They’re that good.
As far as manueverability goes, the two aircraft are fairly evenly matched. But both have their advantages over the other. The F-18 is far more manueverable at slower speeds and has the ability to get slower much faster. The Mig has the advantage of power. It’s a very powerful airplane, and that comes in handy when in a turning fight with an equally manueverable adversary. The Mig also has the helmet mounted Archer sight, which is a great advantage in a dogfight. The Archer’s seeker head can rotate about 180 degrees based on where the pilots head is turned, while the current generation sidewinders are more of a boresight weapon. The US is working on helmet mounted sights for the AIM-9X, but they are not in the OpFor yet. The Mig has a 30mm cannon whereas the Hornet’s is a 20mm. While it does have a phase array radar like the 18, the Migs is a much older version. Russian technology, while still ‘high-tech’ per se, is decades behind US technology in the fleet today. Even the SU33, 35s, and 37s have very dated avionics.
The biggest advantage the F-18 has is the pilot flying it. Save for the Germans, none of the nations flying the Mig-29 have pilots that are worth anything. They can neither afford the training nor the flight time to maintain their pilots proficiency as well as we can. Since the Vietnam war, not a single US aircraft has been shot down by an enemy aircraft…the same cannot be said of the Mig.
Now if the Mig pilot can find a way to switch off those smoking engines, so as not to give himself away! [:p]
MattP said everything I was gonna say. Acceleration-advantage Mig. Actual dogfighting speed maneuverability-Hornet. All things considered (including pilot skill) the Hornet is the winner. Now put an Israeli in the Mig and we got real problems. I’m no advocate for them but they are superior in skills to our guys… the only ones though.
I read an article a few years ago that compared the two. I forget which magazine, but the conclusions we pretty much as mentioned above. The the F-18 has slightly better handling and a better cockpit layout with superior avionics, but the MiG-29 has more power and therefore better acceleration and the “off boresite” capability. However, according to recent articles in both Aviation Week and Combat Aircraft magazines, the US response to the helmet mounted sight is nearly complete and an Alaskan F-15 squadron is the the first active unit to recieve the AIM-9X. There is still some room for imporvement thought, as I hear the new helmets weigh aroun 10 lbs… try flighing with that on your head at 9gs!
I talked with an F-16 pilot a few years ago that did some training against German Mig-29s. He said the results were usually about 50/50. Granted, the engagments were limited to short range dogfights where the MiG has some seriously well engineered capabilites. But, the pilot felt confident that if they had been allowed to use the F-16’s stand off capabilities, things would have been much different.
But as several of you mentioned, it really comes down to the pilot. Afterall, there have been several MiG-29s shot down by US aircraft over the last decade. No US aircraft have been lost in air-to-air combat since Vietnam which has everything to do with the training and skill of our forces… and not just the fighter pilots, but the battle managment folks in the AWACS and other locations as well.
As has been said, the pilot quality and support system does mean everything, which is why the US has invested a lot more in those areas since Vietnam. Not to knock any of the armed services, but the Navy had a much superior kill ratio to the Air Force in Vietnam which was mainly due to the Top Gun training that their pilots went through. Since then, all the armed forces have advanced fighter pilot training.
You can have the most advanced equipment in the world but if your guys don’t use it to its full potential, it won’t do much good. The Vietnamese Mig-17s shot down a lot of F-4s and F-105s and there’s no comparasion between those aircraft’s capabilities on paper…
it depends on the skill of the pilot! that’s all i can say cause i cant say no more!
It’s been many years since I read Yeagers auto biography but I seem to remember that the Mig 15 was not superior to the sabre. The two were pretty evenly matched with the sabre having the edge at lower altitudes and the mig having the advantage at higher attitudes. I have also read that the mig 15 was notorious for not being a stable gun platform. It also carried very few rounds.
Just wondering. Has the any US plane down a Fulcrum or a Flanker while it is in Russian hands?
sorry guys got to for the mig 29 better looking aircraft and much feared by nato
I have had an opportunity to see both aircraft perform flight demonstrations. I have built both aircraft in 1/48 and 1/32 scale. If going to WAR or going to MODEL, I would choose the FULCRUM.
Well I say it’s the pilots, look at the AVG’s they flew P-40’s to the Japanese A6M’s and pretty much came out on top, because of tactics and training, and the Russian Pilots are not slouches either, they have a very good training program but it’s flawed with lack of funds for flying times but they are just as capiable as the US’s, also someone said the Isreali’s are the top dog but they too where trained by the U.S., and updated their training for their needs and they are the best for their countries needs in that regin, and We’ve seen some very great pilots buying the farm from poor choices ( Maj Thomas McGuire, turning to save a fellow airman) or Yeager ( but, not to buy the farm) getting downed from out horsing around with Bob Hoover over Nazi held France, so if the great pilot is having a bad day and a average pilot is having an excellent day the victory will be in the hands of the pilots great day flyer
I’ve seen both planes perform. And they are both on my favorites list. This would be a tough call if the pilots were of exactly the same skill. The two planes are equal. You can knock soviet technology all you want. But the MiG 29 and the Su 27/31/33/35 are damn good aircraft and I consider them to be on a par with their western counterparts and in a lot of circumstances are even better.
Gents -
All three airframes are pretty evenly matched. The only real advantage to the American jets, is a lightened pilot workload (a lot the the MiG controls/avionics are manual/analogue.) The F/A-18E has great high AOA manouverability, and some formidable low speed ability. The F-16 has the edge if you get to and stay near it’s corner velocity. The MiG has greater engine thrust than the F-16, and so can out climb the Viper, but looses in a turning fight. Missiles are deadly on both sides, but the MiG has a better gun. The list goes on. As has been said, it’s always the pilot, the guy who can exploit the strenghts of his A/C and capitolize the weakness of his opponent will win.
Archer out.
Jamesr said:
That’s pretty much correct. The MiG-15 carried fewer rounds, but those rounds caused one heck of a lot of damage when they hit. Overall, the -15 was more maneuverable than the Sabre, except at higher altitudes. On the other hand, the Sabre has a higher roll rate. Yeager took both up and was able to beat his opponent in the other plane every time. The planes were very evenly matched and Yeager’s skill was the deciding factor.
72cuda said:
The AVG certainly did very well for themselves against more veteran Japanese pilots in more maneuverable planes. However, they flew against Japanese Army aircraft, not Navy aircraft. In other words, the fighters they flew against were Oscars (Ki-43) and Nates (Ki-27). Both planes were marginally more maneuverable than the Zero! (More info here: http://www.warbirdforum.com/planes.htm )
Regarding the original point of this thread, I can say that one of the biggest shocks following the end of the Cold War was finding out just how advanced the former Soviet equipment was. From all I’ve read since then, the U.S. ability to fight beyond visual range is much better than any other nation’s, but once into a dogfight, the MiG-29 stands just as good a chance of downing the F/A-18 than visa-versa. This is, of course, subject to the variables already mentioned in this thread (pilot quality, etc.)
Personally, I want to build models of both planes. [:D]
Regards,