5 ms·

> IIRC a MiG-29 is a better interceptor than an F-16 Not really, it might be more manoeuvrable than the F-16 (questionable in itself) but as an effective weapo

> IIRC a MiG-29 is a better interceptor than an F-16 Not really, it might be more manoeuvrable than the F-16 (questionable in itself) but as an effective weapon system the F16 wins in every way. This isn't me been nationalist, I'm British and we don't operate the F-16 - its simply that the F-16 in service now isn't the F-16 from the 70's where the Mig-29's in service now largely are and not even well maintained 70's. The Block 50/52 F-16's are essentially a significant technological leap over any Mig-29 in service. I mean the Russian Airfoce is using hiking GPS to navigate their fighters - I'd almost feel sad for them if they weren't butchering innocent civilians with their obsolete crap.

sofixa 5y ago
Yeah, maybe i should have said was a better interceptor. The hiking GPS were for ground attack planes if I'm not mistaken, but still funny.
- noir_lord 5y ago
  It's a tricky one, lots of people (obviously not saying yourself) equate effectiveness of a fighter/interceptor with manoeuvrability alone but that is only a tiny part of what makes a modern fighter effective and a relatively negligible one at that. Missiles, Radar, Datalinks and Avionics are what matters on the F16 with stealth added on the F22/F35. If the F16 can see the Mig29 first (either via it's on-board radar or a datalink to a loitering AWACS) and has weapons that can reach further then the Mig29 is at a catastrophic disadvantage before the fight is even joined properly. The reports I've seen where F-16's have gone against Mig-29's all seem to reach the same conclusion, Mig-29 is more manoeuvrable below 200kn where F-16 is more at +200kn. Thing is actual gun range dogfights are rare outside of exercises and if you are doing 200kn in one then you are at a severe disadvantage against an opponent who isn't since preservation of energy is the key criteria in a gun fight. All that said though if an F-16 finds itself in that kind of a fight with a Mig-29 outside of an exercise then something has gone very wrong. https://theaviationgeekclub.com/f-16-vs-mig-29-when-the-mighty-viper-dogfighted-with-the-fulcrum-for-the-first-time/ https://theaviationgeekclub.com/f-16-vs-mig-29-when-the-migh... a good read.

sofixa 5y ago

Yeah, maybe i should have said was a better interceptor. The hiking GPS were for ground attack planes if I'm not mistaken, but still funny.

noir_lord 5y ago
It's a tricky one, lots of people (obviously not saying yourself) equate effectiveness of a fighter/interceptor with manoeuvrability alone but that is only a tiny part of what makes a modern fighter effective and a relatively negligible one at that. Missiles, Radar, Datalinks and Avionics are what matters on the F16 with stealth added on the F22/F35. If the F16 can see the Mig29 first (either via it's on-board radar or a datalink to a loitering AWACS) and has weapons that can reach further then the Mig29 is at a catastrophic disadvantage before the fight is even joined properly. The reports I've seen where F-16's have gone against Mig-29's all seem to reach the same conclusion, Mig-29 is more manoeuvrable below 200kn where F-16 is more at +200kn. Thing is actual gun range dogfights are rare outside of exercises and if you are doing 200kn in one then you are at a severe disadvantage against an opponent who isn't since preservation of energy is the key criteria in a gun fight. All that said though if an F-16 finds itself in that kind of a fight with a Mig-29 outside of an exercise then something has gone very wrong. https://theaviationgeekclub.com/f-16-vs-mig-29-when-the-mighty-viper-dogfighted-with-the-fulcrum-for-the-first-time/ https://theaviationgeekclub.com/f-16-vs-mig-29-when-the-migh... a good read.