F-18 vrs F-16 Vrs Mig-29?

Question

I wouldl ike to know what you think the advantages and disatvantages between these aircraft are?

Answer 1

The americans say that they have the best technology,rigth?,so far, at any given airshow, they have never outperformed not an older or a newer Mig 29,not the F16 or F18,this two fighters, want to be like the Mig 29,when they grow up.

Answer 2

MiG29 has some limfacs:  it's firecontrol system is....well unique.  Not user friendly or intuitive.  The engines smoke like F4s under full mil power-that means a lot.  VERY short legs-typical missions are 30-40minutes.  Has no "JTIDS"-type capability meaning it can't share data.  Sure it's got an off-boresight capability, best way to defeat that-kill them pre-merge with a Slammer.  However, it IS impressive in a furball; no doubt about it.

The combat record IS the combat record: F16s 1 Fulcra 0.

Answer 3

The most we can say are the goods and others of each since the nuts, bolts, and hard numbers are always classified.  So we are forced to say x is better, now press the "I believe" button.  It's not like we're talking about car performance.  I'm normally not in the business of such comparisons, but these fighters are close enough to actually consider it.

However, if you are measuring fighter performance at airshows (hind_440), you are planning to get killed in the next war.  Airshows have about as much to do with fighter tactics and employment as Playstation 3.  These machines are built to kill people and destroy things, not as entertainment.

Also, I will not address pilot differences.  The USAF and USN are part of an unheralded global superpower and the training, flight time, development, and sheer numbers of skilled pilots in these services is virtually incomparable to the pilots in the various air forces across the world that operate the MiG-29.  The MiG-29 is a great aircraft, but it cannot make up for the lack of resources for its pilots that are available in the USAF/USN.  While it poses a worthy threat to the American aircraft, the odds are against its survival.

F-16:

Huge power, usable, light-weight design with a ton of mulit-role capability.  It is also relatively inexpensive.  This fighter can fight it's way in, drop death all over the enemy, and fight it's way out, day or night.  It's fast and can sustain some of the highest G loading in the inventory if necessary.  It's most noticeable departure from the Hornet's capabilities is in its lower high-AOA performance, but it more than makes up for it in power.  A single engine, however, is always seen as a reliability problem.  The maneuverability and power of this jet really gives no ground for a MiG-29 to use in a fight.  Also, it's a combat-tested design on the winning side of every battle it has fought.  The Dos Gringos guys called it that everyone wishes they could fly the Viper at some point.

F/A-18C:

Slightly increased multi-role capability than the Viper with better radar, better avionics, better cockpit interface, and slightly more air-to-ground weapons quantities and variety.  Again, it's designed to fight its way in, drop its ordnance, and fight its way out day, night, or in bad weather.  It's also probably the best manual bomber (unguided bombs) ever made, even vs. the A-10, due to avionics.  The jet falls well short of the others in the power-to-weight category and sustained G, but its ability to point its nose anywhere in a fight and get the first shot should be illegal and it is bettered only by jets with thrust vectoring.  It too is a combat veteran on the winning side of every battle it has fought from its debut in Libya to the present day.  The single-seat fighter cockpit is a hectic place and this jet makes it so nice that you might even marry it.

MiG-29:

It is a maneuverable and 4th generation fighter that is comparable on every level with the American fighters but falls short in weapons, flight controls, avionics, and range.  It's power-to-weight ration is awesome and it can sustain G with the F-16.  Yet, the type is actually floundering in the Russian fighter market while the bulk of funding and major purchases go to Sukoi.  The only items worth mentioning as advantages are inclusion of the IRST and helmet mounted sight.  However, the helmet sight is primitive, defeat-able, and the more-advanced US Joint Helmet Mounted Cuing System/AIM-9X is finding its way to more and more deployed Viper and Hornet units in the USAF/USN fleet which counter the threat.  It is a great jet to operate from unimproved surfaces and is relatively inexpensive.  In comparison with western fighters, the aircraft is poorly manufactured, the engines are somewhat unreliable and have short life spans, the fuel capacity/fuel burn is such a huge disadvantage that the jet can barely reach the fight let alone participate, the cockpit and navigation systems are crude and clunky, the engines are dirty and visible for miles, and the air-to-ground capabilities are so miniscule and primitive as to not even be considerable as an effective multi-role fighter.  The MiG-29 is basically a MiG-21 on steroids when it comes to air-to-ground and the '29 pilot had best be attacking tents lest he go up against anything more substantial or defensive.  UAVs are also a good target for the MiG-29.  It might have looked overwhelming when it first showed up, but like every Russian fighter program, time (without adapting) has degraded it so much that it probably can't keep up much longer.

Answer 4

They're all pretty similar in capabilities. But the Mig 29 does have that helmet mounted sight that allows missle launch off of boresight. In aggressor games with the German Air Force, that helmet mounted sight surprised a lot of US pilots in close air combat.

Pilot training and flight time is the over-riding factor.

How many F16's or F18's has the Mig 29 shot down in combat? Zero.

There are dozens of forums where you can read about this sort of thing ad nauseum.

Answer 5

F18 vs F16 they are pretty similar, though F 18 is designed to operate from carriers so it is basically a lot sturdier than the F 16. their armament and capabilities are pretty the same.

MiG 29 has never been flown in actual combat by equally trained personell so far, so any comparisons about how many kills vs kills do not say anything. Let alone the numbers deployed through operations Desert storm or during the NATO offensive against Serbia.

Our airforce was training elementary dogfights against Mirage 2000 one on one and two on two and French air force was rather impressed by our performance.

Mig 29 suffers from lower fuel capacity, but is capable of using the over-the-shoulder firing, helmet sight stowed0 R73 archer missiles  - such technology is NOT in the inventory of the F 16 or F18. Still the recent battlefield is dominated by those planes that are able to cooperate and datalink the intelligence. MiGs are still the pretty old school, operating without awacs. That is the reason they suck in the recent conflicts.

Besides they were mostly flown by "Allaakbar" jockeys who know a S**t about flying planes and rather rely on the divine help.

Answer 6

I fly the CF-18 and it is a great aircraft. It is mainly intended as a strike aircraft but can revert to air-to-air.

The F-16 is also a great aircraft and is often hard to defeat. Often I have flown versus an F-16 in scenarios where we are set up to lose. As an air-to-air platform I'd actually give the edge to an F-16 over the F-18 (unless they are fighting me).

In 2005 we had Luftwaffe Mig-29's participating in Maple Flag.  The aircraft is over-hyped. I certainly wouldn't want to have to fight in it. It was easy to defeat, even with three jugs of fuel hanging on my aircraft. To give you an idea of how bad it faired in the excercise, a couple A-10s even shot them down.