How good the Mig-29 UPG/SMT against the F-16 Blk 50/52+ ??

[Capt.Popeye]

True, sir but we complete deal for Jaguar in 1979 & its first induction in RAF is in 1971. Currently Jaguar is more than 40 year old technology & we would plan for more 15 years. Didn't you think Jaguar would live their life more than they worth it. We put MIG-21 in our fleet more than hlf century due to 'LOST DECADE' today situation is different. Jaguar would be replace by more capable multirole fighter with low operating cost.
We have some new airframe due to HAL's pathetic production rate.

Its not as simple or simplistic as that. The basic tech may be 40 yrs old but the crucial parts of the aircraft have been getting periodically updated through the upgrades. The acquisition and retention of the MiG-21 fleet was based on different considerations, so it will be unwise to compare them.
Then again; operating costs and acquisition costs are different parameters.

Also recall that in Iraq; the RAF Jaguars performed better and more reliably than the Tornados; though the Tornados were a a generation later.
Is'nt the USAF still flying the A-10 Warthogs? Must be a reason for that. Some aircraft fit very well into specific niches or performance slots. The claimed Multi-Role Aircraft; after a point are really compromises.

 

[Manindra]

Its not as simple or simplistic as that. The basic tech may be 40 yrs old but the crucial parts of the aircraft have been getting periodically updated through the upgrades. The acquisition and retention of the MiG-21 fleet was based on different considerations, so it will be unwise to compare them.
Then again; operating costs and acquisition costs are different parameters.

Also recall that in Iraq; the RAF Jaguars performed better and more reliably than the Tornados; though the Tornados were a a generation later.
Is'nt the USAF still flying the A-10 Warthogs? Must be a reason for that. Some aircraft fit very well into specific niches or performance slots. The claimed Multi-Role Aircraft; after a point are really compromises.

Yes, but they are not retired currently but after 15 years which would be sufficient for churn out their remaining life. IAF them self states about that.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Yes, but they are not retired currently but after 15 years which would be sufficient for churn out their remaining life. IAF them self states about that.

That is because the IAF will be happy to operate them for some more time. In the meanwhile the Rafales will get inducted, the IAF will get familiarised with them; and then the IAF will understand whether the Rafales can substitute into the specific slots of the Jaguars. If that slot does not exist, it will not matter; if it does, then the IAF may look at some other means to do so. That will all depend on the specific scenario obtaining after 15 years in the neighborhood.
In the last 15 years, in one part of the neighborhood its not changed very much.

 

[Manindra]

That is because the IAF will be happy to operate them for some more time. In the meanwhile the Rafales will get inducted, the IAF will get familiarised with them; and then the IAF will understand whether the Rafales can substitute into the specific slots of the Jaguars. If that slot does not exist, it will not matter; if it does, then the IAF may look at some other means to do so. That will all depend on the specific scenario obtaining after 15 years in the neighborhood.
In the last 15 years, in one part of the neighborhood its not changed very much.

In our neighborhood there are no match of Jaguar. 15 year is sufficient time for inducting & familiarise with new plane.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

In our neighborhood there are no match of Jaguar. 15 year is sufficient time for inducting & familiarise with new plane.

But the real point is that the Jaguar (40 years old) is still in the IAF's good books and with apparently some good cogent reasons for that.

 

[Manindra]

But the real point is that the Jaguar (40 years old) is still in the IAF's good books and with apparently some good cogent reasons for that.

Yes, but after 15 years ?

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Yes, but after 15 years ?

Read my post above the one that you replied to earlier.

 

[Zabaniyah]

A very narrow question posed by the OP.

It's like asking: "Which one is better? The M-16 or the AK-47?"

Both have their merits and limitations. One can say that the M-16 is more accurate, not robust, and more expensive. Whereas the AK-47 is less accurate and highly robust. One can go parroting off by saying it ultimately depends on the marksmanship skills of the shooter. WIN!

Much of a war's success would depend on the nature of the operations. Much of the operations carried out by the Americans are resource intensive in nature. So they are hard to beat. And no, Iraqis never had any functional air-borne radar. Much of their radar systems were ground-based which were effectively knocked out by the F-117's. As I said, their operations are highly resource intensive.

Despite all that from the Americans, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq weren't easy. Many variables come into play there, so let's not go into there.

I wouldn't say that the MiG-29 is garbage. In fact, it'd be misinformed to say so.

It's a great plane for air-to-air engagements and dog-fighting. Though, I wouldn't use it for SEAD operations if I were them. Not that great for strikes deep within enemy territory either.

There was one excercise where a pair of Luftwaffe MiG-29's (pretty old versions) gave a pair of fancy USAF F-15's a run for their money. So, don't underestimate it.

As for the F-16. It is better in terms of multi-role capabilities.

All in all, much would depend on the nature of their operations under which the two mentioned birds would be used. If they screw up, they're screwed. Be it the F-16 or the MiG-29.

My laptop has faster processing then an entire aircraft equipped with 1980s computers.

That maybe so. Those computers are 1980's standards. However, they must be durable enough for a military fighter aircraft.

By the way, processing capabilities and how they work with other components of a military fighter are highly classified information. I don't think such discussions would be conclusive here.

 

[MiG-21]

Only retired former airforce officers making a quick buck writing their "spicy" opinions pieces, and fan boys who are detached from reality by drooling at paper specs of Multirole fighters would say the IAF will retire the Jaguars prematurely. The IAF will extract every last ounce of Airframe life from that aircraft before letting it go.

As they say, "unlike air targets, there is always something to bomb on the ground". The number of targets on the ground far outweigh the number of Aircraft any country can put in the air throughout the war. Jaguars will be used as ground attack aircraft against frontline enemy troop concentrations and if possible other targets of opportunity deep behind enemy lines depending on the fluid nature of how the war is progressing.

IAF will never retire its Jaguars, Mirages or MiG-29s before their airframe life gets exhausted, make no mistake about it. The last MiG-29s will fly till around 2035, the last Mirages till around 2040, and the last Jaguars for a little over 2045.

 

[sancho]

Yes, you are right. HAL produced Jaguar till 2008 but IAF issued RFI for re-engined & Honeywell is front runner in it but I think its take another decade to complete this project & that last batch of Jaguars live 15 years in IAF service & may be they could sold to Afghanistan or other country because after that they would be become obeselete for IAF like AF. But it would be very good ground attack fighter for Afghanistan like country.
Well, Jaguar updates are impressive.

They can have the upgrade, but for the older once and sell the newer once, that will reduce the upgrade cost and combined with the money we get for the newer jags, we could add more LCAs. And no, the updates are not impressive at all, since any LCA MK1 offer the same strike capabilty. The minute the upgraded Mig 29s and M2K comes in, let alone Rafale, even the upgraded Jag will be next to useless for IAF, since it won't be used in any frontline mission anymore. Time has changed and so has modern warfare, you don't need to get close to the target to drop bombs, today the bombs itself can fly over distances, which makes the fighter more survivable. In combination with multi role capability, you don't need dedicated A2A or A2G fighters anymore, but gear multi role fighter with some more capability to the one or the other direction.
One only has to compare the Mig 29UPG (to stick to topic again) and the Jags and will understand why even a fighter designed for air combats, with just "added" A2G capabilities, will soon outclass the Jag in IAF.

CAS - both offer pretty much the same load configs, be it with rocket pods, or 1000lb LGBs/PGMs, but the Mig will also be able to use the Kh 29 missile.
Maritime attack - and here the different starts, since th Jag can only carry a single Harpoon (+2 x fuel tanks), while the Mig can carry up to 3 x Kh35 (+2 x fuel tanks)
SEAD - the Jag has no SEAD weapon at all, while the Migs will carrly up to 2 x Kh31P missiles (+2 x fuel tanks)

So while an upgraded Mig suddenly will give IAF a variety of strike options and roles, the dedicated strike fighter will fall far behind and will remain as a 2nd day strike fighter.

But the biggest difference will be, that we don't need to see this with the upgraded Migs:

A fighter that occupies other fighter for it's protection, only because it has just basic self defence capability. The Migs will be able to carry a full AAM load of 2 x WVR and 2 x BVR range missiles in every mission, which makes IAF able to do the same strike missions with less fighters than in the past, or with dedicated strike fighters like the Jag.

The Jag in general is still a potent strike fighter and in low level penetration runs, it still will have an advantage until the upgraded M2Ks and Rafales arrive, but for IAF and Indias threat perception they have no importance beyond 2018 at max and there is a reason why India will be the only operator of the Jags by then.

 

[Manindra]

They can have the upgrade, but for the older once and sell the newer once, that will reduce the upgrade cost and combined with the money we get for the newer jags, we could add more LCAs. And no, the updates are not impressive at all, since any LCA MK1 offer the same strike capabilty. The minute the upgraded Mig 29s and M2K comes in, let alone Rafale, even the upgraded Jag will be next to useless for IAF, since it won't be used in any frontline mission anymore. Time has changed and so has modern warfare, you don't need to get close to the target to drop bombs, today the bombs itself can fly over distances, which makes the fighter more survivable. In combination with multi role capability, you don't need dedicated A2A or A2G fighters anymore, but gear multi role fighter with some more capability to the one or the other direction.
One only has to compare the Mig 29UPG (to stick to topic again) and the Jags and will understand why even a fighter designed for air combats, with just "added" A2G capabilities, will soon outclass the Jag in IAF.

CAS - both offer pretty much the same load configs, be it with rocket pods, or 1000lb LGBs/PGMs, but the Mig will also be able to use the Kh 29 missile.
Maritime attack - and here the different starts, since th Jag can only carry a single Harpoon (+2 x fuel tanks), while the Mig can carry up to 3 x Kh35 (+2 x fuel tanks)
SEAD - the Jag has no SEAD weapon at all, while the Migs will carrly up to 2 x Kh31P missiles (+2 x fuel tanks)

So while an upgraded Mig suddenly will give IAF a variety of strike options and roles, the dedicated strike fighter will fall far behind and will remain as a 2nd day strike fighter.

But the biggest difference will be, that we don't need to see this with the upgraded Migs:

A fighter that occupies other fighter for it's protection, only because it has just basic self defence capability. The Migs will be able to carry a full AAM load of 2 x WVR and 2 x BVR range missiles in every mission, which makes IAF able to do the same strike missions with less fighters than in the past, or with dedicated strike fighters like the Jag.

The Jag in general is still a potent strike fighter and in low level penetration runs, it still will have an
advantage until the upgraded M2Ks and Rafales arrive, but for IAF and Indias threat perception they have no importance beyond 2018 at max and there is a reason why India will be the only operator of the Jags by then.

True, thats why I am saying after 2027 Jaguars would be more liability than asset.

 

[Last Samuri]

A USA/israeli F16/52 v iaf MIG29SMT/K i would give the edge everytime to the F16

A PAF F16/52 v iaf mig29/smt/k is 50/50

My reason for difference results is that both the israelis & USA falcons will be better equipped better maintained and have far better situational awareness from supporting GCC satalites and awacs than the PAF.

I do realise that PAF have awacs but not E3 sentrys or Phalcon technology and the PAF will not have GPS cover like USA. and even israel.

Real time intelligence and jamming ew warefare is crucial in a war and these factors decide air combat more than pilots or weapons.

 

[sancho]

True, thats why I am saying after 2027 Jaguars would be more liability than asset.

Way earlier, which makes the new upgrade hardly useful and a full upgrade of the whole fleet only a waste of money.

 

[bloo]

Nice.

So in order to justify Mig 29, Indians bring in Israelis.

Would any of you arm chair warriors care to elaborate why Israel still stuck with F-16s as their backbone?

F-16 is the best complete fighter package out there.

More than 4000 built and exported to more than 20 nations.

So is the MiG-29.

List of Mikoyan MiG-29 operators - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia