JF-17 "Extremely close" to the MIG-29: Mikhail Pogosyan

[Sapper]

Why?? Why??Please tell us..I cant hold back my anxiety any more....

Unlike AMRAAM of F16, The BVRAAM of Mig29 requires the pilot to "Paint" the target until the missile hits the target, and since there are no HUD ques for pilot guidance (due to lack of data-link b/w missile and firing host), the pilot has to use the clock time and range figure from HUD at firing time to calculate how long he need to point his node towards the target (for radar illumination) until a hit/miss scenario is achieved.

If the pilot broke the radar lock before the missile reached the target, there was a guaranteed chance of miss. And for that purpose, the CLOCK was the most vital information display after firing a BVRAAM.

This was the same method used in Submarines (and is still used quite frequently) to arm the Torpedoes to allow them to get as close to the target as possible to the target, and then arm, so the countermeasures deployed by the target can be averted.

Regards,
Sapper

 

[dbc]

Unlike AMRAAM of F16, The BVRAAM of Mig29 requires the pilot to "Paint" the target until the missile hits the target, and since there are no HUD ques for pilot guidance (due to lack of data-link b/w missile and firing host), the pilot has to use the clock time and range figure from HUD at firing time to calculate how long he need to point his node towards the target (for radar illumination) until a hit/miss scenario is achieved.

If the pilot broke the radar lock before the missile reached the target, there was a guaranteed chance of miss. And for that purpose, the CLOCK was the most vital information display after firing a BVRAAM.

This was the same method used in Submarines (and is still used quite frequently) to arm the Torpedoes to allow them to get as close to the target as possible to the target, and then arm, so the countermeasures deployed by the target can be averted.

Regards,
Sapper

Well done Sapper , but there is more. I'll be really impressed if you can list all the reasons a Mig-29 pilot relies heavily on the clock.

 

[Trisonics]

Well done Sapper , but there is more. I'll be really impressed if you can list all the reasons a Mig-29 pilot relies heavily on the clock.

The MIG-29 does not have a "low fuel" warning, hence the pilot needs to constantly calculate..fuel consumption by watching the distance traveled and his speed.

I would be surprised it this is still the case even today

 

[dbc]

The MIG-29 does not have a "low fuel" warning, hence the pilot needs to constantly calculate..fuel consumption by watching the distance traveled and his speed.

I would be surprised it this is still the case even today

It does have a fuel gauge but it does not have a fuel flow gauge like the one below. The pilot has to calculate how much thrust he can afford using the fuel gauge and clock. There is more..

 

[SekrutYakhni]

Well done Sapper , but there is more. I'll be really impressed if you can list all the reasons a Mig-29 pilot relies heavily on the clock.

When will the biological time end considering the actual time while confronting the mighty JFT?

 

[Hulk]

Will the newer version of Mig29 SMT will have the same issue?

 

[Sapper]

Will the newer version of Mig29 SMT will have the same issue?

I don't think so.

The Russian Man Machine interfaces are improving at a rapid pace since the beginning of this millennium. Their customers are demanding equal or similar ergonomic conditions as found in European and American fighters.

SMT should sure have this issue fixed by know.

Regards,
Sapper

 

[ptldM3]

While the Mig-29 is marvelous piece of aerodynamic engineering and it is true the Archer slaved to the pilots helmet sights initially resulted in kills for the Mig-29. The German pilots should have qualified his statement by adding inside ten nautical miles in a low-speed, high alpha envelope. Of course considerable time has passed since the above event and both fighters have received significant upgrades. The F-16's that trained with German Migs did not have JHMCS and so the helmet mounted sights was a significant advantage for the Fulcrum. In addition, the F-16's flight computer restricts AoA to prevent departure from controlled flight. The Mig-29 imposes no such restriction, our pilots were quite impressed with how the Mig-29 upon departure elegantly returned to controlled flight when the stick was released.

That's not our fault. There is almost always trade-offs between two rival aircraft, the Mig-29 just happened to have an edge at that time in that area. It can always go both ways, the Mig-29 didn't have a fbw system that the F-16 enjoyed at the time, but that wasn't the Americans fault either; both aircraft did do with what was available at the time.

We let the German pilots brag and for a long time many believed the German Mig-29's "kicked F-16s a$$" and this is exactly what we wanted everyone to think-our pilots were explicitly ordered not to reveal details of the engagement.

The German's disclosed a lot of shortcoming from the Mig-29, but at the same time highlighted the Mig-29's advantages. The Germans are professional airmen, the Germans got the best of the F-16 in different scenarios, perhaps didn't do so well in other scenarios and overall racked up a large amount of F-16 kills. This was all done objectively and fairly, the German didn't sugar coat anything, when and where the Mig-29 had the advantage the Germans let it be know. Likewise when and were the F-16 had the advantage the Germans also let it be know.

And the end of the day downgraded German Mig-29s managed to hold 'thier own' against F-16 as well as F-18's in other exercises and in some cases dominated them. Is this bragging? I would say no since everything was done objectively in the name of mutal learning. And bragging is a relative term, perhaps some may feel that the Germans did brag but at least they 'walked the walk'. There is plenty of gragging from other pilots too....

Unlike AMRAAM of F16, The BVRAAM of Mig29 requires the pilot to "Paint" the target until the missile hits the target, and since there are no HUD ques for pilot guidance (due to lack of data-link b/w missile and firing host), the pilot has to use the clock time and range figure from HUD at firing time to calculate how long he need to point his node towards the target (for radar illumination) until a hit/miss scenario is achieved.

If the pilot broke the radar lock before the missile reached the target, there was a guaranteed chance of miss. And for that purpose, the CLOCK was the most vital information display after firing a BVRAAM.

This was the same method used in Submarines (and is still used quite frequently) to arm the Torpedoes to allow them to get as close to the target as possible to the target, and then arm, so the countermeasures deployed by the target can be averted.

Regards,
Sapper

The German Mig-29's have been well know as 'waterdown' Migs for some time.

From the Germans themselves.

Luftwaffe MiG-29 experience - positives and negatives

"I should stress that I’m talking about our Luftwaffe MiG-29s, which are early aircraft. They also removed the Laszlo data link and the SRO IFF before the aircraft were handed over to us, so in some respects we’re less capable than other contemporary MiG-29s."

 

[satishkumarcsc]

Yes it does , please go back and read my question I asked why is it "prominently displayed" in the center console typically reserved for important gauges that the pilot must continuously monitor. In the F-16 the clock is placed in the "right auxiliary* console"



Are you a Mig-29 expert like Ping? I have so many questions for you guys.

You do know me from another site DBC...so go ahead...

 

[dbc]

That's not our fault. There is almost always trade-offs between two rival aircraft, the Mig-29 just happened to have an edge at that time in that area. It can always go both ways, the Mig-29 didn't have a fbw system that the F-16 enjoyed at the time, but that wasn't the Americans fault either; both aircraft did do with what was available at the time.





The German's disclosed a lot of shortcoming from the Mig-29, but at the same time highlighted the Mig-29's advantages. The Germans are professional airmen, the Germans got the best of the F-16 in different scenarios, perhaps didn't do so well in other scenarios and overall racked up a large amount of F-16 kills. This was all done objectively and fairly, the German didn't sugar coat anything, when and where the Mig-29 had the advantage the Germans let it be know. Likewise when and were the F-16 had the advantage the Germans also let it be know.

And the end of the day downgraded German Mig-29s managed to hold 'thier own' against F-16 as well as F-18's in other exercises and in some cases dominated them. Is this bragging? I would say no since everything was done objectively in the name of mutal learning. And bragging is a relative term, perhaps some may feel that the Germans did brag but at least they 'walked the walk'. There is plenty of gragging from other pilots too....


The German Mig-29's have been well know as 'waterdown' Migs for some time.

From the Germans themselves.

Luftwaffe MiG-29 experience - positives and negatives

You're late to this thread, but once you've had an opportunity to go back a few pages you will realize I did not initiate the discussion about bragging.

This was all done objectively and fairly, the German didn't sugar coat anything, when and where the Mig-29 had the advantage the Germans let it be know.

The German MIG-29 pilots were veterans of several DACT missions. Once it was learnt that we have our hands on the much feared MIG-29 everyone and his dog wanted to go up against it.

The F-16 and F-18 pilots were relatively inexperienced and the ROE favored the MIG's. For instance, AA-11 simulated kill were granted when the German pilot radioed 'shlemm'. This was done because the MIG lacked equipment to verify a simulated kill. The AA-11 seeker could have locked on to a flare, the sun or a heat source on the ground. The F-teens on the other hand were equipped with sensors and HUD recorder, kills were easily and accurately verified.

In any case, the objective was to train our young pilots it wasn't to prove or disprove that the F-teens were better than the MIG-29. And it certainly wasn't for the benefit of prepubescent internet warriors like Ping who come here and boast the MIG "kicked F-16s a$$".

Our pilots finished the training with great respect for the MIG and the Germans walked away from their first encounter glad they didn't have to face the F-16/18 in real combat.

 

[rsingh]

Give Russian even 1\4 the money that went into the f16 program, then compare what is under the hood of Mig 29 via F16.
Before the Sukhois it was the Mig29s that kept Pakistani F16s at bay , i think it speaks volumes about the true capability of 29s.

 

[SQ8]

Give Russian even 1\4 the money that went into the f16 program, then compare what is under the hood of Mig 29 via F16.
Before the Sukhois it was the Mig29s that kept Pakistani F16s at bay , i think it speaks volumes about the true capability of 29s.

Your senseless statement speaks volumes about the lack of understanding you have of defense matters.

Mig-29's NEVER kept anything at bay.
To counter the capability the F-16's offered Pakistan India had to buy two separate jets..
It bought M2K's for deep strike and Mig-29's for Ada.
Even then.. till the induction of the sukhoi's there was real and constant consternation on part of the IAF planners about the F-16.
The oft quoted example of the Mig-29 lock incident should be taken at face value only.
What is not documented are a series of similar cases of IAF aircraft being locked on during the 87 standoff..
Or the recent probing incident by IAF aircraft... where older gen jets were able to achive the same on IAF jets.
The Mig-29 is a marvel of engineering..
But if the Poles and the Hungarians are any examples..they did not buy the newer mig.
One chose a F-16.. the other a Gripen.
Pound for Pound..
the F-16 is more reliable, more proven..with better avionics throughout the years.

Please look for a review by an F-18 pilot of the Mig-29G.

The newer mig-35 will be a very competitive machine.
Since the entry of capitalist concerns into the Mig-Tsagi.
One can expect all the refinements that were the hallmark of western fighters to be now part of Russian jets..
Take the Su-30 MKM for instance...
Possibly the last handicap is the susceptibility of Russian engines to FOD compared to their western counterparts.
Safety systems have and will improve further..
reliability was a major issue with Russian equipment.. in some cases more so than the Chinese..
Electronics too have moved from relying on brute power to clever software programming.
One of the leading companies in Signal processing is from Russia.

This thread has been dragged left and right... based not on the bearing of what the Russians think.. but because of what our Indian members feel is undue(albiet indirect) praise for the JF..and a little let down for what can be potential equipment for the IAF.

While in my view.. the JF-17 isnt a competitor.. but rather a very suitable complement for the Mig-29(35).
And offering the Russians a mixed deal whereby a country may be encouraged to purchase a Hi/Lo mix of Mig-35's and a Russianized JF-17.

I hope the F-16 vs Mig-29 debate is taken elsewhere now..
its been discussed on almost every darn forum on the net.
With equally mixed opinions...
98% of them from people who have no actual experience of either jet(like I do ).. and are just there to defend their national pride in some egoistical form or the other.

 

[Storm Force]

Nice Fair post santro.

Coming back to the JF17 thunder i hear it is not yet fully functioned to operate the SD10. But only the PL9 WVR missles.

The MIG29s in contrast esp those upgraded are early BVR fighters and the SMT will have better electronics and fuel efficency.

The big advantage the MIG29 has over thunder long term is its a twin engine fighter meaning more fuel more load more range.

Thunder really should be compared to other single engined fighters.

Technology wise it falls between F7, MIG21, F5 tigers and F16C/D/MIRAGE2000-5 & gripen jas39.. *(all single engined fighters). the latter 3 are all superior tech wise.

Real competitors of same era genere are the Taiwanease single engined fighter the LCA Tejas I consider these comprable air craft to Thunder in size, mission profile, and technology on hand in these machines

 

[alibaz]

Preparing it for SD-10 is not a big problem it will be done soon, probably PAF's priority was to make it ready for ground attack role first.

MiG 29 belongs to a different league, it is compared with JFT where economy in purchase, maintenance and operation will be a dominating factor.

 

[SQ8]

Nice Fair post santro.

Coming back to the JF17 thunder i hear it is not yet fully functioned to operate the SD10. But only the PL9 WVR missles.

The MIG29s in contrast esp those upgraded are early BVR fighters and the SMT will have better electronics and fuel efficency.

The big advantage the MIG29 has over thunder long term is its a twin engine fighter meaning more fuel more load more range.

Thunder really should be compared to other single engined fighters.

Technology wise it falls between F7, MIG21, F5 tigers and F16C/D/MIRAGE2000-5 & gripen jas39.. *(all single engined fighters). the latter 3 are all superior tech wise.

Real competitors of same era genere are the Taiwanease single engined fighter the LCA Tejas I consider these comprable air craft to Thunder in size, mission profile, and technology on hand in these machines

as far as the man-machine interface of the JF-17 goes.. its is equal to those in the latter three machines.
what it lacks is in the radar's ability in air to ground modes... but then again that is a capability which was taken as secondary to its primary task.
The FCK-1 was a fighter with great potential since it seemed to merge the best of the F-16 and 18... but the change in US opinion killed it off before it even got beyond its first steps... all the refinements that were supposed to go into the jet were canceled as well.
I have already expressed my opinion about the LCA mk1 at multiple instances.. no need to repeat it here.

The correlation of twin engines with better range is wrong..
the F-18 actually burns more fuel per mile compared to the F-16... the GE-404 is less efficient than the PW F-100... but more responsive thanks to GE's early lead in FADEC.
the Mig will undoubtedly have the longer range since its a larger aircraft.. although initial Mig-29A's were fairly short legged.. it wasn't until the introduction of the Fat back Mig-29S that the jet came into its own.
Also.. the Mig-29 was the replacement for the Mig-21.. the manned SAM of the USSR. And was designed around the point defense concept... compared to the Su-27 which was to replace Su-15 flagons in the interceptor told.
A common misconception is that each fighter was designed to counter the other.. the Su-27 for the F-15.. the Mig-29 for the F-16.. its true that the fighters were designed to match the capabilities of their nemesis.. but there were operational considerations put into the design.
The same goes for the JF-17.