Pakistan Air Force to be transformed by 2012

[Adux]

Read UP, you have lot to learn

 

[blain2]

Nowegian F-16 v/s Luftwaffe MiG-29 A/B. The results are widely available

Not because of the inherent manueverability of the aircraft, rather due to the presence of HMD on the Fulcrum and lack of it on the F-16. They have been able to queue weapons against fighter aircraft with HMCS on a 747 test bed. Had the RNAF F-16s been equipped with JHMCS, Mig-29 would have had no advantage.

Structurally, the F-16 can withstand more in terms of hard manuevering as it is an inherently unstable aircraft.

PS: Look up "schlemming with the Fulcrum" for a bit more on google.

 

[blain2]

Blain my man, you otta read more on the subject about comparisons of manouverability b/w F-16 and MiG 29. Almost universally the MiG 29 is considered to be far more manouverable than the F-16.

I hate to sound idiotically cocky here, but you really think that I am running my mouth off here? There are certain flight regimes where the F-16, Mig-29 ad even M2K do better than each other, but there is NO universal claim or agreement that Mig-29 is far more manueverable than F-16.

When you compare, you have to do it Apples to Apples...not oranges and apples...you cannot pitch two aircraft with similar flight characteristics as the F-16 and Mig-29 but then give one the advantage of HMD/S and other a conventional SA.

I read the reviews of the USAF pilot in India who said that had his aircraft had JHMCS, he would have been receiving abundant target queuing within the WEZ against IAF Fulcrums, Bisons and M2Ks.

Lets not get carried away by joking here about the supremacy of the Mig-29 (its hard enough to knock you guys down with regards to the MKI, now here we are going nuts about the Fulcrum which BTW has a pretty crappy record against the Viper (at least in BVR arena..with JHMCS, I don't think that Mig-29A/B would be that much different in WVR arena contrary to your claims).

 

[BATMAN]

Structurally, the F-16 can withstand more in terms of hard manuevering as it is an inherently unstable aircraft.

Exactly, thats the point.

 

[Contrarian]

(its hard enough to knock you guys down with regards to the MKI,

Lol thats true

 

[Contrarian]

MiG 29 was crap in BVR Blain, not to mention the superbly incapable pilots of the arab AF. The US had a cake walk there. The MiG 29 is far different in WVR than in BVR.

 

[blain2]

MiG 29 was crap in BVR Blain, not to mention the superbly incapable pilots of the arab AF. The US had a cake walk there. The MiG 29 is far different in WVR than in BVR.

Malay why do you argue for the sake of arguing? Can you post something conclusive about the so-called superiority of the Fulcrum over the F-16? Did you read the article I referenced in the post above? So please without any of the above, don't come here and start posting massively opinionated points about incapable pilots etc. etc....in your eyes the only ones who can fly the Fulcrum is the mighty IAF, right?....how about the Serbs, were they as moronic as the Arabs as you claim when the Dutch AF Vipers shot their asses out the skies? I am not comparing the US/NATO F-16 experiences against Mig-29 as the two operating environments are different, however even PAF was not overtly impressed with the Mig-29 A/B (as flown by the IAF) when we had evaluated them (while operating F-16s). PAF had still shown a preference for the Su series and had suggested a massive upgrade on the Mig-29s before they could even be considered for purchase (and mind you this evaluation had happened in Russia with Russian approval).

In WVR, with JHMCS on the F-16, Fulcrum has no inherent advantage....without HMD on the Fulcrum and JHMCS on the F-16, its simply a matter of the better pilot and tactics. Mig-29 has failed to impress thus far. Its another thing that you add avionics to it and upgrade it...glassing can even turn bomb trucks into decent platforms for BVR/WVR combat nowadays so at least I am not too worried about your claims that Fulrcum is way more manueverable than the F-16.

 

[Contrarian]

Malay why do you argue for the sake of arguing? Can you post something conclusive about the so-called superiority of the Fulcrum over the F-16? Did you read the article I referenced in the post above? So please without any of the above, don't come here and start posting massively opinionated points about incapable pilots etc. etc....in your eyes the only ones who can fly the Fulcrum is the mighty IAF, right?....how about the Serbs, were they as moronic as the Arabs as you claim when the Dutch AF Vipers shot their asses out the skies? I am not comparing the US/NATO F-16 experiences against Mig-29 as the two operating environments are different,

I read, and as many sources point out, the MiG 29 is much more manouverable from speeds below 200knots or 300(lol, i got confused) and the F-16 above that limit to another limit.

Now calm down man! Your BP will rise!

however even PAF was not overtly impressed with the Mig-29 A/B (as flown by the IAF) when we had evaluated them (while operating F-16s). PAF had still shown a preference for the Su series and had suggested a massive upgrade on the Mig-29s before they could even be considered for purchase (and mind you this evaluation had happened in Russia with Russian approval).

I would appreciate a detailed source for that,not in terms for verification but it sounds very interesting !

In WVR, with JHMCS on the F-16, Fulcrum has no inherent advantage....without HMD on the Fulcrum and JHMCS on the F-16, its simply a matter of the better pilot and tactics. Mig-29 has failed to impress thus far. Its another thing that you add avionics to it and upgrade it...glassing can even turn bomb trucks into decent platforms for BVR/WVR combat nowadays so at least I am not too worried about your claims that Fulrcum is way more manueverable than the F-16.

I dont get how changing the avionics and glassing it can change the maneuverability of the plane? Most definitely for BVR,

 

[Adux]

Just to let everyone know that Malay is self-confessed MiG-29 series Lover....
But i have heard and read so much about the MiG-29 Manoverability vs F-16. While the MiGs sudden turns easily, they bled energy, while the F-16's could turn as fast as the MiGs but they carried their energy

 

[blain2]

I read, and as many sources point out, the MiG 29 is much more manouverable from speeds below 200knots or 300(lol, i got confused) and the F-16 above that limit to another limit.

Now calm down man! Your BP will rise!

Yep and that is to my point that depending on the flight regime, the aircraft have strengths and weaknesses and Fulcrum and Viper are no different. Point taken on the BP!

I would appreciate a detailed source for that,not in terms for verification but it sounds very interesting !

This is actually recorded in the official PAF History 1988-1998 (Volume II). I do not have an electronic copy of this, but many others (who have access to this book are on this forum) will vouche for the fact that there is a detailed account of PAF's evaluation of the Su27 and Mig-29.

I dont get how changing the avionics and glassing it can change the maneuverability of the plane? Most definitely for BVR,

My friend, this is the art of glassing and updating avionics (in the context of my post, this update would include HMC) really provide amazing SA to even platforms like Tornado with awesome target acquisition and weapons cueing capability. The fact that you do not require the aircraft to be able to turn on a dime and still be able to make High offboresight shots (out to 90-180 degrees) against the adversary (who may be very agile and nimble) is what makes this avionics upgrade an amazing enhancement.

I mentioned the Tornado for a reason. You may want to check, but all of the Tornados that participated against the Su-30MKIs in WVR sorties during the recent exercises have not been upgraded with ASRAAM/HMCS as of yet. That upgrade is on the road-map and in case the IAF exercises against the Tornados again with this capability, things in WVR will not be that one-sided. Now this is despite the fact that Tornado is a bomb truck and MKI with its TVC is at the pinnacle of air combat maneuvering in the current age of aircraft. So lets not discount technology so easily.

 

[Contrarian]

In either case, the MiG 35 has 3-D TVC which is participating in the MRCA tender. For those who donot know, the Su-30MKI has only 2-D TVC and yet it is bloody maneuverable and nimble to operate.

So that definitely makes the MiG 35 one of the most efficient dogfighters.

 

[niaz]

Let us not forget that these days avoinics and missile technology has progressed so far that the dog fight would only take place as a last resort. It depends who can spot the other first and thus gets the first shot.

IMO the debate as who which of the modern aircraft will be a winner in a one to one contest can only be decided thru actual combat. Todate F-15, designed more than 40 years ago remains the "fightingest" aircraft in the world per its actual combat record.

 

[Contrarian]

Dogfights will remain Niaz sir. Now there wont be a 2 vs 2 or a 1vs 1 fight. It would be hordes from one side vs hordes from another side. So BVR would only whittle down the numbers by quite a bit, but in the end, digfights will remain.

 

[Adux]

Imagine this, What if two F-22 go head on, BVR will be useless, they will have to dog-fight..lol

 

[Keysersoze]

Let us not forget that these days avoinics and missile technology has progressed so far that the dog fight would only take place as a last resort. It depends who can spot the other first and thus gets the first shot.

IMO the debate as who which of the modern aircraft will be a winner in a one to one contest can only be decided thru actual combat. Todate F-15, designed more than 40 years ago remains the "fightingest" aircraft in the world per its actual combat record.

I have to agree with adux and malay here.

The BVR scenario was actually first touted before the Vietnam war when aircraft such as the canceled F6D Missileer aircraft were "the future" However the Vietnam war soon awakened the various air arms to start training for Wvr dogfighting.