Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 4 of 21 FirstFirst 1234567814 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 606

Thread: F35 News only thread for 2013

  1. #91
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,034
    Quote Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
    Look what don't you understand in the very simple statement:

    "EVERY SINGLE F35 MADE WILL HAVE SIGNIFICANT BRITISH CONTENT IN PARTICULAR THE AFT FUSELAGE AND EJECTION SEATS!"

    That is typed in caps to express me exasperation! It is nothing to do with my argumentation skills...it is very simple all F35 built benefit UK PLC...I think that is something to be celebrated.

    Britain is a tier 1 partner and is building a significant proportion of the aircraft! How much meat do you want?!

    Look if you don't believe me when I say "EVERY SINGLE F35"! Have a look at BAE Systems fact sheet on the program! It is there in black and white:

    http://www.baesystems.com/cs/groups/...aes_026379.pdf

    For a potential 3000+ build that is a massive return on investment for UK PLC.

    I think that whilst there have been significant problems in the life of the program but there are many positives to be talked about as well and I am sick and tired of having somebody jump down my throat when I don't show myself to be irrational hater of the program...I would argue that focusing only on where the program is not meeting targets and ignoring the positives is sign of poor argumentative skills on your part.

    Grow up!
    Yeah sure, the proud aeronautical industry that once produced legends like Spitfire, Lancaster, Hunter, Lighting, Harrier and countless more , reduced to a pithiful subcontractor for the americans, rear fuselages and some damn seats, sure, there's some "meat " there.

    I'm sure the americans are congratulating themselves for eliminating the british (and most of Europe' as well) aeronautical prowess, with the help of some spineless and traitorous politicians, starting with that Sandy guy...

  2. #92
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    3,457
    Quote Originally Posted by mack8 View Post
    Yeah sure, the proud aeronautical industry that once produced legends like Spitfire, Lancaster, Hunter, Lighting, Harrier and countless more , reduced to a pithiful subcontractor for the americans, rear fuselages and some damn seats, sure, there's some "meat " there.

    I'm sure the americans are congratulating themselves for eliminating the british (and most of Europe' as well) aeronautical prowess, with the help of some spineless and traitorous politicians, starting with that Sandy guy...
    +1

    & the brits applaud because they get to make the seats & the buttocks of that clusterfneb.

    Nic
    "allah akbar": NATO's new warcry.

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    4,879
    Quote Originally Posted by mack8 View Post
    Yeah sure, the proud aeronautical industry that once produced legends like Spitfire, Lancaster, Hunter, Lighting, Harrier and countless more , reduced to a pithiful subcontractor for the americans, rear fuselages and some damn seats, sure, there's some "meat " there.

    I'm sure the americans are congratulating themselves for eliminating the british (and most of Europe' as well) aeronautical prowess, with the help of some spineless and traitorous politicians, starting with that Sandy guy...
    Cheap shot!

    We are talking now not the sad decision s made in the 1950's.

    I don't see the UK's participation in the F-35 program as pitiful! Actually I find your statement insulting to the workers in the UK involved in the program. How about you go and find some of them at an airshow and tell them their contribution is pitiful. Easy to be a keyboard warrior...not so easy when you meet somebody in the flesh.

    The UK is a vital partner in the program providing a significant amount of technology to the program.
    Because sometimes in life we need a bit of fun

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXNAp3mKepc

  4. #94
    ZuluAlfaKilo Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by mack8 View Post
    I'm sure the americans are congratulating themselves for eliminating the british (and most of Europe' as well) aeronautical prowess, with the help of some spineless and traitorous politicians, starting with that Sandy guy...
    Doesn't say much for Typhoon, Rafale and Gripen.

    Perhaps Europe needs to spend more on aerospace defence programs so its industry has a reason to regain those "lost" skills...... Where is Europe's F-35 like program? Why did Eurofighter build an aircraft that was so technologically conservative; the ultimate 1980's fighter?

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    4,879
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicolas10 View Post
    Oh yes it would, because if Rafale is selected as the RN plane, the RAF can focus on the EF to make it truly multirole, and use all the money it has sinked into barrel of the danaids to invest on further development of the EF & its subsystems & the rest on stealth UCAVs like Taranis follow on.

    Nic
    Really Nic, care to explain how an aircraft made in France developed entirely from French R&D is going to be more beneficial to UK PLC and R&D then the F-35? An aircraft that as a tier 1 partner the UK helped to design...

    Arguably if the F-35 gets close to the planned build number it will be worth more to the UK then Typhoon.

    Also I see everybody here has studiously ignored my MAIN POINT that despite development issues the F-35B out performs the legacy types it will replace in UK service...obviously too inconvenient a fact to deal with when it so much more fun irrationally hating the program and belittling the work of companies like BAE Systems, Martin Baker and Rolls Royce.
    Last edited by Fedaykin; 18th January 2013 at 20:00.

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    208
    I don't think the latest posts here are contructive.

    Better would have been to ask "Is the f-35 an opportunity or more of a trouble for the european aerospace industries?"


    Also, if such industries are in trouble, the reason could have also some other main reasons, like 3 different Eurocanards developed separetly and fighting for deals.

    Anyway for the ones that like to appplaude to a supposed death, methinks they should wait a bit more. The european aerospace industry is far from being in coma, see also the Tanaris and Neuron programs, and no, I don't think the latter programs are in conflict with any involvment in the F-35.

    Back to the F-35 news, gentlmen? I hope that at least some of the posters here have some actual interest for the subject of this thread, and are here not just for the sake of trolling.

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    4,879
    That would be nice Glendora, but my point is anything written about F-35 always brings out a crowd of people who only have negative things to say about and can't see any positive.

    I don't see pointing that out as trolling.
    Because sometimes in life we need a bit of fun

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXNAp3mKepc

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    208
    I was referring to the above posters Fedaykin,
    I posted my last reply at the same time of yours and could not read it on time.

    I appreciate your efforts to make UK industry perspective on the program more clear.

    And still I think there is nothing constuctive or appropriate to the subject of this thread in many of the latest above comments.
    Last edited by Glendora; 18th January 2013 at 20:03.

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    4,879
    Fair play
    Because sometimes in life we need a bit of fun

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXNAp3mKepc

  10. #100
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    643
    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    Sustained turn rate of clean aircraft @15.000ft , 50% fuel

    - Mirage 2000-5 : 17 deg/s @ M 0.7, 6 Gs
    - F-16C Block 50 : 18 deg/s @ M 0.75, 7 Gs
    - Rafale : 19 deg/s @ M 0.7, 7 Gs

    Su-27 is said to have 22.5deg/s @ M 0.7
    no value for altitude for su-27 , different aircraft have advantage at different altitude for example : at high altitude the F-15 can turn inside F-16 while at medium and low altitude the situation is opposite

  11. #101
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    643
    Quote Originally Posted by haavarla View Post
    Why is it unlikely?
    It is well known that the Flanker turn n burn exellent. There are several sources of this. Do some research if u want.
    The Flanker has several compromises in its design, but Inst/sustained turn rate is certainly not one of them.

    Keep in mind that this was clean with 50% fuel.
    The performance decrease when you put aordinance on or top up the fuel tanks, but that goes for most jets.
    better turning fighter doesnot necessary have better sustain turn rate ( different between turn fighter and energy fighter )
    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    Viper might be among the best to you but I am quite sure that Fulcrums have gained up to 2 deg/s advantage over the F-16MLU Viper (I remember figures 28 deg/s Fulcrum vs 26 deg/s Viper sustained @ low level, unknown speed). AFAIK, Su-27 is even slightly better than MiG-29 in that regard.

    Sorry, cannot help you more.
    i think that you get your fact wrong by a little bit , mig-29 have better max turn rate while F-16 have better sustained turn rate
    Last edited by moon_light; 18th January 2013 at 20:59.

  12. #102
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    3,457
    Quote Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
    Really Nic, care to explain how an aircraft made in France developed entirely from French R&D is going to be more beneficial to UK PLC and R&D then the F-35? An aircraft that as a tier 1 partner the UK helped to design...

    Arguably if the F-35 gets close to the planned build number it will be worth more to the UK then Typhoon.
    It's all nice & good to be able to integrate some bits on a plane, or manufacture some parts for it, but this is VERY far from being able to design a successful fighter project from A to Z. Losing sight of the overal design concept of a fighter plane means that you get incapable of building one when you really need to. Besides, programs like fighter planes allow your technological base to master most of the very high tech fields (propulsion, aerodynamics, electronics, etc etc).

    IMHO it is better to have a fighter that lags a bit behind (and will still be enough for 99% of the wars you guys will get involved in) and master all the technologies involved than master a few of technologies within a much bigger program. & right now the F35 isn't superior to anything that's actually in service...

    Also I see everybody here has studiously ignored my MAIN POINT that despite development issues the F-35B out performs the legacy types it will replace in UK service...obviously too inconvenient a fact to deal with when it so much more fun irrationally hating the program and belittling the work of companies like BAE Systems, Martin Baker and Rolls Royce.
    Considering the price of the first UK F35 was higher than the price the USMC paid for the whole harrier fleet + spares, I think bang-for-the-buck wise your main point is ludicrous.

    Nic
    "allah akbar": NATO's new warcry.

  13. #103
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    643
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicolas10 View Post
    right now the F35 isn't superior to anything that's actually in service...



    Nic
    really , come on

  14. #104
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    4,063
    Quote Originally Posted by moon_light View Post
    i think that you get your fact wrong by a little bit , mig-29 have better max turn rate while F-16 have better sustained turn rate
    If you can support that by some data, I'll gladly stand corrected.

  15. #105
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    4,879
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicolas10 View Post
    It's all nice & good to be able to integrate some bits on a plane, or manufacture some parts for it, but this is VERY far from being able to design a successful fighter project from A to Z. Losing sight of the overal design concept of a fighter plane means that you get incapable of building one when you really need to. Besides, programs like fighter planes allow your technological base to master most of the very high tech fields (propulsion, aerodynamics, electronics, etc etc).

    IMHO it is better to have a fighter that lags a bit behind (and will still be enough for 99% of the wars you guys will get involved in) and master all the technologies involved than master a few of technologies within a much bigger program. & right now the F35 isn't superior to anything that's actually in service...



    Considering the price of the first UK F35 was higher than the price the USMC paid for the whole harrier fleet + spares, I think bang-for-the-buck wise your main point is ludicrous.

    Nic
    Firstly if the UK wanted to develop a manned fighter it still could. The UK has know-how in all the key areas and Typhoon is frankly based on UK R&D from avionics through to engines.

    Secondly what does the price we sold Harrier GR7/9 to the Americans got to do with the fact that the F35B outperforms the legacy platform.

    With 2010 SSDR the treasury held a gun to the RAF's head and said a fast jet had to go, it made more sense to retire Harrier however uncomfortable that is for people. How is stating the fact that F35B outperforms the legacy platforms it is replacing ludicrous?! Even if it hadn't got the chop it was till on the way out. The price we got is of course less then the first F35B development airframe, the USMC were buying the Harrier airframes for their component parts and we didn't have any other buyer. Harrier was cut to save on the operating costs, what we got for the airframes is immaterial.
    Because sometimes in life we need a bit of fun

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXNAp3mKepc

  16. #106
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    175
    Fresh News!

    F-35B Flights Suspended Following Fueldraulic Failure


    http://www.defensenews.com/article/2...text|FRONTPAGE

  17. #107
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,034
    Quote Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
    Firstly if the UK wanted to develop a manned fighter it still could. The UK has know-how in all the key areas and Typhoon is frankly based on UK R&D from avionics through to engines.

    Secondly what does the price we sold Harrier GR7/9 to the Americans got to do with the fact that the F35B outperforms the legacy platform.

    With 2010 SSDR the treasury held a gun to the RAF's head and said a fast jet had to go, it made more sense to retire Harrier however uncomfortable that is for people. How is stating the fact that F35B outperforms the legacy platforms it is replacing ludicrous?! Even if it hadn't got the chop it was till on the way out. The price we got is of course less then the first F35B development airframe, the USMC were buying the Harrier airframes for their component parts and we didn't have any other buyer. Harrier was cut to save on the operating costs, what we got for the airframes is immaterial.
    How the hell can it build one even if it wants to if BILLIONS are sunk into this F-35 " partnership" you're talking about ?

    Starting with TSR2, P1154 and all the way to this day, the UK aeronautical industry has been sabotaged by your "friends" across the Atlantic. UK should be flying Replicas or something similar now, built either alone or in collaboration like the Tornado , like the Jaguar , or like Typhoon, and THEY should operate from QE. UK would have been much more able to defend itself and not COMPLETELY and UTTERLY dependent on the US (and prisoners to the US mischievous political agenda), again thanks to traitorous politicians, many more jobs would have been created, and Europe would have only to gain too if they would have jumped in.

    But i think you should be thankful that your grandfathers didn't thought like you, otherwise you will be speaking german now.

  18. #108
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,034
    Quote Originally Posted by Belethor View Post
    Fresh News!

    F-35B Flights Suspended Following Fueldraulic Failure


    http://www.defensenews.com/article/2...text|FRONTPAGE
    Lol, speaking of the F-35B.

  19. #109
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    643
    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    If you can support that by some data, I'll gladly stand corrected.
    here is the chart for sustain turn rate of different fighter at supersonic
    http://www.eurofighter.com/eurofight...upersonic.html

    the chart for sustain turn rate of different fighter at low subsonic speed
    http://www.eurofighter.com/eurofight...-subsonic.html

    here is the instantaneous turn rate compare between F-16 and mig-29
    They might not like it, but with a 28deg/sec instantaneous turn rate (compared to the Block 50 F-16's 26deg) we can out-turn them.
    http://www.16va.be/mig-29_experience.htm


    so basically mig-29 have better instantaneous turn rate than F-16 while F-16 enjoy advantage of better sustain turning at supersonic speed , at low speed then mig-29 become better again

    btw the acceleration of F-16 is so incredible http://www.eurofighter.com/eurofight...eleration.html
    Last edited by moon_light; 18th January 2013 at 22:45.

  20. #110
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    643
    you may also interested in this
    I've got over 500 hours in the MiG-29 and 2000 hours in the F-16 (I also flew the F-15A/C and the F-5E). The following is an excerpt from a research papaer I wrote while working on a Master's Degree in aerospace engineering. Bottom line: F16 (and F-15) good, MiG-29 bad.

    MiG-29 Fulcrum Versus F-16 Viper

    The baseline MiG-29 for this comparison will be the MiG-29A (except for 200 kg more fuel and an internal jammer, the MiG-29C was not an improvement over the MiG-29A), as this was the most widely deployed version of the aircraft. The baseline F-16 will be the F-16C Block 40. Although there is a more advanced and powerful version of the F-16C, the Block 40 was produced and fielded during the height of Fulcrum production.

    A combat loaded MiG-29A tips the scales at approximately 38, 500 pounds. This figure includes a full load of internal fuel, two AA-10A Alamo missiles, four AA-11 Archer missiles, 150 rounds of 30mm ammunition and a full centerline 1,500 liter external fuel tank. With 18,600 pounds of thrust per engine, this gives the Fulcrum a takeoff thrust-to-weight ratio of 0.97:1. A similarly loaded air-to-air configured F-16 Block 40 would carry four AIM-120 AMRAAM active radar-guided missiles, two AIM-9M IR-guided missiles, 510 rounds of 20mm ammunition and a 300 gallon external centerline fuel tank. In this configuration, the F-16 weighs 31,640 pounds. With 29,000 pounds of thrust, the F-16 has a takeoff thrust-to-weight ratio of 0.92:1. The reader should be cautioned that these thrust-to-weight ratios are based on uninstalled thrust. Once an engine is installed in the aircraft, it produces less thrust than it does on a test stand due to the air intake allowing in less air than the engine has available on the test stand.
    The actual installed thrust-to-weight ratios vary based on the source. On average, they are in the 1:1 regime or better for both aircraft. The centerline fuel tanks can be jettisoned and probably would be if the situation dictated with an associated decrease in drag and weight and an increase in performance.

    Speed

    Both aircraft display good performance throughout their flight regimes in the comparison configuration. The MiG-29 enjoys a speed advantage at high altitude with a flight manual limit of Mach 2.3. The F-16’s high altitude limit is
    Mach 2.05 but this is more of a limit of inlet design. The MiG-29 has variable geometry inlets to control the shock wave that forms in the inlet and prevent supersonic flow from reaching the engine. The F-16 employs a simple fixed-geometry inlet with a sharp upper lip that extends out beyond the lower portion of the inlet. A shock wave forms on this lip and prevents the flow in the intake from going supersonic. The objective is to keep the air going into the engine subsonic unlike a certain ‘subject matter expert’ on this website who thinks that the air should be accelerated to even higher speeds than the aircraft is traveling. Supersonic air in the compressor section? That’s bad.

    Both aircraft have the same indicated airspeed limit at lower altitudes of
    810 knots. This would require the centerline tanks to be jettisoned. The placard limits for the tanks are 600 knots or Mach 1.6 (Mach 1.5 for the MiG-29) whichever less is. It was the researcher’s experience that the MiG-29 would probably not reach this limit unless a dive was initiated. The F-16 Block 40 will easily reach 800 knots on the deck. In fact, power must be reduced to avoid exceeding placard limits. The limit is not thrust, as the F-16 has been test flown on the plus side of 900 knots. The limit for the F-16 is the canopy. Heating due to air friction at such speeds will cause the polycarbonate canopy to get soft and ultimately fail.

    Turning Capability

    The MiG-29 and F-16 are both considered 9 G aircraft. Until the centerline tank is empty, the Fulcrum is limited to four Gs and the Viper to seven Gs. The
    MiG-29 is also limited to seven Gs above Mach 0.85 while the F-16, once the centerline tank is empty (or jettisoned) can go to nine Gs regardless of airspeed or Mach number. The MiG-29’s seven G limit is due to loads on the vertical stabilizers. MAPO has advertised that the Fulcrum could be stressed to 12 Gs and still not hurt the airframe. This statement is probably wishful and boastful. The German Luftwaffe, which flew its MiG-29s probably more aggressively than any other operator, experienced cracks in the structure at the base of the vertical tails. The F-16 can actually exceed nine Gs without overstressing the airframe. Depending on configuration, momentary overshoots to as much as 10.3 Gs will not cause any concern with aircraft maintainers.

    Handling

    Of the four fighters I have flown, the MiG-29 has by far the worst handling qualities. The hydro-mechanical flight control system uses an artificial feel system of springs and pulleys to simulate control force changes with varying airspeeds and altitudes. There is a stability augmentation system that makes the aircraft easier to fly but also makes the aircraft more sluggish to flight control inputs. It is my opinion that the jet is more responsive with the augmentation system disengaged. Unfortunately, this was allowed for demonstration purposes only as this also disengages the angle-of-attack (AoA) limiter. Stick forces are relatively light but the stick requires a lot of movement to get the desired response. This only adds to sluggish feeling of the aircraft. The entire time you are flying, the stick will move randomly about one-half inch on its own with a corresponding movement of the flight control surface. Flying the Fulcrum requires constant attention. If the pilot takes his hand off the throttles, the throttles probably won't stay in the position in which they were left. They'll probably slide back into the 'idle' position.

    The Fulcrum is relatively easy to fly during most phases of flight such as takeoff, climb, cruise and landing. However, due to flight control limitations, the pilot must work hard to get the jet to respond the way he wants. This is especially evident in aggressive maneuvering, flying formation or during attempts to employ the gun. Aerial gunnery requires very precise handling in order to be successful. The MiG-29’s handling qualities in no way limit the ability of the pilot to perform his mission, but they do dramatically increase his workload. The F-16’s quadruple-redundant digital flight control system, on the other hand, is extremely responsive, precise and smooth throughout the flight regime.

    There is no auto-trim system in the MiG-29 as in the F-16. Trimming the aircraft is practically an unattainable state of grace in the Fulcrum. The trim of the aircraft is very sensitive to changes in airspeed and power and requires constant attention. Changes to aircraft configuration such as raising and lowering the landing gear and flaps cause significant changes in pitch trim that the pilot must be prepared for. As a result, the MiG-29 requires constant attention to fly. The F-16 auto-trims to one G or for whatever G the pilot has manually trimmed the aircraft for.

    The MiG-29 flight control system also has an AoA limiter that limits the allowable AoA to 26°. As the aircraft reaches the limit, pistons at the base of the stick push the stick forward and reduce the AoA about 5°. The pilot has to fight the flight controls to hold the jet at 26°. The limiter can be overridden, however, with about 17 kg more back pressure on the stick. While not entirely unsafe and at times tactically useful, care must be taken not to attempt to roll the aircraft with ailerons when above 26° AoA. In this case it is best to control roll with the rudders due to adverse yaw caused by the ailerons at high AoA. The F-16 is electronically limited to 26° AoA. While the pilot cannot manually override this limit it is possible to overshoot under certain conditions and risk departure from controlled flight. This is a disadvantage to the F-16 but is a safety margin due its lack of longitudinal stability. Both aircraft have a lift limit of approximately
    35° AoA.

    Combat Scenario

    The ultimate comparison of two fighter aircraft comes down to a combat duel between them. After the Berlin Wall came down the reunified Germany inherited 24 MiG-29s from the Nationale Volksarmee of East Germany. The lessons of capitalism were not lost on MAPO-MiG (the Fulcrum’s manufacturer) who saw this as an opportunity to compare the Fulcrum directly with western types during NATO training exercises. MAPO was quick to boast how the MiG-29 had bested F-15s and F-16s in mock aerial combat. They claimed a combination of the MiG’s superior sensors, weapons and low radar cross section allowed the Fulcrum to beat western aircraft. However, much of the early exploitation was done more to ascertain the MiG-29’s capabilities versus attempting to determine what the outcome of actual combat would be. The western press was also quick to pick up on the theme. In 1991, Benjamin Lambeth cited an article in Jane’s Defence Weekly which stated that the German MiG-29s had beaten F-16s with simulated BVR range shots of more than 60 km. How was this possible when the MiG-29 cannot launch an AA-10A Alamo from outside about 25 km? Was this a case of the fish getting bigger with every telling of the story? The actual BVR capability of the MiG-29 was my biggest disappointment. Was it further exposure to the German Fulcrums in realistic training that showed the jet for what it truly is? It seems that MAPO’s free advertising backfired in the end as further orders were limited to the 18 airplanes sold to Malaysia.

    If F-16Cs and MiG-29s face off in aerial combat, both would detect each other on the radar at comparable range. Armed with the AIM-120 AMRAAM, the F-16s would have the first shot opportunity at more than twice the range as the Fulcrums. A single F-16 would be able to discriminately target individual and multiple Fulcrums. The MiG-29’s radar will not allow this. If there is more than one F-16 in a formation, a Fulcrum pilot would not know exactly which F-16 the radar had locked and he can engage only one F-16 at a time. A Viper pilot can launch AMRAAMS against multiple MiG-29s on the first pass and support his missiles via data link until the missiles go active. He can break the radar lock and leave or continue to the visual arena and employ short range infrared guided missiles or the gun. The Fulcrum pilot must wait until about 13 nautical miles (24 kilometers) before he can shoot his BVR missile. The Alamo is a semi-active missile that must be supported by the launching aircraft until impact. This brings the Fulcrum pilot closer to the AMRAAM. In fact, just as the the Fulcrum pilot gets in range to fire an Alamo, the AMRAAM is seconds away from impacting his aircraft. The advantage goes to the F-16.

    What if both pilots are committed to engage visually? The F-16 should have the initial advantage as he knows the Fulcrum’s exact altitude and has the target designator box in the head-up display (HUD) to aid in visual acquisition. The Fulcrum’s engines smoke heavily and are a good aid to gaining sight of the adversary. Another advantage is the F-16’s large bubble canopy with 360° field-of-view. The Fulcrum pilot’s HUD doesn’t help much in gaining sight of the F-16. The F-16 is small and has a smokeless engine. The MiG-29 pilot sets low in his cockpit and visibility between the 4 o’clock and 7 o’clock positions is virtually nonexistent.

    Charts that compare actual maneuvering performance of the two aircraft are classified. It was the researcher’s experience that the aircraft have comparable initial turning performance. However, the MiG-29 suffers from a higher energy bleed rate than the F-16. This is due to high induced drag on the airframe during high-G maneuvering. F-16 pilots that have flown against the Fulcrum have made similar observations that the F-16 can sustain a high-G turn longer. This results in a turn rate advantage that translates into a positional advantage for the F-16.

    The F-16 is also much easier to fly and is more responsive at slow speed.
    The Fulcrum’s maximum roll rate is 160° per second. At slow speed this decreases to around 20° per second. Coupled with the large amount of stick movement required, the Fulcrum is extremely sluggish at slow speed. Maneuvering to defeat a close-range gun shot is extremely difficult if the airplane won’t move. For comparison, the F-16’s slow speed roll rate is a little more than 80° per second.

    A lot has been written and theorized about the so-called “Cobra Maneuver” that impresses people at airshows. MAPO claimed that no western fighter dare do this same maneuver in public. They also claimed that the Cobra could be used to break the radar lock of an enemy fighter (due to the slow airspeed, there is no Doppler signal for the radar to track) or point the nose of the aircraft to employ weapons. Western fighter pilots were content to let the Russians brag and hope for the opportunity to see a MiG-29 give up all its airspeed. The fact that this maneuver is prohibited in the flight manual only validates the fact that this maneuver was a stunt. Lambeth was the first American to get a flight in the Fulcrum. Even his pilot conceded that the Cobra required a specially prepared aircraft and was prohibited in operational MiG-29 units

    Another maneuver performed by the Fulcrum during its introduction to the West is the so-called “Tail Slide”. The nose of the jet is brought to 90° pitch and the airspeed is allowed to decay. Eventually, the Fulcrum begins to “slide” back, tail-first, until the nose drops and the jet begins to fly normally again. The Soviets boasted this maneuver demonstrated how robust the engines were as this would cause western engines to flameout. The first maneuver demonstrated to me during my F-15 training was the Tail Slide. The engines did not flameout.

    The MiG-29 is not without strong points. The pilot can override the angle of attack limiter. This is especially useful in vertical maneuvering or in last ditch attempts to bring weapons to bear or defeat enemy shots. The HMS and AA-11 Archer make the Fulcrum a deadly foe in the visual arena. The AA-11 is far superior to the American AIM-9M. By merely turning his head, the MiG pilot can bring an Archer to bear. The one limitation, however, is that the Fulcrum pilot has no cue as to where the Archer seeker head is actually looking. This makes it impossible to determine if the missile is tracking the target, a flare, or some other hot spot in the background. (Note: the AIM-9X which is already fielded on the F-15C, and to be fielded on the F-16 in 2007, is far superior to the AA-11)

    Fulcrum pilots have enjoyed their most success with the HMS/Archer combination in one versus one training missions. In this sterile environment, where both aircraft start within visual range of each other, the MiG-29 has a great advantage. Not because it is more maneuverable than the F-16. That is most certainly not the case regardless of the claims of the Fulcrum’s manufacturer and numerous other misinformed propaganda sources. The weapon/sensor integration with the HMS and Archer makes close-in missile employment extremely easy for the Fulcrum’s pilot. My only one versus one fight against a MiG-29 (in something other than another MiG-29) was flown in an F-16 Block 52. This was done against a German MiG-29 at Nellis AFB, Nevada. The F-16 outturned and out-powered the Fulcrum in every situation.

    The Fulcrum’s gun system is fairly accurate as long as the target does not attempt to defeat the shot. If the target maneuvers, the gunsight requires large corrections to get back to solution. Coupled with the jet’s imprecise handling, this makes close-in maneuvering difficult. This is very important when using the gun. Although the Fulcrum has a 30 mm cannon, the muzzle velocity is no more than the 20 mm rounds coming out of the F-16’s gun. The MiG’s effective gun range is actually less than that of the F-16 as the 20 mm rounds are more aerodynamic and maintain their velocity longer.

    If the fight lasts very long, the MiG pilot is at a decided disadvantage and must either kill his foe or find a timely opportunity to leave the fight without placing himself on the defensive. The Fulcrum A holds only 300 pounds more internal fuel than the F-16 and its two engines go through it quickly. There are no fuel flow gauges in the cockpit. Using the clock and the fuel gauge, in full afterburner the MiG-29 uses fuel 3.5 to 4 times faster than the Viper. My shortest MiG-29 sortie was 16 minutes from brake release to touchdown.

    It should not be forgotten that fights between fighters do not occur in a vacuum. One-versus-one comparisons are one thing, but start to include other fighters into the fray and situational awareness (SA) plays an even bigger role. The lack of SA-building tools for MiG-29 pilots will become an even bigger factor if they have more aircraft to keep track of. Poor radar and HUD displays, poor cockpit ergonomics and poor handling qualities added to the Fulcrum pilot’s workload and degraded his overall SA. It was my experience during one-versus-one scenarios emphasizing dogfighting skills, the results came down to pilot skill.

    In multi-ship scenarios, such as a typical four versus four training mission, the advantage clearly went to the side with the highest SA. Against F-15s and F-16s in multi-ship fights, the MiG-29s were always outclassed. It was nearly impossible to use the great potential of the HMS/Archer combination when all the Eagles and Vipers couldn’t be accounted for and the Fulcrums were on the defensive. The MiG-29’s design was a result of the Soviet view on tactical aviation and the level of technology available to their aircraft industry. The pilot was not meant to have a lot of SA. The center of fighter execution was the ground controller. The pilot’s job was to do as instructed and not to make independent decisions. Even the data link system in the MiG-29 was not meant to enhance the pilot’s SA. He was merely linked steering, altitude and heading cues to follow from the controller. If the MiG-29 pilot is cut off from his controller, his autonomous capabilities are extremely limited. Western fighter pilots are given the tools they need to make independent tactical decisions. The mission commander is a pilot on the scene. All other assets are there to assist and not to direct. If the F-16 pilot loses contact with support assets such as the E-3 Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft, he has all the tools to complete the mission autonomously.

    The combat record of the MiG-29 speaks for itself. American F-15s and F-
    16s (a Dutch F-16 shot down a MiG-29 during Operation Allied Force) have downed MiG-29s every time there has been encounters between the types. The only known MiG-29 “victories” occurred during Operation Desert Storm when an Iraqi MiG-29 shot down his own wingman on the first night of the war and a Cuban MiG-29 brought down 2 “mighty” Cessnas. Are there more victories for the Fulcrum? Not against F-15s or F-16s.

    Designed and built to counter the fourth generation American fighters, The MiG-29 Fulcrum was a concept that was technologically and doctrinally hindered from the beginning. Feared in the west prior to the demise of the Soviet Union, it was merely an incremental improvement to the earlier Soviet fighters it replaced. Its lack of a market when put in direct competition to western designs should attest to its shortcomings. The German pilots who flew the aircraft said that the MiG-29 looked good at an airshow but they wouldn’t have wanted to take one to combat. Advanced versions such as the SMT and MiG-33? Certainly better but has anyone bought one?

    Lt. Col. Johann Köck, commander of the German MiG-29 squadron from
    September 1995 to September 1997, was outspoken in his evaluation of the Fulcrum. “It has no range, its navigation system is unreliable and the radar breaks often and does not lend it self to autonomous operations”, he said. He added that the best mission for NATO MiG-29s would be as a dedicated adversary aircraft for other NATO fighters and not as part of NATO’s frontline fighter force.
    http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=P...topic&p=168581

  21. #111
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    4,063
    Quote Originally Posted by moon_light View Post
    here is the chart for sustain turn rate of different fighter at supersonic
    the chart for sustain turn rate of different fighter at low subsonic speed
    here is the instantaneous turn rate compare between F-16 and mig-29

    so basically mig-29 have better instantaneous turn rate than F-16 while F-16 enjoy advantage of better sustain turning at supersonic speed , at low speed then mig-29 become better again
    Thanks. I only have to wonder about sustained turn rate at supersonic speeds. Who needs that? I cannot really imagine why would anyone fly at say M1.5 and have to turn tightly at the same time. That leads to quick energy bleed which kinda defeats the whole purpose of high speed dashing, doesn't it?

    Quote Originally Posted by moon_light View Post
    btw the acceleration of F-16 is so incredible http://www.eurofighter.com/eurofight...eleration.html
    F-16 has been known for excellent acceleration and climbing characteristics but from my memory the Fulcrum was quite comparable in both aspects.

  22. #112
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,034
    What's the name of this "expert". Obviously he has a rather obvious agenda; strangely, other compatriots of his have a more balanced view on the MiG-29, not to mention those who fly and trained in it against US types ( poles etc.). Chauvinism at it's best.

  23. #113
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    4,063
    Quote Originally Posted by moon_light View Post
    I have to disagree with following statement:
    The MiG-29’s seven G limit is due to loads on the vertical stabilizers. MAPO has advertised that the Fulcrum could be stressed to 12 Gs and still not hurt the airframe. This statement is probably wishful and boastful. The German Luftwaffe, which flew its MiG-29s probably more aggressively than any other operator, experienced cracks in the structure at the base of the vertical tails. The F-16 can actually exceed nine Gs without overstressing the airframe. Depending on configuration, momentary overshoots to as much as 10.3 Gs will not cause any concern with aircraft maintainers.

    Both MiG-29 and F-16 experienced similar cracks at the base of the vertical fin(s). They are easily recognizeable by applied strenghtening patchwork.




    Both MiG and F-16 airframes are considered a whole league behind Mirages in terms of durability - I think our Greek friends could lose a word or two on this issue..
    Last edited by MSphere; 18th January 2013 at 23:17.

  24. #114
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Russia Evil Empire aka Mordor
    Posts
    146
    This article is a load of rubbish not only is it comparing to the Mig 29A which is not fair but the Mig 29M SEVERELLY DOWNGRADED EXPORT VERSION OF Mig 29A the MONKEY EXPORT VERSION.
    The export version of the Mig 29A has a completelly different severelly downgraded radar,fire control system,downgraded engines,downgraded ECM and IFF and navigation systems and the real Soviet VVS version especially the C is far superior.
    The Soviet VVS started to use the Mig 29C in about 1987 which was vastly improved "The MiG-29S is similar in external appearance to older MiG-29B airframes, except for the dorsal hump behind the cockpit canopy. Differences start with the improvements in the flight control system. Four new computers provide better stability augmentation and controllability with an increase of 2° in angle of attack (AoA). Its improved mechanical-hydraulic flight control system allows for greater control surface deflections. The MiG-29S's dorsal hump, earning it the nickname "Fatback" in service, was originally believed to be for additional fuel, but in fact, most of its volume is used for the new L-203BE Gardenyia-1 ECM system. The MiG-29S can carry 1,150 liter (304 US gallon, 2,000 lb) drop tanks under each wing and a centerline tank. Inboard underwing hardpoints are upgraded to allow for a tandem pylon arrangement for a larger payload of 4,000 kg (8,820 lb). Overall maximum gross weight has been raised to 20,000 kg (44,000 lb). The GSh-30-1 cannon had its expended round ejector port modified to allow for firing while the centerline tank is still attached. Improvements also allow for new longer-range air-to-air missiles like the R-27E (AA-10 "Alamo") and R-77 (AA-12 "Adder"). Initially, the avionics of the MiG-29S only added a new IRST sighting system combined with a better imbedded training system that allowed for IR and radar target simulation. However, the final MiG-29S improvement kit also provides for the Phazotron N019M radar and more built-in test equipment (BITE) (especially for the radar) to reduce dependence on ground support equipment; MiG MAPO calls this model the MiG-29SD. Revised weapon system algorithms in the MiG-29S's software, combined with an increase in processing capacity, allows for the tracking of up to 10 targets and the simultaneous engagement of two with the R-77 missile."
    Quote Originally Posted by moon_light View Post
    Last edited by Tu 160; 18th January 2013 at 23:47.

  25. #115
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,010
    Quote Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
    Firstly if the UK wanted to develop a manned fighter it still could. The UK has know-how in all the key areas and Typhoon is frankly based on UK R&D from avionics through to engines.
    I wouldn't get drawn into their sniping. It's nothing but French posturing, as they realise that as soon as F35 is in service, their 'omnirole' fighter will be seriously outclassed by F35 in the A2G role, and Typhoon in the A2A role.

    Sadly for the French, Rafale WILL be the last fully domestic fighter project, the costs of developing a next gen platform will be far beyond French budgets. (and at the rate their economy is failing, even more so)

    I wouldn't be surprised if a next gen European project involves input from France and the UK, and I wonder what they'll have to say then about our aircraft industry?

  26. #116
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,634
    I agree that BAE involvement in F-35 will generate revenue for BAE and should result in some revenue for the UK government via income tax, VAT and tax on BAE profits. However if the F-35 turns out to be expensive to buy and very expensive to operate, that will adversely affect UK military capabilty. I see a high risk of F-35 being expensive to buy and very expensive to operate, so I am against the UK forces acquiring it.

    I think it would be better to install catapults on the new carriers and buy something with more reasonable costs than F-35 - Super Hornet, Rafale, even Sea Gripen if available... whatever is not going to limit overall capability of the armed forces.

  27. #117
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,317
    Quote Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
    In what way?
    In that it completely ignores the notion of opportunity cost, and other important factors such as acquisition and operating costs, and the nature of military capability as, in large part, relative to that fielded by others. To say nothing of politico- industrial-strategic considerations.

    I'm not saying the F-35 performs poorly on all these metrics, I'm saying that "does it outperform what it is replacing?" is very short-sighted as an overall measure of a particular program/platform. From that perspective Il-476 is a brilliant program.
    Last edited by Rii; 19th January 2013 at 00:56.
    "I’ve come to realise that power can be corrosive [....] it can dim your vision." -- George W. Bush, 2013

  28. #118
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    virginia beach,VA.
    Posts
    770

  29. #119
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    4,063
    Quote Originally Posted by mack8 View Post
    What's the name of this "expert". Obviously he has a rather obvious agenda; strangely, other compatriots of his have a more balanced view on the MiG-29, not to mention those who fly and trained in it against US types ( poles etc.). Chauvinism at it's best.
    It's always about preferences and what you are used to. I can imagine that a vanilla MiG might appear quite rudimentary to a jock used to fly a C Viper or Hornet but OTOH Russians have found the cockpits with monochrome displays and small diameter back-up dials used on those aircraft quite annoying and hardly readable... Western pilots often complain about large stick movements on the Fulcrum but I have already heard voices on the contrary regarding the extremely stiff stick on the F-16 which provides next to zero feedback on the aircraft's response to the pilot.

    It's like Ferrari 458 vs McLaren MP12-4C - some love atmospheric engine of the Ferrari and some prefer twin-turbo of the Mac... and both parties fiercely defend their stance.. Go figure

  30. #120
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    3,762
    Yeah agree. But there is a lot of improvments in the Mig-29S, M or even the latest K/Mig-35 version. Its certainly a far cry from Mig-29A as Tu-160 points out.

    So while compairing F-16 to Mig-29, it depends on both jets model/Version.
    Thanks

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES