F-16 vs MiG-29 - Why does Ukraine Want Them?

Here's a critical factor for countries that might consider importing either of these jets:
Lifespan of a Mig-29 is 2,500 hours, with service-packs extending it to 4,000.
Lifespan of an F-16 is 8,000 hours, with service-packs extending it to 12,000.
It's not as simple as "Well just fly it more!" The airframes become stressed, and the aircraft will eventually break mid-air.

It seems to me that the F-16 situational awareness capability of 200+ miles is most important. Imagine 5 flights of Ukraine pilots each flight with 2 F-16's & 4 Mig-29's. That would be a major force to recon with.

The Royal 🇲🇾 Air Force (RMAF) used to operate 16 MiG-29s starting in 1995 until 2015..all aircraft are still kept by the RMAF,not sure if they were sold to other countries or disposed of due to the problem of spare parts & high mainenance costs😢

Good one! Now my country of Norway has moved from F-16 to F-35, only F-35s operate our airspace now. I can easily admit that F-16 has higher top speed and high agility, but that seems not to be of the highest importance anymore. The extremely good stealth, radar, 3d awareness, sharing intel, and more, looks to give it the big advantage.

No mention of the MIG's 3 point hitch system, allowing it to utilise an impressive array of agricultural implements.

The F-16 is VERY GOOD AT EVERYTHING. It can go Air to Air, Air to Ground, close air support, and it can Jam. It’s the most versatile fighter out there.

My guess is the F-16’s going to Ukraine won’t have the AESA radar described but more likely the earlier lobing system. It’ll still be a powerful addition, most likely being used primarily in a ground attack mode.

The scenario put here, that is starting the engagement at 60 km really knocks out strengths of the F-16 and the larger F-15 and highlights the differences in East/West doctrine. BVR, accompanying avionics and missle performance, and general doctrine makes it hard for the comparison on such simplistic terms. Yes, the MiG and the Su planes are more agile but the US's ability to identity, track and effectively hit targets at extended BVR needs to be discussed if a real examination is to be conducted.

That was a very accurate analysis. The F-16, F-18, and F-35s are designed to be able to be efficiently maintained. A maintenance infrastructure is only about a third of what they need and actually not the most important. Where they are way behind but work at it, is growing a culture that can efficiently leverage the technological advantages. This has been endemic, especially for Britain, her colonies, and some close kindred such as the Dutch. Historically, Ukraine's culture has been like Russia's. They have been drifting away from that for some time but it has been a struggle. The elements required have not been endemic to their culture. Today, Russian and Ukrainian pilots go out on missions. The Mig-29 is the best horse for that race. We have tactical positions in a strategic objective but we and our aircraft are also sensors and feed many automated and human calculations to keep things as fluid as a chess game. A lot of integrity and humility are required to be part of a system like that to be able to support the relationships, training, and discipline necessary to leverage the technology. There is a master plan and timelines being developed somewhere. The few they have training on F-16s are likely part of the research to design a transition with the equipment simply showing up as the plan plays out.

In relation to maneuverability, yes, the MiG can pull greater g loads at certain speeds, but it has worse pilot ergonomics for sustained high g maneuvers. The MiG pilot is in an upright position whereas the F-16 pilot is in a semi recumbent position.

one thing to note about the f-16 which kinda destroys supermaneuvrability is it was designed to maintain speed and even accelerate in 9g turns. Mig-29 on the other hand very quickly bleeds energy and can gain it back relatively quickly. Mig wins in a 1 circle fight. the f-16 wins in a 2 circle. A 2 circle is often easier to establish than a one circle.

Speed, altitude, legs, over the horizon capability. In conjunction with refueling and high altitude surveillance and communication craft, the F16 has it it all. And, it's cheap enough to be fielded in large numbers

F-16 is a good fighter jet, but its number one strength is in fact its cost-effectiveness, which also mostly explains its large usage numbers. F-14 (retired), F-15 and F-18 are all probably more powerful planes than F-16 in pure capability metrics (as a whole, not in every single metric), but they also cost a lot more.
Ukraine clamors for F-16 because it is the most realistic option to obtain in large numbers.

As an AE and ex-aerodynamicst assistant and overall a person who has good enough knowledge in terms of flight dynamics I admit that your statements are accurate about the MIG-29 vs the F-16 in terms of maneuverability in such that the MIG-29 is performing a better constant turn rate at higher angles of attack (lower settled speeds) and always better at instantaneous turn rates compared to the F-16C while the F-16C gains about 1 degree per second higher constant turn rate at angles of attack below 16..15AoA. Holding a constant AoA above that in the F-16C... and the MIG-29 starts gaining turn rate advantage. I didn't know that the MIG-29 could actually go slightly above Mach 1 with full MIL and most probably with clean wings. The F-16C-50/52 indeed can't go past 1 with clean config.

I'm quite shocked that the top fighters of today are actually from the late 70s / early 80s. I know they have been updated, but how come they haven't been completely superseded by now? And how does the much more recent Eurofighter compare? A three way comparison would have been good.

Close in dogfights are for all intents and purposes a thing of the past. Engagements will at medium to long range depending on the missiles carried. Sidewinders are a back up and the Vulcan only as a last ditch. It is more useful in the air to ground scenario.

Let us not forget platform availability and spare part. While it may not be a perfect fit, it's the best option. Slava Ukraine! 🇺🇸 🛫🇺🇦🛫

The MIG-29 does not have FBW. Dunno about the naval MIG-29K model which is overall the MIG-35, but the 29S still has CAS/SAS type flight controls system and it's center of gravity arrangement is still for a statically stable configuration, not a relaxed static stability though. Yes, it's quite reduced, but as the elevators are being pulled degree by degree, the AoA still increases less and less (the pitching moment coefficient versus AoA is still negative up to stall) without signs of increasing faster and faster with elevators input. Like on the Su-27 family planes, the Cobra is achieved (although not to the AoA that the Sukhois can reach) through the pitch inertia generated or as we call it pitch momentum that allows it to overshoot the AoA at which it would constantly stay if the stick would be held for a longer period. The rapid deflection/acceleration in pitch helps it momentarily reach a very high post stall AoA but can't hold it there even with full elevators deflection. Only the Su-27, like the F-16 have a range of AoAs above which the plane has a tendency to increase it's AoA with zero elevators deflection, meaning it is a statically unstable aircraft at least for that range of AoA, but when pushing/pulling to reduce the AoA (positive or negative) it will slowly respond to that and recover from high AoA. The F-16 on the other hand is a bit more unstable statically and even with full elevators deflection to recover from a high AoA (positive or negative) it doesn't want to recover from there and the method to get it out from that state is to give full pitch down and up repetitive inputs in phase with the aircraft's response just enough to have it go below a recovery threshold AoA and from there the normal flight comes back. There are quite some videos regarding this method of pitching up and down with the F-16 to have it get out from deep stalls... as long as there's enough altitude for the up/down/up/down dance to take place to get it out.
To have a relaxed static stability config like the F-16 does and which only happens on a given range of angles of attack on the F-16, that would mean to have the elevators at zero deflection and the plane flies at an AoA without any tendency of the AoA to increase or decrease on it's own. On a statically stable aircraft, the AoA (whatever value it has) would start dropping if the elevators are at neutral/zero deflection, while on a statically unstable one the AoA would start to increase on it's own uncontrollably when passing over a limit.

I've never heard of Mig 29 being capable of supercruise! We still fly them in Poland and I would know it as it is rare and advanced feature...

West German Air Force inherited a batch of Mig29 fighters when iron curtain came down. They competed in air competition against F16 and F18 and generally beat the Americans in those competitions with the Mig. The germans were very impressed with the plane.

Basically it boils down to which missiles each aircraft is carrying at the time of encounter. Longer range radar gives the F16 a huge edge but in pure aviation terms I think that the MIG is the better airframe. Both are hugely expensive in maintenance costs and time but the MIG 29 sucks fuel at an enormous rate thus limiting its range and mission time. Overall F16 is the better overall option.

What needs taken into account is the training and skill of the respective pilots. Tactics and training can beat better aircraft all day if the opposing pilots do not have the hours at the stick or train to defeat opposing aircraft. With this in mind you can then run the cost to fly and maintain these 2 aircraft and then we will see how many of each are airworthy. In my opinion the F-16 is one of the best at rate fighting other aircraft and thus we are back to training being the key factor.

The f16s are wanted because they can fire HARM anti-radiation missiles against S-300 and S-400 SAM systems from anywhere it detects them in the sky. Currently Ukraine is only able to fire US HARM missiles from modified Mig29's but with very limited capabilities. They need to be pre-programmed before flight to hit a known target.. and must be released at a pre-determined location in the sky. F-16s are crucial for any attempt at air dominance for a counter offensive.

interesting comparison between the fulcrum and the falcon. The only thing really similar between the two of them is that their name starts with an F and they were both designed in the mid 70s.

What is lacking here is cost of operation in terms of maintenance and available spare parts. I would guess the MIG-29 is way easier to keep in the sky, compared to the F-16, especially considering the myriad of updates it has had over its lifetime. The Ukrainians will have both facilities and crew that are trained to maintain MIGs. Also, pilot skill. What plains are your pilots familiar with.

It's all going to come down to pilot experience in the end. Us pilots are ballerinas in the Air. They can do things with these jet that's just are inspiring. I was in 🇺🇸 Navy for 17 yrs active and saw 1000s of flights from military pilots from all over the world. I would say NATO pilots are top notch. Even the Japanese S.Korean and Philipian pilots are some of the best to.

Late models F-16's for some customers like Qatar have 37,000 lb thrust engines.. The radars on western planes are known to be a whole lot better..

F-16 has been continuously updated & upgraded. The F-16 block 70 has radar arrays similar to F-35’s. The Mig 29 Fulcrum may be the best jet historically that Russia has ever flown. Both iconic & innovative aircraft. At this point. The fulcrum is showing its age.

Build an updated version of the F-16XL. Make it a viable Gen 5+ aircraft to augment the F-35/F-22 as well as the new versions of the F-15s. The F-16XL can super cruise, carry twice the armaments and still be capable of defeating any Russian or Chinese aircraft.

You know, it also seems to me that American war machines just seem to be the embodiment in function and appearance of what they are supposed to be. Like, the Abrams looks like the definition of "tank". All the fighter jets look like what the concept of a fighter jet was intended to be. Etc.

There are a lot of factors that you will consider in real combat situation, the pilot's training, decision making and decisive actions controls the air not the figther jets.

F16's massive radar range advantage that far exceeds that of the MiG29 would dominate the outcome of a confrontation between these two fighters.
That standoff fighting advantage would be decisive; the flying characteristics of the two planes would be much less important !
However, I have heard that the Russians have recently upgraded the radars on their MiG29's !

The mig 29 has a serious problem in it's VERY smoky engines, it's very easy to see and to track, the old F4 used to have the same issue!

The MiG-29 jets are expected to be used mainly for air defense to protect Ukraine's infrastructure and front lines from Russian aircraft and cruise missiles.

Lots of MIG-29's have been shot down by American fighters. From what lats of American pilots have told me is the MIG- 29 is very impressive yet really hard to fly witch gives it less advantage in the end. It really comes down to training anyway. Red October war games proved how well the F/A 18 stacked up against the MIG-29 was in fact much better then the MIG- 29.

Still the strongest fighter jet around the globe and adaptable for the worlds air defense

La experiencia también puede ser importante, creo que los pilotos con mas experiencia rusos han sido derivados, los ucranianos veremos como se adaitan a los F16, seguro que estaran muy motivados u contarán con mejores simuladores y tacticas de combate que los rusos, ahi puede también estar la diferencia.

It really is never about the capability of the aircraft but, the capability of the pilot inside. Most countries that fly the Mig29 can’t afford more than 20 to 30 training hours per year per pilot. A typical US F-16 pilot gets upwards of 300+ hours per year. In combat the F-16 always flies with a minimum of two-four aircraft. The data linking between jets, the proficiency of the pilots, the precision avionics and weapon system combined with a helmet mounted cueing system, the Migs never stand a chance once they put the gear in the well.

I feel that the F-16 is just an amazing multi-role jet.

One day, Ukraine will wow the world with their own native fighter jet.

Seems to me that the most decisive factor in this comparison would be the training and experience of the pilots. Since it is well known that Russian pilots have nowhere near the flying time of US pilots, I'd say, regardless of the individual capabilities of each platform, the F-16's would trounce the Mig.

The F-16 has a proven combat record with a better kill ratio, but honestly Ukraine would be far more familiar using and servicing the Mig-29.

Small correction F-16 can hold 14k pounds it tops off at 12k pounds with only external wing tanks but when you add the 300gallon centerline that sits on the belly, it goes up to 14k

They both went up against stinger missiles & air defense. I think the F-16 has a HUGE advantage!

I was hoping for a report on the Israeli Vs. Syrian conflict in 1982. It involved F-16 and F15s, but against Mig 21s and Mig 23s and a handful of Su 22s. Soviet tech did poorly that couple of days, losing +- 80 aircraft. It's debatable just what the Israelis lost, as at first they reported none, but as time goes on they are admitting anywhere from one to three to seven fighters of different makes.

Most of the differences, and one of the reason they want them, is the roles/concepts behind what the planes were designed for. Both the F16 and MiG29 were designed as the "low" side of a high/low fighter fleet, with a smaller number of F15s or SU27s serving as the heavy hitter air superiority fighter. The F16/Mig29 were low-cost, less capable options that could be bought in larger numbers, to fill roles not needing the advanced aircraft and free them up for missions where they did need them. However, the F16 was designed as a light weight, cost effective multi-role aircraft, a sort of swiss army knife approach. Hence it having better fuel range, upgradability, etc. The MiG29 was meant as a close-range dogfighter to be deployed in large numbers at forward bases, to quickly respond to and overwhelm nato aircraft in short range engagements. IIRC the original didn't even have full radar capabilities, as it was expected an AWACS or ground radar would vector them in to intercept, and the better radar is far heavier. Unfortunately, the F16 just had far more room to grow and improve, while the Mig couldn't outgrow the limits of its airframe. However, the real reason Ukraine wants F16s should be pretty obvious. Getting parts for their mig-29s, much less more aircraft, is a bit hard when you are at war with the country that makes them. The F16 also can carry the full range of nato supplied weapons being sent to them now. Even if they were both equally effective, the logistics are starting to favour the F16, even if it is a new aircraft that they have no experience with.

I think the better question is which platform will be the best short range bomber. I don’t think there’s going to be much A to A. Which platform is most capable of dropping bombs and staying away from air defense.

I believe the MIG-29 was Russia's counter to the F-15. Both the F-15 and MIG-29 are designed to be Air Superiority fighters. The F-16 is mostly a multi-role fighter with emphasis on Air to Ground type missions (close air support, suppression of enemy air defense, defensive and offensive counter air, etc.). Of course, the F-16 can engage in air-to-air dogfights, but it's strengths lie in the air-to-ground missions.

Great job with a hard comparison. One of the things which makes this comparison difficult is knowing what version of the F-16 you are comparing to the Mig-29. The later Block 50 versions are almost an entirely different aircraft than the original production models. One funny anecdote which demonstrates the capability of the newer F-16s is when a pilot told me how he "accidentally" went into super cruise (on a cold day) because the new engines are so powerful. I'll also echo what other posters said about the decisiveness of training. The nations which fly the F-16 (including US and Israel) have some of the most capable combat pilots and training in the world. Another key point made at 7:12 of the video is how decisive BVR (Beyond Visual Range) combat can be. I don't care how maneuverable your jet is, if you get locked up by an F-16 70 miles away carrying the AMRAAM, you're probably toast and you'll never even see your adversary before you lose your jet. Give me the F-16 any day of the week with a US Air Force pilot over the MIG 29!

Multi-role fighter ... It is very good at doing a lot of things. The F-16 would drastically change the war and even allow Ukraine to actually use Harm Missiles to directly target Russia's air defense systems vs blindly seeking them. We should give them C-130 gunships tooo.... Ukraine could do some serious trench cleaning with them as they would then have f-16's to provide CAS for them.

Currently, FULCRUM (29, 30 and 33) comes equipped with the Phazotron Zhuk-ME radar which is capable of tracking ten targets to a maximum range of 245km. Also, you didn't point out that the MIG are capable of engaging 16 targets at the same time and attacking 4, thanks to the IRST (KOLS infrared search and track). Fulcrum is far, far superior to Falcon. More range, more speed, hyper maneuverability, greater altitude, more and better armament, etc. One day Brazil will have some of these in its air force, not those shitty Grippen!

I don't know why the major difference wasn't mentioned. The MiG-29 has semi-actively guided air-to-air missiles, so the pilot must continue to fly in the direction of the target and track the target after firing. So he's putting himself at risk. The F-16 can fire active-guided missiles in a "fire-and-forget" fashion. This, in addition to the smaller range of the radar, is the main reason why Ukraine needs Western aircraft.

At the end he gave us the rooster line "it's not the plane, it's the pilot"😅

The biggest difference is the turning angel, the mig is like a truck , the f16 is like mini Morris...

considering the F16 was adopted for use in 1976 i think the mig 19 would be a much fairer comparison. for the mig 29 the f18 would be a better match up althought the nig 21 would be a more accurate timeline comparison.

Sounds like at long range, you could have a weapons platform with the flight characteristics of a hot air balloon. Using the F.16 radar and weapons delivery, it would out perform the Mig.

F16 is still being made, along with the F15, but the F22 will no longer be made because it's very expensive to make and maintain. The F16 is the gunfighter's plane, very maneuverable. If the Red Baron is still alive, he would fly the F16.

As you last mentioned the pilots ability will be the deciding factor, and as we have seen recently the Russian pilots are far from well trained.

The F-4 Phantom done all my units bombing runs in vietnam. Always 2 NAVY jets armed with 20mm vulcan cannon alone with sparrow winge missles. hill 881north was a good target. 69th armor.

Both are beautiful fighters.

The F-16 is an excellent ground attack aircraft that can fly low, get in and get out. It can also perform air to air attacks, but the F-35, F-22 and MiG 29 are better at the air superiority role of denying airspace to enemy aircraft. The Ukrainians are not worried about air superiority as much as they are about ground attack. Plus it is easier to fly than a multi engine aircraft. I bet they would love to have A-10's.

You basically considered Russian or Ukrainian mig 29. Most advanced version of in service Indian Air force which is of UPG standard. Where Radar as well as the Helmet mounted as well as the full lcd cockpit is there. Yes still not comparable to the fully packed F16 but it's not just aircraft but the supporting infra like the awacs supporting the aircraft also plays a big game. In India basically in most cases what I have read IAF fighters switch off their radar and solely depends upon the Awacs for data and thus is what Mig 21 did on 27 Feb when it shot down a F16 over kashmir.

Neat, concise and accurate assessment, thank you.

Basically it doesn't matter how advanced your systems are. It all comes down to experience and who's better at what they do. You can give some guy the most advanced high tech rifle on Earth, with Hi-Tech projectiles that can turn in midair and hit its target. A scope system that aims for you with all the bells and whistles. And can still be taken out by some guy with a 22 "SHORT" handgun Lol. Hell even a damn crossbow.

Mig 29 can also carry R77 missile comparable to AMRAAM. you missed that. Compare the latest variant for both; F16 Viper VS Mig 35. The advantage of Avionics in F16 V is not far better than Mig 35 compared to older version of them, maybe in the same class.

the last gen of fighters before stealth came about were so beautiful. although i support ukraine, russian jets are some of the most beautiful designs ever. however in terms of operability and function, it is hard to argue against US jets.

The whole video can be concluded/summarized @ 07:26 if the intention is to only see which type has a higher survivability when pitted against each other: F16 vs MiG29
Realistically in an active war scenario(i.e. hot battlefield over Ukraine today as opposed to 'ambushing' your enemy's aircraft during their intercept/monitoring @ visual range under peacetime air patrol R.o.E.) today, whoever detected/saw+tracked the enemy aircraft 1st already won the battle as missile lock+launch would hv also occurred 1st thx to the amazing independent tracking+range capabilities+reliability of current gen BVR air-air missiles. In this regard alone, difference between MiG29 vs F16 is disproportionally huge rendering any slight speed+manuervability advantages held by Mig29 over F16 almost totally irrelevant.
TopGun dogfight scenes are romantic and thoroughly entertaining. However, they hv little to zero relevance in an actual+active air-air war today.

It's not all about the plane. It's also about the weapons the plane carries. The missiles the MiG29 carries are not "fire and forget" missiles. The MiG29 carries old Soviet era missiles that rely on the planes guidance system to put them on target. Once the pilot fires the missile he has to continue flying behind it to maintain the link between missile and plane. Even a slight deviation and the missile loses the link and flies off to wherever. When the enemy detects a missile launch from a MiG they know the plane is still close by and know exactly where it's headed. The F&F missile alone will be a HUGE upgrade.

The most important fact to me is that MIG 29's first flight was on October 6, 1977 ... the day I was born! :)

The F16 will be better for Ukraine because of its ground attack missile capability and superior radar and target acquisition.

The F16 is a dated aircraft but it's still an excellent fighter jet and it's easier to maintain than the really fancy stuff.

It's important to note no pilot with a sound mind flies dogfight scenarios anymore. That negates the MIG 29 advantage.
The MIG looks good at air shows and it's impressive to see the Cobra maneuver which btw was performed by the Swedish Draken for the first time. So hands down...the MIG will get shot down even before it comes into radar contact with the F16.
Atm the Danish Airforce is out-phasing the F16 for the F35. The jet fighter of the future will have stealth and inter-compatible target engagement. That means data from drones, ground personnel, and other fighters will be analyzed in the onboard targeting system. That is a huge advantage! As things are right now Russian fighter jets aren't worth jack shit! They rely heavily on Western electronics which Russia doesn't get anymore. That's why we see Russian pilots flying around with Western GPS taped to the dash.

What Ukraine need is a true and very good multiroles fighter aircraft. That's why they're seeking and looking for f16, Rafales, typhoon or other NATO multiroles aircrafts.
It's no surprise, since a multiroles fighter jet is able to do the whole spectrum of missions required in battlefields.
That's why the recent commercial success from the French Rafale is very easy to understand. France being kinda short on Rafales, Ukraine is logically looking for a more produced aircraft such as the f16.

I'm no expert but judging from the video, with better radar and avionics the MiG seems to be quite on the same level as the F-16. I understand that this aircraft is probably easier to maintain and they want to change to NATO standard but given the fact that the pilots know the MiG's very well, the advantage only of the F16 only lies in the better radar / avionics options 🤷‍♂

It’s good to see that my country INDIA 🇮🇳 is moving away from Russian junk and buying more of American and French platforms . And investing in home grown platforms like tejas fighters etc . Probably by 2030 all the mig 29 squadrons in the Indian Air Force will be phased out

The MiG-29 might have weaker avionics, but not every MiG is like that. There is an upgraded version existing, just not popular

MiG-29 is good as point-defense dogfighter while F-16 for longer range combat air patrol for wider airspace

Not just a better airframe and fly by wire, but much better radar, and the ability to use top of the line European Union and US armaments. That are much less likely to target yellow gravel.

It is not about dog-fighting in Ukraine. The F-16s would bring advanced radar and weapon systems, enabling Ukraine to engage and destroy Russian targets from a distance. These systems are the reason the training for Ukrainian pilots would take so long.

My country, Morislavistan, uses the Embraer EMB 314 Super Tucano. It's superior to all the other multirole fighter jets out there, including MiG-29. Russia should replace all their aging air frames with the Super Tucano. BEST IN THE WORLD! Then they'll win the respect of CSTO members again.

It's a true multi role fighter. It can make full use of modern weapons. Their Mig-29s are Cold War relics. They were bearly upgraded until recently. The F-16 is designed to use and fully supports: AMRAAM, JADAM, HARM, Maverick, and many others. It's a NATO fighter, still in production, fully compatible with all NATO weapons. I still think the SAAB Griffin would be a better fit for Ukraine. But I can understand if the Sweeds don't really want to push the issue. The Viper will do just fine, and most importantly, there are a lot of them.

Mig-29 is basically what the F-5 fighter has been, cheap and easy to fly, easy to maintain, suitable for support fighter roles

The newest F-16 is a bad ass 4+ generation fighter!

The F-16 is equally fast, more maneuverable, better radar, and superior weapons makes it a killer.

You have to consider, service, maintenance and replacement capacity of any AirForce.
When accessing who will dominate in air to air combat and who can maintain Air superiority.

A huge problem showed in the USA F4, due to long black exhaust you know were its going. Vietnamese tore them up. Might 29 also has mass blk trail smoke. Might 29 engines powerful, burns mass gas, computers suck,biggest pilots barly gets 10 to 20 hours a YEAR. F16 even in National Gaurd flies over 100 hours.

As far as actual combat goes it is 1-0 for the F-16. :)
A Dutch F-16 shot down a Serb MiG-29 during Allied Force.

Latest F16s have APG/83 AESA, giving it a radar range out to 200kms.

The real reason they want the F-16 is that it is a NATO aircraft that can natively fire NATO weapons that are only increasing in inventory, integrate with NATO information sharing, and can benefit from NATO training regime. It also further deepens ties between Ukraine and NATO, which is a necessity for their continued survival. As fun as it is to compare platform capabilities, never underestimate the political and logistical needs that drive these kind of acquisitions.

The main thing the MiG-29 has over the F-16 is it's ability to close the front intakes and draw air from the top of the aircraft.
This is especially important for runways that aren't tarmac covered. FOB (foreign object damage) ie a small stone kicked up front he runway on takeoff would kill an F-16's engine.
So the runways have to be cleared and maintained for F-16's, while the MiG can take off from a flat farmers field. It's the Ak47 vs M16 debate. One will fire covered in dirt but isn't accurate, the other is accurate, but needs to be maintained a lot more.
Once in the air that changes, the training and procedural ability of a NATO pilot, versus a Russian pilot is not even comparable.
NATO has spent 60 years of drills perfecting tactics and techniques, Russia has sat on its ass and considered itself a superpower by default.
An F-16 will be able to target and kill a MiG 29, before the MiG has even detected an enemy plane in the air.
A large problem that could arise in Ukriane is if an F-16 gets shot down or a pilot has to bail. The nose cone of the F-16 will be sought after by the Russians very quickly.
They need to put a pound of C4 around that radar, to make sure there is nothing left to salvage should one go down.
Plus the F-16 is just so goddamned sexy looking, C'mon!

You are missing the main reason Ukraine wants F-16 - its recent advanced radar absorbing surface coatings offering unique stealth in class

Radar that changed everything for F16, 15, 14. They could shoot even before the opponent could know that they are there. Otherwise things could have been the opposite

I have been around both, as I have been unfortunate enough to live thru "the years of transition". More power, higher climb rate, better agility and maneuverability, bigger gun, less electronics to malfunction, HUD, dual engines for survivability...Enough said ladies! The "smoker" is simply a better aircraft. Oh, and "Archer". Yes - few, if any at all, aircraft in its age and class can beat it. The Germans proved that first hand b/n 1989 and 2002 when they operated, tested and war-gamed the inherited East German MiG29s ad infinitum. Pilots across East Europe that flew the '29s in all variants trusted their aircraft and were confident in this machine. MiG23 was lacking in many respects. But the '29 was a worthy successor of the venerable '21. The F16 on the other hand, has been continuously upgraded for nearly 50 years. A VERY widely used multi-role fighter. And with many aerial kills. Its armament and avionics suite is an example of how an aircraft grows from the cheap option to "the" option through continuos improvement. Enter block 70/72 and 80/82. Those two versions are the ones deserving inclusion in the "capable jet fighters" group .You cant argue with success, ladies - the Viper is so widely used that I cant even remember all the AFs that used to, or operate it currently. In the end, an excellent pilot with enough flight hours and combat experience is SUPERIOR to a worse trained pilot, with little or no combat experience, even with an excellent jet like the MiG29. The cohort of F16 (and its variants) experienced pilots is so vast that it tilts the scales decidedly to the Viper, if we consider the "pilot-aircraft" pair. And those who argue like kindergartners "which plane is better", leave the single most important variable out of the equation. In the case of Ukr, this will be validated. The Ukr pilots (who are good overall) will not have much success on a completely new (to them) platform for the next 3-5 years at the least.

Ukraine 🇺🇦 would most love to absorb all the military equipment operated by the Indian Armed Forces, the MiG-21/23/27/29s, T-72/T-90 tanks and the Kalashnikov rifles.

In today's modern state of the art aerial combat world, dogfights are passe and almost at the bottom of the pecking order of importance. The F-22 ushered in a new world where you see first, shoot first, kill first. The F-16 is a BVR advanced fighter. Its radar has a sub 300 mile recognition range and its missiles have ranges over 100 miles. In addition, any AWACs support extends its abilities to see first, shoot first, and kill first. Now, you can understand why Ukraine is happy at the prospect of obtaining F-16s. Make no mistake that even now, the Russians have been losing its combat jets at alarmingly high rates. Now, throw in the F-16s into the battle, Ukraine will be able to master its skies again. Further, the S300s and S400s have proven to be horribly anemic, with its propaganda built reputation in shatters. No wonder China returned their S400s and demanded refunds.

a lot will also depend on the version - both air frames have been updated over and over again. I don't know, what the polish Mig-29s are configured to - and almost certainly the US will deliver less advanced versions of the F-16. So far, Russia has not fully committed their air force yet, due to strong SAM presence - and that could lead to friendly fire incidents. On the other hand, a strong air presence might draw the Russians over a SAM guarded territory. Another big question will be: can the Ukrainians keep the planes safe while on the ground? Russia will try to find their positions and attack with long range missiles - which could deplete their stock and ease pressure on power supply lines but destroy the Ukrainian planes. Let's hope, there'll be peace and the war criminals will be brought to justice soon.

The f16 being smaller, can perform its maneuvers more quickly, it can pull more gs than the mig in tight turns.

The Falcon by far the best dog fighter ever produced, not stealthy, but will beat any aircraft in the air today

Two words sums this up. Superior capabilities.

Bottom line: the F16 has far superior avionics, radar and weapons which will kill the Mig29 before it knows its there. No need for close dog fight which is the only edge the Mig29 has if I understand this video correctly.