Tap to unmute

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

  • Published on Oct 1, 2023 veröffentlicht
  • Welcome to our video about the comparison of the world's most legendary fighter jets - the F-16 Falcon and the MiG-29. These aircraft have been the subject of countless debates over the years, with aviation enthusiasts and military experts alike weighing in on which is superior. Today, we're going to delve into the details and compare these two iconic aircraft in terms of their design, performance, and capabilities. So, get ready to discover which fighter jet comes out on top!!!
    Subscribe Now :
    / @military-tv
  • Science & TechnologyScience & Technology

Comments • 0

  • Nickolas Jacobs
    Nickolas Jacobs 5 months ago +169

    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.

    • Nafis Hisyam
      Nafis Hisyam 5 months ago +4

      Yeah, that might be one of the reason my country retire this jet instead of upgrading them further. MiG29 needs better radar and fuel capacity. It already has the speed advantage over F16 to lunch missile at faster speed for BVR.

    • Vadim Вадим
      Vadim Вадим 5 months ago +2

      О каком экспорте ты говоришь, если Россия уже поставила на миг29-35 крест. Экспортные модели это су35с, су57, возможно су75 чекмэйт.

    • Nafis Hisyam
      Nafis Hisyam 5 months ago +1

      @Vadim Вадим I was taking about MIG29N my country used. It has external refueling probe upgrade.

    • Brian McK
      Brian McK 4 months ago +6

      These Jets that do these speeds and maneuvers are definitely going to become stressed, but I think the lifespan of the F-16 is pretty dam good!!

  • Demo Grunt
    Demo Grunt 4 months ago +27

    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.

    • Luke Whitehouse
      Luke Whitehouse 2 months ago +1

      Not when they will be on the deck to avoid interception, they cant hope to take on a Su-30SM or a Su-35M, if they wanted to fight air to air they should have gotten Hornets.
      Your RADAR range is dependant on your altitude. The F-16 is an upgrade but more for NATO compatibility with ground attack munitions, RADAR and RWR systems.

    • JL
      JL Month ago +1

      russians have AEW&C which provides better situational awareness

    • lattehour
      lattehour Month ago

      yes with the new missiles who shoots first wins simple as that , this is the case with the improved mbda meteor missile at +350 km once target is locked there is no escape the missile has mach 4 boost (it`s a ramjet ) usa will purchease them from bayern if they make them fit the bay of f35

  • REZ Su-30MKM
    REZ Su-30MKM 4 months ago +9

    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😢

    • tart ret
      tart ret 4 months ago

      And you repeated the same mistake with Su30mkm.

    • REZ Su-30MKM
      REZ Su-30MKM 4 months ago

      @tart ret Certainly not because the RMAF has learned meaningful lessons while operating the 16 MiG-29s in service during that period

    • David Jones
      David Jones 4 months ago +1

      @tart ret The Mig-29 is junk next to the Eurofighter or even the F-18 F-16 F-15 F-14. Let alone the super hornet or the F-35 or the F-22. Crappy Russian technology. Too short an airframe life too much maintenance probably won't be able to get parts for them soon anyways.

    • Khanh Lam
      Khanh Lam 3 months ago

      ​@David JonesThat's the price of cheap stuff, if your "Allies" don't have a good pocket of cash then what's the point of making expensive ones, it would sell much and maintaining most of the Russian fighter isn't expensive, well expect MiG-29.
      I think the Russians knew it's weaknesses so they'll do their variants stronger than the export version.

  • Bjørn Tore Dale
    Bjørn Tore Dale 5 months ago +188

    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.

    • Richard
      Richard 5 months ago +8

      And the 35f engine will be upgraded soonish

    • pinay in France
      pinay in France 5 months ago +10

      ​​@Richard Soonish? Or neverish?
      According to last reports, the new version for the f35 engine have been canceled already recently. So ut sounds like never at the final.

    • Richard
      Richard 5 months ago +9

      @pinay in France it's getting upgraded regardless. It's just a matter of upgrade current engine, or a whole new engine

    • BarryObaminable
      BarryObaminable 5 months ago +11

      f16 can be used for something that carries around missiles to fire from outside of range. its like having a forward observer call in artillery strikes

    • pinay in France
      pinay in France 5 months ago +2

      @Richard It's absolutely not the same story as the whole new engine version. It's a very big let down and disappointment.
      Again it won't received a whole new engine, since they reported canceling the development of the new engine version.
      f35 performances will remain low because of this decision. They have been already spending too much for this aircraft, they need to focus on the 6th gen aircraft now.

  • gav2759
    gav2759 4 months ago +70

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

    • Dan Bell
      Dan Bell 4 months ago +1

      I thought it was usually the plane (or tank) that was hooked to the tractor, not the other way around :P

    • Carl Skaggs
      Carl Skaggs 4 months ago +5

      Well, If I don't have to get an ok from John Deere corporate headquarters to change the oil, it's an upgrade.

    • knoxy! knoxy!
      knoxy! knoxy! 4 months ago +2

      your underestimating your enemy's capability's thats a mistake the f16 is a great plane but do not make the mistake the mig is inferior

    • gav2759
      gav2759 4 months ago +2

      @knoxy! knoxy! The relative performance of the planes seems academic, when one can down the other before it knows it's there. However you're right, maybe we are just lulled into that false sense of security with the demonstrably poor performance of Russian armour. The more maneuverable MIG might show it's worth avoiding flying tank turrets.

    • Dan Bell
      Dan Bell 4 months ago +1

      It's not so much that the mig is inferior, as that it is specialized for a different type of engagement. Unfortunately, changes in warfare have made that strategy largely outdated. The mig was designed from day 1 as a cheap, effective dogfighter. Any pilot going into that environment with a mig, will have a nasty fight on their hands. However, in reality air combat rarely gets to that point, especially in an all out war. The f-16 just picked the better strategy and role to stay relevant, while the mig struggles to adapt.

  • Erik Silva
    Erik Silva 4 months ago +26

    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.

    • Dan Bell
      Dan Bell 4 months ago +1

      That's the whole point of it, vs the Mig. The F16 was meant as a cheap, versatile multi-role aircraft for situations where you don't need, or can't afford, something fancier. It has since evolved into an advanced platform that can do pretty much anything it needs to. The MiG-29, however, was designed as a low-budget, high performance dogfighter. Meant to be bought in large numbers, operate in remote locations near the front line, and pounce on enemy aircraft at close range. Pretty much anything less than a raptor or Eagle will have a hard time in a knife fight with the MiG, but it was never intended to do anything else. Hence it only having bare-bones iron bombs or rockets for ground attack, as that was an afterthought that required little modification to the design.

  • Jim S
    Jim S 4 months ago +16

    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.

    • Corey
      Corey 4 months ago

      I'd think they'd want them to be equipped with ways to identify & takeout Iranian drones too

    • vrado441
      vrado441 3 months ago

      How long will they last,?Not long !

    • Willaev
      Willaev 2 months ago +1

      @vrado441They’ll outlast Russia.

    • JL
      JL Month ago

      ukraine will get f-16 purchased by netherland and denmark in 1980 and 1979

  • DenseAlloy
    DenseAlloy 5 months ago +92

    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.

    • Travis Verlinde
      Travis Verlinde 4 months ago +4

      Let us not forget the assistance of AWACS and proper coordination this allows them to not have to rely on its own radar.

    • Poz-Moe
      Poz-Moe 4 months ago +2

      @Travis Verlinde f-16s can't shoot without their own radars solution. the su35s and mig-35s & even su-27s will put them all down with Adders & r-37s & r-77s 25 miles before the F-16s can see them. The dutch f-16 variant can only fire the AIM-120B version! that's a missile from 1994! it has an effective range of 30 miles in the best tactical conditions. They could upgrade some of these f-16s to a new weapon package standard but that takes another year, & the radar still sucks. the mig-31s and su-35s can lock on the f-16 100 miles father out than the f-16 can lock on the Russian fighters. Did you know the Russians have been plinking Ukrainian fighters 80 miles out all war? it's the biggest reason Ukrainian aviation can't get to the front.
      Here's the secret. the Ukrainians only want f-16s to defend western Ukraine, think Lviv (they can't fly over kiev safely), from drones & cruise missiles (which F16s can do more capably than western AD) & also pull us into ww3 which is their dim hope, to get all of human destroyed as their nation is extinguished.
      P.S. even if they upgrade these f-16s they won't get AIM-120Ds, not in any numbers accept to test. The madmen in the whitehouse want a war with china too and will need every missile there, and then some, we don't have enough if that war goes off in the near future.

    • WOLFER
      WOLFER 4 months ago +4

      ​@Poz-Moe you ate either living under a rock or don't do your research the F-16C Block 50's and above carry the AIM-120C-7 and the new F-16V carries AIM-120D's and a much better radar but that isn't what's being given to Ukraine, either way the F-16 can beat the Su-35 and ny russian jet in spotting them earlier, but won't have the same range as the R-77 however, the R-77M is pretty easy to Notch and defend from while as the F-16 can play it safe for a bit as soon as the Su-35's get in range of the AIM-120C-7 which btw its actually tactically operational range is 60 to 70 miles, it is much harder to notch and defend from and also can get to the Su-35's effectively, now in a dogfight the F-16 is well known for being the best rate fighter in the world and it terms of energy fighting as well, meaning then can always have an energy advantage over any other russian fighter and win the rate fight ingagements very well, now as for high off bore sight pre flaring and avoiding the bandits nose will be key, if everything is done correctly the F-16 will win almost every time. Get your research done.

  • Jack T
    Jack T 4 months ago

    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.

  • Pete Rearden
    Pete Rearden 5 months ago +32

    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.

    • Tooth Decay
      Tooth Decay 5 months ago +7

      Never mind that a recent F16 variant will kill a Mig29 from beyond visual range...

    • Ls
      Ls 5 months ago +5

      The Meg cannot pull more geez then the F 16 the F 16 compile nine gs. I think the mig pull 7 or 8gs but they so old they they probably limited to something lower cus the airframe might break. And remember to make is only more maneuverable then the F 16 when at low speeds, a high-speed, the F 16 is more maneuverable. It’s one of the most maneuverable fourth GEN single engine jets

    • Ls
      Ls 5 months ago

      @Tooth Decay are you talking about? I have 16 blocks 70 if you talking about that you’re absolutely right block somebody is crazy it’s like a whole new jet.

    • Neo
      Neo 4 months ago

      @Tooth Decay Russia have the best missile R-77M range almost 20 km. And If you put that in an MIG-29M the F16 don´t have a chance. Or very slim chance.

    • Doyle Willis
      Doyle Willis 4 months ago +1

      You are absolutely right period I'd much rather fly the F 16. The F15 would stop the 29 dead.

  • Colin Manley
    Colin Manley 4 months ago +3

    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.

  • Timothy Dingman
    Timothy Dingman 4 months ago +2

    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

  • hyhhy
    hyhhy 4 months ago +3

    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.

    • JL
      JL Month ago

      will not have an effect in the battlefield against russia who has one of the best anti air defense system

  • Maverick F-16C
    Maverick F-16C 4 months ago +17

    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.

    • JL
      JL Month ago

      does the high maneuverability of the MIG makes it better at evading anti air missisles

  • Andrew Van Day
    Andrew Van Day Month ago

    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.

  • Mike Davis
    Mike Davis 4 months ago +3

    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.

  • Donna McNiel
    Donna McNiel 4 months ago

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

  • Maverick F-16C
    Maverick F-16C 4 months ago +3

    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.

  • Tomasz Bałdys
    Tomasz Bałdys 5 months ago +50

    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...

    • American Asylum
      American Asylum 5 months ago +22

      There was a lot of bs in this video

    • Ls
      Ls 5 months ago +1

      It’s not super cruise. I don’t know why you said that.

    • Tomasz Bałdys
      Tomasz Bałdys 5 months ago +7

      @Ls watch the video again and listen to what he is saying

    • Ls
      Ls 5 months ago +4

      @Tomasz Bałdys everything wasn’t correct info. Sum ppl are bias

    • Denis Beaubien
      Denis Beaubien 4 months ago +3

      I did point out the same question as there are only a rare few fighters that can super cruise. The US got their hands on some from other countries and no super cruise either.

  • Steve Larsen
    Steve Larsen 2 months ago

    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.

  • Luc Delhaize
    Luc Delhaize 5 months ago +2

    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.

    • JL
      JL Month ago

      radar ranges given is a bit misleading, the max range can detect a heavy bomber but in most cases it is the missile range that is the limiting factor . before an f-16 gets into missile range it would have already been detected by any russian jet,
      hypothetically a russian jet would have the capability to fire it's missiles with longer ranges before an f-16 can get into firing range.

  • Vic
    Vic 4 months ago +1

    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.

  • Chris
    Chris 5 months ago +16

    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.

    • joe k
      joe k 4 months ago +1

      Greece and Turkey both operate mainly f-16, (Greece also uses Mirages and Raphales). When Greece got some S300 systems almost 20 years ago, Turkey threw a tantrum, EXACTLY because they are not so easy to destroy as you imply. The Turks then opted for the S400 and that lead into a downward spiral of diplomatic relations with the US who denied them the latest F-16 upgrades and the F-35 program.
      The Greek and Turkish pilots are among the most experienced, because they actually dogfight each other every day, with the Greeks having the edge when it comes to experience because their smaller numbers, does not allow for so much rotation. If they believe that the S300 are a problem, then its a problem and no propaganda BS can change that.

    • rsmith02
      rsmith02 4 months ago

      ​@joe k Of course these systems are a problem and disabling them is a Ukranian priority. The F-16 is likely a better platform for anti-air defense and air defense roles than aging MiG 29 is the only point.
      The US wouldn't want their jets tested against Russian systems by a fleet that uses both as it could feed valuable tactical information to Russia and its allies.

    • Roy P
      Roy P 2 months ago

      Not all F16s can carry HARMs- block 50 and after.

    • Xolile Becks Magalakanqa
      Xolile Becks Magalakanqa Month ago

      Do you even know the capabilities of s-400?😂😂
      Not even your over-priced, overhyped f-35 will come close to s-400 DS range

    • Dow 36
      Dow 36 5 days ago

      You are not even close ....when a S400 wil fuck you down.......in that F 16....,raptor....B2.....B1.......

  • Justin Williamson
    Justin Williamson 4 months ago +1

    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.

  • Øyvind Aandalen
    Øyvind Aandalen 5 months ago +6

    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.

    • Lee Engelsman
      Lee Engelsman 4 months ago

      I think the mig requires more often maintenance hours but I'd easier to work on.

    • Alastair Newman
      Alastair Newman 4 months ago

      @Lee Engelsman The Mig needs 4 hours of maintenance per flight hour. The F16 needs 14. Neither can survive in a battle space without the presence of air superiority platforms (SU35 and the F35). The SU-35 can engage more aircraft, is faster, carry more weapons but is visible. The F35 is a Turkey which engages very little while it cannot be seen. At twice the speed of the the F16, the SU35 can cover a larger battle space and fire larger air-to-air weapons to cover it's air superiority. Plus (and most importantly) the Russians can and are using them in the Ukraine conflict while operating inside incontestable airspace. Ukraine hasn't got and shan't be getting an Air Superiority platform. So whatever performance the F16 has got over the MIG29 is irrelevant. The whole subject of the F16 in Ukraine is designed to encourage countries to ditch their existing Lockheed Martin F16s for brand spanking new, uber expensive and (frankly) functionally useless F35s. If we were to hear the truth, Lockheed Martin should have an advert announcing "Trade in your Falcon for a Turkey!"

  • Protect & Serve Duty Honor Country

    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.

    • Dennis Merwood
      Dennis Merwood 5 months ago +1

      Training for Ukrainian pilots would take so long - the war will be over before Ukranian pilots are proficient.
      BTW in all airshows - its the Russian pilots who are the ballerinas in the Air. By a long way!

    • J Smith
      J Smith 5 months ago +1

      @Dennis Merwood - The difference is the Russians have a very small handful of highly skilled pilots, whereas the U.S. and NATO contingent is almost all that capable. Did you see the recent interview with Arizona Senator Mark Kelly? He is a former Navy combat pilot (A-6 Intruder), test pilot, and space shuttle astronaut (commanding two missions). In his role at NASA, he flew with many of the top Russian pilots who were selected for their space program. He found them to be severely lacking in some of the most basic piloting skills, and they had no idea on how to do even basic formation flying, something U.S. and NATO pilots are taught right from the beginning. If many of the top level Russian military pilots, the ones selected to become cosmonauts and represent Russia while working and flying alongside western partners, are that lacking in basic skills, what does that say about their rank and file combat pilots?

    • Dennis Merwood
      Dennis Merwood 5 months ago +6

      @J Smith I think you are making a huge mistake underestimating the Russian combat pilots my friend.
      I think it's just good old Yanky hubris that claims the Russians are severely lacking in the most basic piloting skills.
      Actually, more than hubris - it's just propaganda. Drinking the Yanky KOOLAID.
      I went to the FAI World Aerobatic Championships in Foligno, Italy in 2011. The Russian in their innovative and superbly built Su-26M3's blew everybody else into the weeds. The American efforts looked like beginners and were humbled. That made a lasting impression on me.
      And of course, with the F-16's in this Ukrainian conflict - the pilots have to be Ukrainians. With 6-months training! And who is going to maintain these complex airplanes? And what's to stop the Russians just destroying them on the ground with their sophisticated missiles?
      Sending F-16's into this quagmire is pissing in the wind.
      This war needs to be stopped. There is no winners here.
      Take care my friend.

    • Martijn
      Martijn 5 months ago

      Good job, you watched top gun and a bit of Clip-Share and have never been in the navy...

  • pagarb
    pagarb 4 months ago +3

    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..

  • Goaliemanjmk
    Goaliemanjmk 5 months ago +5

    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.

    • Sevca Czech
      Sevca Czech 5 months ago +2

      In the case of Ukraine, the delivery of an older version of the F-16 Block 50/52 with a PESA radar is being considered. The latest versions of Block 70/72 with AESA radar would reach Ukraine in 3 years at the earliest. The older versions of the planes are at least on a comparable level with the Su-30, maybe even the Su-35 and above all much better than the MiG-29 with the original 80's avionics.

    • Pravin Dahiya
      Pravin Dahiya 5 months ago

      @Sevca Czech a real world comparison is possible ONLY in a real war !
      1999, Pakistan air force
      ( having F 16s )
      to even take part in the Kargil conflict with India because of Indian MiG 29s

    • H L
      H L 4 months ago

      @Pravin Dahiya That's a lie it is well-documented that the Pakistan Air Force did participate in the Kargil conflict. Various sources, including books, official reports, and historical accounts, describe the involvement of both the Indian Air Force and the Pakistan Air Force in the conflict.

  • Richard Langdon
    Richard Langdon 5 months ago +3

    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.

  • midgetydeath
    midgetydeath 4 months ago +1

    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.

  • Albert Elguira
    Albert Elguira 5 months ago +19

    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.

    • Mach Daddy
      Mach Daddy 4 months ago +1

      The pilot is a BIG factor. Comparing just the planes falls short.

    • Denis Beaubien
      Denis Beaubien 4 months ago +2

      Very true, they might not even get to face each other over Ukraine since air defense plays a role. But Range is the show stopper for the MIG-29s. By the time they enter Ukrainian airspace, they almost need to come back. Airbases are so far away because they fear Ukrainian attack on their nearest bases.

    • Håkon Steinsvåg
      Håkon Steinsvåg 4 months ago +1

      All true, but in most cases the one who shoots first is the victor, and the F-16 has the advantage in Beyond Visual Range (BVR), with its longer range radar and AMRAAM missiles.

    • Bryan Saunders
      Bryan Saunders 4 months ago +3

      As said you always want a good pilot but air to air conflict is a game of who shoots first. Contrary to video games and movies missiles are very hard to avoid and when your opponent has taken his shot and flown to safety far beyond your range to see him or know he was shooting at you most of the story is over. Even if you escape the shot he has effectively taken control over your mission. If I can shoot you at x2 the range you can shoot me I control that airspace your not trying to out fly me your trying to out fly my missile AND close distance with me to even get a shot off at me. It’s like trying to fight someone with a rifle using a bow and arrow. You might be x10 the archer that I am but my heat seeking bullet finds you before you hear the shot. The term air superiority has far less to do with airframe performance than it does the ability to project a wider range of hostile airspace in which the enemy cannot operate or survive. Modern fighter aircraft do not fly up to meet each other in the air anymore. They exist to dominate and control airspace and deny the enemy the ability to do the same. The only reason thus far that we’ve seen “dogfighting” in Ukraine is that both sides have been using essentially the same technology once a superior technology enters then plane to plane fighting goes away and surface to air missiles play a bigger role. This is exactly why Russia doesn’t want these planes in the Ukrainian hands. These planes are not intended to go there and dogfight they’re intended to establish unrestricted airspace in which the Ukrainians can freely operate then they will most likely be used as fighter bombers

    • JL
      JL Month ago

      @Bryan Saunders will not happen all jets can be detected within missile range so stealth is useless in air superiority. Russian air defense systems woyld shoot the f 16 even before it gets missile range. F-16 can be used as an interceptor but those will again be limited as to where to park those f-16 ukraine lack air defense system to protect their airfields. The russians can also use AEW &C planes to assist anti air missiles to reach longer diatances. Ukraine cannot even stop a very simple glide bomb

  • Ananda Wijesinghe
    Ananda Wijesinghe 5 months ago +4

    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 !

    • I Build Stuff
      I Build Stuff 4 months ago +2

      not likely . they are found to have retail versions of gps units duct taped to their dashboards since thier avionics is so shit.

    • FallNorth
      FallNorth 4 months ago +2

      "However, I have heard that the Russians have recently upgraded the radars on their MiG29's !"
      You mean they taped a SECOND mobile phone into the cockpit, beside the one they taped to be a working GPS?

    • MTB TRAX
      MTB TRAX 4 months ago

      @I Build Stuff wahahahahahaha, dont be so honest, you make the orcs here go mad

  • Mike Long
    Mike Long 4 months ago +12

    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!

  • US Military Air Force
    US Military Air Force 5 months ago

    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.

    ICOMPUTER GIRL 4 months ago +3

    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.

    • Steve Larsen
      Steve Larsen 2 months ago

      Whom piloted these shot down Mig 29's ..3rd world type Air forces like Libya and Iraq?

    • JL
      JL Month ago

      germany assesed which aircraft is better as they both have f-16 and mig 29 jets. The Mig 29 is a better interceptor with it's superior missile range , speed and maneuverability The f-16 is a better bomber with longer ranges and cost effectiveness.

  • Norman Swears
    Norman Swears 5 months ago +5

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

  • miguel mulero anton
    miguel mulero anton 4 months ago +1

    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.

  • K Davis
    K Davis 4 months ago +5

    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.

  • Briguy1027
    Briguy1027 4 months ago +19

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

    • Neo
      Neo 4 months ago +1

      No it´s not. The US made a misstake continue to produce this plane from 1978. It has an old airframe.

    • Wes Hall
      Wes Hall 4 months ago +1

      I agree, it's a great fighter..

    • MTB TRAX
      MTB TRAX 4 months ago +3

      @Neo its a great cheap fighter/bomber easy to ruskies with it and bomb them with it, long range great radar cheap

  • chayoto
    chayoto 5 months ago +8

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

  • Grant Dixon
    Grant Dixon 4 months ago +1

    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.

    • JL
      JL Month ago

      The flying time of the ukrainian pilots. would be far worse. The flying time of russian pilota is the same to those european countries. The reason the US flies more hours is because the jets have to fly long distances from their aircraft carriers so most of the time they are just at cruising flight ao around 3 to 5 hours per mission. Russian and european pilots just do maneuvere and drills around there air base so around 1 to 2 hours per mission.

  • Phrancis5
    Phrancis5 5 months ago +20

    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.

    • KimKimGregory
      KimKimGregory 5 months ago +10

      The truth is, the Ukrainian Air Forces needs Western fighter jets, they've got an advantage over MiG-29 in terms of distance. The aircraft Ukraine has now often need to get close to the front lines if they need to perform certain operations, which is a huge risk. Western jets like F-16 would be safer in comparison as they wouldn't need to fly too close.

    • Johnny Wolford
      Johnny Wolford 5 months ago +2

      An f 16 gives ukraine a plane capable to attack deep in Russia territory

    • A TG
      A TG 5 months ago

      @Johnny Wolford andddddd get shot down because of the air defenses??? Do you even see the type of strikes they conduct? The shoot from a distance and pull off.

  • ziad ajam
    ziad ajam 4 months ago +1

    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

    • ziad ajam
      ziad ajam 4 months ago

      And then you have other external tanks that go over the wing on the Greek models I think but I have no idea how much those carry

  • T - Bone
    T - Bone 5 months ago +5

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

    • SpitFired skool
      SpitFired skool 4 months ago

      But it will face Su30, Su35 and Mig31, all superior fighters.

  • Charles Gruber
    Charles Gruber 4 months ago +1

    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.

  • Dan Bell
    Dan Bell 4 months ago

    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.

  • Ed Jarrett
    Ed Jarrett 5 months ago +14

    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.

    • JL
      JL Month ago

      when a missile is on to you radar range, 3d awareness sharing intel is not that important what you need is higher top speed and high agility to evade the missile

  • ibnorml
    ibnorml 4 months ago +9

    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.

    • James Street
      James Street 4 months ago

      Exactly right

    • patburrell
      patburrell 4 months ago

      Not really. More the Su-27

    • patburrell
      patburrell 4 months ago

      24k pounds for the mig to 45/46 for the eagle, more with CFTs. Short range fighter v long range interceptor.

  • Rob May
    Rob May 4 months ago +5

    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!

    • Steve Burke
      Steve Burke 4 months ago

      Agree...also...f16's come coupled with far superior western AWACS and air refueling capabilities. In the case of countries with F35's they also fight with a data link to the F35's sensor suite. Perhaps not an issue in Ukraine, but a definite advantage in most other places. It should be noted that the MiG29 has not dominated in Ukraine...far from it. Also...Russian pilots get far fewer training hours than western pilots.

    • Dow 36
      Dow 36 5 days ago

      Is like your Shermam meet Tiger in ww2............

    • Dow 36
      Dow 36 5 days ago

      Is like your shermam meet Tiger in ww2.......

  • Willy West
    Willy West 4 months ago +1

    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.

  • Vava Oliveira
    Vava Oliveira 3 months ago

    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!

    • RottenDK
      RottenDK 3 months ago

      Mig 29 is a dead kind. To many flight hours on most frames. And the future is mostly bvr and stealth not dog fight.

  • Sevca Czech
    Sevca Czech 5 months ago +10

    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.

    • Martijn
      Martijn 5 months ago +1

      Thanks for commenting something useful. I've seen so much bs in this comment section...

    • Taylor Quintana
      Taylor Quintana 5 months ago

      why are you assuming the migs dont use active radar missles its had them for decades

    • Martijn
      Martijn 5 months ago

      @Taylor Quintana yes, but for some reason they never use those a lot... And also the mig 29 is less capable of using them because of it's horrible radar.

    • Taylor Quintana
      Taylor Quintana 5 months ago

      @Martijn I wouldn't call the radar bad its not fantastic but not bad
      in a bvr engagement the f16 would win anyday as its been constantly getting upgrades while the mig has not. now a more interesting matchup would be the viper vs a mig35

    • Sevca Czech
      Sevca Czech 5 months ago +1

      @Taylor Quintana semi-active. And listen and read the interviews with Ukrainian jet fighter pilots..

  • Rick Maldoo
    Rick Maldoo 4 months ago +2

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

  • ole bull
    ole bull 5 months ago +13

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

      GOODTAGO 5 months ago

      Had to look that up...

  • gregory perkins
    gregory perkins 5 months ago

    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.

  • John Robb
    John Robb 4 months ago +1

    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.

  • 3FLYTE
    3FLYTE 4 months ago

    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.

  • Andrew Campbell
    Andrew Campbell 4 months ago +2

    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.

  • Gale Sams
    Gale Sams 4 months ago +1

    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.

  • Creek Walker Homestead
    Creek Walker Homestead 5 months ago +7

    Both are beautiful fighters.

  • Chris Scaife
    Chris Scaife 4 months ago

    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.

  • Deepak Srivastava
    Deepak Srivastava 4 months ago

    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.

  • Chris G
    Chris G 4 months ago

    Neat, concise and accurate assessment, thank you.

  • patman0250
    patman0250 Month ago +1

    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.

  • Fotros
    Fotros 3 months ago

    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.

  • Patrick Tanna
    Patrick Tanna 5 months ago +23

    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.

    • Metafrast
      Metafrast 5 months ago +1

      each country will praise its aircraft, but in fact it is difficult to imagine how these aircraft will behave in a real battle. We all remember how in Yugoslavia the super-modern f-117 was shot down at that time, which the United States promoted as an "invisible aircraft". At what he was shot down by a very old Soviet missile.

    • Nick
      Nick 5 months ago +6

      @Metafrast tbf it was shot down while it’s stealth was compromised, f117 has a similar if not smaller RCS as the B2 spirit, the most common explanation was an issue with the weapons bay not closing compromising its stealth profile

    • Metafrast
      Metafrast 5 months ago

      @Nick You are mistaken in f-117, the compartment is closed with two doors. I remember when they interviewed the anti-aircraft gunner who shot him down, he said that they managed to capture him on a heat trail. It's just that the f-117 did not cool the gases that were clearly visible. The f-22 and B-2 Spirit partially solved this problem, but in this case we are not dealing with the invisibility of these aircraft, as previously promoted by Western propaganda, but rather with stealth. Therefore, these aircraft after Yugoslavia are always used only in asymmetric military conflicts

    • Damon's Old Soul
      Damon's Old Soul 5 months ago +6

      ​@Metafrast The only reason the opportunity was available to shoot it down was due to repetitive flight plans that ended up in the same place at the same time. This was arrogant and flat out bad planning on the US. If it were not at the same place regularly, it would never have been shot down. This is also why it is the only one to have been shot down.

    • Metafrast
      Metafrast 5 months ago

      @Damon's Old Soul This is stupidity, do you even imagine how guidance on anti-aircraft missiles works?))) If the plane was not seen, it could not have been hit with a rocket. Shooting a missile blindly is like looking for a needle in a haystack. I repeat to you, this aircraft was detected by a heat trail that was clearly visible on the radar. The fact that this was the only downed aircraft of this class proves only one thing - that the Air Force immediately stopped flying such aircraft, and this is understandable, because the prestige of this development was irreparably undermined

  • Felix Li
    Felix Li 4 months ago +1

    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.

    • JL
      JL Month ago

      when the f-16 starts crashing down ukriane will start to ask for AEW &C

  • James Street
    James Street 4 months ago

    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.

  • Israel P.G.
    Israel P.G. Month ago

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

  • Lee Engelsman
    Lee Engelsman 4 months ago +1

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

  • William Tell
    William Tell 5 months ago +10

    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.

    • Mighty Joe Young
      Mighty Joe Young 5 months ago +1

      The Mig 29 is only 4 years younger, production wise. Derp

    • Oddmund B
      Oddmund B 5 months ago

      May I ask how many have you maintained?

    • Brandon Drums
      Brandon Drums 5 months ago +1

      @Mighty Joe Young Mig 29 hasn't changed much since initial production while the F-16 has larger wings, engine, updated engine and avionics as well as flight control processing. The F-16 as it sits now is a modern era fighter born from a 4th generation design, more like 4.5 gen. Mig 29, well you've seen the videos from the war where both Ukrainian and Russian pilots are flying with TomTom GPS nav units from cars and boats taped to their dashboards. No comparison really.

    • Ls
      Ls 5 months ago +1

      No it’s not. They just came out with a new F16 block 70 last year and it’s totally different than the older F-16s. It’s like a whole different jet. You don’t know what you’re talking about. I’m in the army, but I work close with the Air Force.

  • Kalle Klæp
    Kalle Klæp 4 months ago +1

    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.

  • pinay in France
    pinay in France 5 months ago +2

    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.

    • Maddog
      Maddog 5 months ago

      don't forget the A/F-18 Hornet (legacy, not the super hornet) and most likely they'll get them; also some few number of Saab jas 39 E gripen, a F-16 on real steroyds!

    • pinay in France
      pinay in France 5 months ago

      @Maddog we don't exactly know what they're going to receive, there are different models on the list. Specially they're being trained in so many different NATO countries.
      Gripen E are still in small production numbers, so not sure at all honestly. F18 or F16 are more probably the ones, since F18 will see its production being stopped in few years, f16 is largely build and available.

    • Maddog
      Maddog 5 months ago +1

      @pinay in France It's also my idea. I don't really believe the UK would give away some Typhoons now, nor France; but France could help, and also Germany, providing Dassault Mirage and the recently retired from deutch service, the Panavia Tornado. They're not top of the line, still could be very useful joining forces with the F/A 18 and F-16; and maybe a couple of Gripen version C or D - I also don't believe sweden is in aposition to provide E/F versions.

  • Danny
    Danny 4 months ago

    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 🤷‍♂

  • ankush doshi
    ankush doshi 4 months ago +1

    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

  • Mariobgvoynov
    Mariobgvoynov 3 months ago

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

  • AFP War & Modernization, Archives

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

    • I Build Stuff
      I Build Stuff 4 months ago

      Nope , f16's are agile beyond any mig29... full stop

    • MTB TRAX
      MTB TRAX 4 months ago

      @I Build Stuff yes but russia has the flying tankturrets, and we drink vodka so.....i am the best

  • Daniel Vandersall
    Daniel Vandersall 4 months ago

    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.

  • Cylent One
    Cylent One 5 months ago +2

    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.

    • Dennis Merwood
      Dennis Merwood 5 months ago

      "training for Ukrainian pilots would take so long" - the war will be over before Ukranian pilots are proficient.

    • Cylent One
      Cylent One 5 months ago

      @Dennis Merwood F-16 Trainer in US estimated 9 months if it goes exceptionally well.

  • ntsEj fAm yAj
    ntsEj fAm yAj 4 months ago

    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.

  • SasquatchyCowboy
    SasquatchyCowboy 4 months ago

    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.

  • Eduardo Guerrero
    Eduardo Guerrero 5 months ago +1

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

  • Mike Walsh
    Mike Walsh 5 months ago +19

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

    • Creek Walker Homestead
      Creek Walker Homestead 4 months ago

      Bloc 70+

    • Neo
      Neo 4 months ago +1

      It has an old airframe. Cannot compete with a other more modern fighters.

    • Mike Walsh
      Mike Walsh 4 months ago

      True, but the newest version is a highly capable 4+ generation aircraft!

    • Rusty Shackleford
      Rusty Shackleford 4 months ago

      @Neo You keep saying that. It was well ahead of its time and is still competitive with non-stealth fighters, including the SU-35.

    • Neo
      Neo 4 months ago +1

      @Rusty Shackleford Thats why it lost in Red Flag a few years ago. JAS 39 Gripen - F 16. 5-0 5-0 5-1 ;) Anything with canard wings and vectored thrust F-16 is done.

  • D. League
    D. League 4 months ago

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

  • TheHelixballerone
    TheHelixballerone 5 months ago +1

    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.

  • Joe Hayward
    Joe Hayward 4 months ago

    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.

  • National Sniper
    National Sniper 5 months ago +1

    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.

  • David Tennien
    David Tennien 4 months ago

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

  • Michael Atwell
    Michael Atwell 5 months ago +6

    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.

    • Don Hinkelman
      Don Hinkelman 4 months ago +1

      Political needs +1, logistical needs +1

  • Branjo Snow
    Branjo Snow 4 months ago

    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!

  • J.P Saym0
    J.P Saym0 5 months ago

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

    • Sevca Czech
      Sevca Czech 5 months ago +1

      Main reason is semi-active guided missiles with short range radar in the MiG-29 vs. completely active guided missiles and a long range radar in the Su-30, 34, 35 capable to "fire-and-forget"...

  • Rafat Latif
    Rafat Latif Month ago

    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

  • Ivan N
    Ivan N 4 months ago

    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.

  • Arijit Dakshi
    Arijit Dakshi 5 months ago +12

    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.

    • Tina Li
      Tina Li 5 months ago +8

      No shit Sherlock! What country being invaded wouldn’t want to get their hands on the most weapons possible?

    • Martijn
      Martijn 5 months ago +2

      Not the mig 21 tho. If you'd let any pilot go up in a mig 21 in today's skies, you might aswell have shot him when he was still on the ground...

  • JQ Machgunner
    JQ Machgunner 5 months ago +34

    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.

    • recoil53
      recoil53 5 months ago +3

      Well the F-22 can do both - highly manuveable with supercruise. But a top end avionics suite.
      And really once they worked out air to air missiles, dogfights really dropped down in importance. There is a reason the Vought F-8 was the last of the gunfighters.

    • Thomas Roth
      Thomas Roth 5 months ago

      Seems like SU -27 variant would fight F-16 Sure an AWACS and hypersonic missile would make great fireworks and isnt it true that low freq NioBium radar can observe low vis anything 300K radius ?

    • JQ Machgunner
      JQ Machgunner 5 months ago +1

      @Thomas Roth The F-16 has an advanced passive radar which detects out to over 100 miles. It has missiles that can hit targets over 100 miles away. The F-16s would excel at BVR aerial warfare. The SU-27 radar only tracks about 50 miles away. The F-16s would see the SU-27 first, shoot first, and kill first. The F-16 would also launch missiles and guided bombs over the Black See to attack Russian bases and ships well before being detected.

    • JQ Machgunner
      JQ Machgunner 5 months ago +2

      @recoil53 The F-22 can perform worlds better than the F-16. It's radar is 5x better. Its BVR attack capabilities are 5x better. It can pull over 6 Gs for over 3 minutes while the F-16 and F-15 can't even come close. The F-22 can fly at over 90 degrees angle of attack (some F-22 pilots report over 120 degrees AOA), along with the F-35, the F-22 can serve as the advanced recon node for battlefield data including ID of radar and missile sites which is like a QB directing all sorts of attack aircraft to fire and attack outside of normal radar detection ranges since they know where enemy sites are, and both the F-35 and F-22 are now equipped to QB drone swarm attacks. Last, both the F-35 and F-2 are in the process of being certified to carry and sent off AI guided nuclear bombs (like the F-15). BTW, in both the F-35 and F-22, the pilot only has to confirm to attack enemy planes that the combat computer has already ID'd and color coded. The combat computer will then fire missiles in the best order to maximize killing the targets in this BVR attack. Further, the combat computer will communicate with other planes such as F-15, F-16, F-18, F-117, etc. which targets they can best conduct their BVR attack sequences.

  • Hugin Starkstrom
    Hugin Starkstrom 5 months ago

    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.

  • Great Tribulation
    Great Tribulation 2 months ago

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

  • DisEnchantedPersons
    DisEnchantedPersons 5 months ago +1

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

    • Martijn
      Martijn 5 months ago

      You are very very very wrong

  • Stillamarine 1001
    Stillamarine 1001 5 months ago +1

    Two words sums this up. Superior capabilities.

  • Craig Scott
    Craig Scott 5 months ago +163

    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.

    • 007thecookster
      007thecookster 5 months ago +30

      Better trained pilots and ground crews to start with wins the day

    • Craig Scott
      Craig Scott 5 months ago +5

      @007thecookster I was thinking that too

    • Gabe Rohrbach
      Gabe Rohrbach 5 months ago +9

      @007thecookster Russian pilots don't train or practice defensive BFM, so that alone is enough

    • Dennis Merwood
      Dennis Merwood 5 months ago +17

      @007thecookster These will be flown by Ukrainian pilots with a few hours training. How can that work?

    • Pravin Dahiya
      Pravin Dahiya 5 months ago +1

      that's what they want to PROJECT , but Northrop Grumman ( radar manufacturer) claims ..
      .much lesser range