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

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

[@TROOPERfarcry]

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.

[@DennisMerwood-xk8wp]

Source of this information Brain? Or did you just pull it out of your Yanky butt?

[@nafis6668]

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-gi4sg]

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

[@nafis6668]

@@Vadim-gi4sg I was taking about MIG29N my country used. It has external refueling probe upgrade.

[@brianmck7363]

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!!

[@gav2759]

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

[@danbell3827]

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

[@fishyfool]

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

[@knoxyish]

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]

@@knoxyish 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.

[@danbell3827]

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.

[@ThorBear101]

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.

[@Corbots80]

And the 35f engine will be upgraded soonish

[@pinayinfrance2642]

​​@@Corbots80 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.

[@Corbots80]

@@pinayinfrance2642 it's getting upgraded regardless. It's just a matter of upgrade current engine, or a whole new engine

[@BarryObaminable]

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

[@pinayinfrance2642]

@@Corbots80 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.

[@Glostahdude]

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.

[@danbell3827]

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.

[@tommygun333]

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...

[@AmericanAsylum87]

There was a lot of bs in this video

[@LSmoney215]

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

[@tommygun333]

@@LSmoney215 watch the video again and listen to what he is saying

[@LSmoney215]

@@tommygun333 everything wasn’t correct info. Sum ppl are bias

[@DBeau73]

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.

[@Demogrunt]

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.

[@lukewhitehouse4103]

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-tm3rc]

russians have AEW&C which provides better situational awareness

[@mark4371]

Demogrut Do some research the F15 does not possess a 200 mile capability of awareness through it radar system Obviously you have performed no research at all What an outdated heap garbage the F15 is

[@lattehour]

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

[@mark4371]

@@lattehour Mach 4 The Russian S450 no problem shooting that garbage from the sky Fixed trajectory no hyper-glide capability More western garbage

[@moorishnationalism63]

The important things is weapons and radar

[@zanda6125]

Also Training and tactics makes a huge difference with both planes

[@sevcaczech5961]

​@@zanda6125 MiG-29 semi active guided vs. Su-35 completely active guided bvr missiles and electronical jamming. Early 80's vs. early 00's technology. Training doesn't help that much then.

[@anandawijesinghe6298]

Short and Sweet !

[@travisverlinde191]

And pilot training, with jamming pods, chaff and flare, the odds of that well trained pilot causing a missile to fail, are very high. In the mig 35, however active it's radar and that of it's weapons, proper training and countermeasures are still quite effective

[@densealloy]

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.

[@posmoo9790]

mig-31eats the west lunch on bvr. You don't know much about much. This isn't about fighting for air supremacy how uninformed do you have to be to think that's even possible in this AD environment? Ukraine needs about 150-200 modern fighters to protect the west from the cruise missile attacks (never mind Shahed attacks) because NATO foolishly never built anything that can do the job on the ground. regarding the M-29s themselves, the Warsaw pact got the monkey versions of everything but the ussr AD systems. so all these mig-29s in the west were bricked when they were new in 1984. they also got monkey versions of tanks, which is what america fought in desert storm. But the real issue is the Ukrops & all of europe doesn't have enough mig-29s, & have trouble keeping the ones they have in the air. Poland has almost none left. So they need a whole new fighter. And if the only way they can keep support requirements down is if it's just one single fighter type. That immediately narrows the choices down to the f-16. no one can afford to give up eurofighters & there aren't enough. no one with f-15s is willing to give them up and there's not enough to put together 12-16 squadrons with those anyway. What's left in significant numbers? Mirages? no. Grippens? no. There's nothing. This was just process of elimination. There's simply no other no other fighter model in the world that can sourced from outside the USA in those numbers & meets the requirements. Ukraine also wants NATO pilots in them to try and drag the world into the grave they dug by starting ww3. If the Ukrainians had 200 operational mig-29s w spare parts & the maintenance personnel & endless weaponry & a place to put them where they were protected they wouldn't even be asking for these f-16s. These won't be used in air to air combat that's ridiculous mig-31s and s300s would knockndown these F-16s before they got within 60 miles of enemy fighters. In a world where ukraine had 200 mig-29s It'd be more of hassle than a help to get f-16s. but Ukraine essentially has no air force & they're smarter than you so they realize the f-16 is literally the only alternative that exists in the entire world that can meet their AD requirements vs cruise missiles.

[@travisverlinde191]

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

[@posmoo9790]

@@travisverlinde191 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.

[@stevestarnes9198]

The USA does not build weapons.....It builds systems...

[@WOLFER.]

​@@posmoo9790 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.

[@olebull9714]

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

[@GOODTAGO]

Had to look that up...

[@mikelong5207]

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!

[@DavidJones-bl1ti]

-F4's were smokestacks

[@andreig.3880]

In regimurile cu postcombustie motoarele rd-33 nu sunt deloc "smoky"! Si nu vad o problema in asta. Ar trebui sa intelegi ca un bun raport tractiune/greutate (supraunitar in cazul lui 29) poate sustine traiectorii incredibile pentru suprasarcinile la care il supune pe tomcruise-ul obisnuit... Daca intelegi ce vreau sa spun! PS 29 are si "marche arrier"! In loc de pensie, as fi peferat unul acasa 😄

[@arijitdakshi820]

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.

[@tinali9200]

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

[@arijitdakshi820]

@@tinali9200 Ukraine is the mercenaries' magnet 🧲 of the world.

[@cliffisfuckingawesome3508]

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...

[@bulleitupyourazz8168]

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.

[@joek600]

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]

​@@joek600 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.

[@royp6953]

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

[@Zingalamadumi]

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

[@dow3639]

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

[@mikewalsh1402]

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

[@creekwalker62]

Bloc 70+

[@Neo-xn7vc]

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

[@mikewalsh1402]

@@Neo-xn7vc True, but the newest version is a highly capable 4+ generation aircraft!

[@BlackPlague1966]

@@Neo-xn7vc You keep saying that. It was well ahead of its time and is still competitive with non-stealth fighters, including the SU-35.

[@Neo-xn7vc]

@@BlackPlague1966 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.

[@lightbox617]

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

[@MikeDavis-ml5vt]

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.

[@edjarrett3164]

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.

[@sunofpeter2]

I figured it was because they are running out the Migs. Either way ad American citizen i think this situation does not escalated. Obviously peace is not an option for the war mongers and the criminals involved

[@JL-tm3rc]

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

[@Mrblueridgeman]

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.

[@corey2232]

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

[@user-fe5lr9zt3y]

How long will they last,?Not long !

[@Willaev]

@@user-fe5lr9zt3yThey’ll outlast Russia.

[@user-fe5lr9zt3y]

@@Willaev Really?Old junk that will be destroyed in first flight as the other 350 planes Ukros had!

[@JL-tm3rc]

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

[@peterearden]

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.

[@toothdecay2465]

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

[@LSmoney215]

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

[@LSmoney215]

@@toothdecay2465 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-xn7vc]

@@toothdecay2465 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.

[@doylewillis9587]

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

[@maggiealena]

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.

[@DennisMerwood-xk8wp]

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!

[@jsmith1746]

@@DennisMerwood-xk8wp - 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?

[@DennisMerwood-xk8wp]

@@jsmith1746 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.

[@sasapopadic384]

They are good to bomb helples peasants on the ground...

[@cliffisfuckingawesome3508]

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

[@Briguy1027]

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

[@Neo-xn7vc]

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

[@79blackbelt]

I agree, it's a great fighter..

[@mtbtrax1003]

@@Neo-xn7vc its a great cheap fighter/bomber easy to ruskies with it and bomb them with it, long range great radar cheap

[@rickmaldoo4205]

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

[@Tbone1492]

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

[@MultiVeeta]

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

[@mtbtrax1003]

@@MultiVeeta dont think so, everthing russia has is shit

[@watchthe1369]

Keep this in mind, a pilot in an f-16 dodged 6 missiles shot at it by Iraq. The maneuverability of the f-16 may not lag as much behind the Mig-29 as you would think. The Mig might be able to get its nose pointed faster in a dog fight, but it has to get close enough first. Once it gets close, he is going to have to work for it. It is going to come down to pilot capability.

[@Maverickf22flyer]

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-tm3rc]

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

[@craigscott2862]

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]

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

[@craigscott2862]

@@007thecookster I was thinking that too

[@gaberohrbach7542]

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

[@DennisMerwood-xk8wp]

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

[@pravindahiya719]

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

[@REZSu-30MKM]

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😢

[@tartret5115]

And you repeated the same mistake with Su30mkm.

[@REZSu-30MKM]

@@tartret5115 Certainly not because the RMAF has learned meaningful lessons while operating the 16 MiG-29s in service during that period

[@DavidJones-bl1ti]

@@tartret5115 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.

[@KhanhLam777]

​@@DavidJones-bl1tiThat'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.

[@locoman888]

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.

[@brianmead7556]

But then the bitter grandsons of Nazis decided to get rid of all the Soviet equipment. And the personnel who knew how to use it. And then decided to dismantle East Germany. And then decided to systematically mistreat the East Germans. And then to progress going forwards, tell him that half the country their former country, and lives didn’t matter at all and weren’t worth remembering or considering.

[@richardlangdon712]

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.

[@creekwalker62]

Both are beautiful fighters.

[@icomputergirl8695]

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.

[@locoman888]

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

[@JL-tm3rc]

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.

[@BigBeef20]

Thanks for blowing out my ears with the whispering & loud bass combo

[@albertelguira2156]

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.

[@machdaddy6451]

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

[@DBeau73]

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.

[@haakonsteinsvaag]

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.

[@moparbryan]

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-tm3rc]

@@moparbryan 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

[@pagarb]

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..

[@hyhhy]

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-tm3rc]

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

[@Phrancis5]

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]

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.

[@atg2186]

@@KimKimGregoryboth Russia and Ukraine have to conduct strikes from a far distance. Both sides have to many air defenses. The f16 will get shot down due to the fact they think all American equipment is superior which is the reason why they want everything American made this giving them the feeling of invisibility.

[@johnnywolford4519]

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

[@atg2186]

@@johnnywolford4519 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.

[@007thecookster]

@@atg2186lol the west is laughing at your Russian airforce not being able to get air superiority. If it wasn’t for neuclear weapons Russia would have been wiped off the map.

[@ibnorml5506]

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.

[@jamesstreet228]

Exactly right

[@patburrell]

Not really. More the Su-27

[@patburrell]

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

[@afpwarmodernizationarchive1320]

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

[@reelchef67]

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

[@mtbtrax1003]

@@reelchef67 yes but russia has the flying tankturrets, and we drink vodka so.....i am the best

[@jimbograves1576]

Bottom line is - ones better at fighting while the other is better at air shows.

[@abcdedfg8340]

I thought the mig 29 was more for dogfighting and the f16 was designed as a multirole platform to do the jobs the f15 eagle wouldnt.

[@scottwilliams4157]

@@abcdedfg8340 , dogfighting is mostly done and over with. Modern aerial warfare involves communications, situational awareness, and beyond visual engagement. -stealth, too, but not in this specific context.

[@germanomora6345]

😮know what you mean 😮😊

[@LarryHatch]

You can never, I say never compare a single engine fighter to a dual engine fighter. It's not done by professionals in the military nor anywhere else.

[@sevcaczech5961]

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.

[@cliffisfuckingawesome3508]

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

[@makarov718]

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

[@cliffisfuckingawesome3508]

@@makarov718 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.

[@makarov718]

@@cliffisfuckingawesome3508 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

[@sevcaczech5961]

@@makarov718 semi-active. And listen and read the interviews with Ukrainian jet fighter pilots..

[@anandawijesinghe6298]

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 !

[@reelchef67]

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

[@FallNorth]

"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?

[@mtbtrax1003]

@@reelchef67 wahahahahahaha, dont be so honest, you make the orcs here go mad

[@normanswears2567]

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

[@machdaddy6451]

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

[@geraldboykin6159]

Skills with the thrust is a must!

[@jckdnls9292]

You're missing the point.

[@geraldboykin6159]

@@jckdnls9292 : You are missing it! Although you have no training in a flight simulator nor fighter jet flight. Your mind cannot comprehend the how the G forces affect the pilot. I believe you would crap in your pants!!! GEEK

[@machdaddy6451]

@@jckdnls9292 I think that you are missing my point

[@robmay4294]

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!

[@steveburke7675]

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.

[@dow3639]

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

[@dow3639]

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

[@Maverickf22flyer]

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.

[@AnthonyMiller-xe2jr]

Yeah, mmmm What he said...

[@larryweiss7170]

Is this info based on the latest F16's?

[@prsfan01]

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.

[@jackt6112]

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.

[@Hotwheels75]

It would depend on who would be flying these fighter jets as well

[@cliffisfuckingawesome3508]

Yes kinda true. The mig 29 is just factually worse than the f 16. Not only that but Russian pilot training has also been falling behind more and more since the downfall of the Soviet Union.

[@realnapster1522]

@@cliffisfuckingawesome3508 all false. Mig29 is much better.

[@Johnmk24]

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.

[@sevcaczech5961]

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.

[@pravindahiya719]

@@sevcaczech5961 a real world comparison is possible ONLY in a real war ! 1999, Pakistan air force ( having F 16s ) REFUSED to even take part in the Kargil conflict with India because of Indian MiG 29s

[@hl954]

@@pravindahiya719 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.

[@reymundteanofilms]

Thank you for clearing this up, I was confused which one i should buy.

[@jasong5094]

"MiG-29, Air Superiority Fighter". Yeah, maybe if the other side doesn't have an air force...

[@locoman888]

That reeks of arrogance what good did F16 do in Afghanistan pal? Besides why don't they challenge SU-35 over Syria with your F16 tough guy?

[@jasong5094]

@@locoman888 Arrogance? Perhaps, but justifiable arrogance. Because unlike the MiG-29 or the SU-35, the fighters the United States of America employs have proven themselves capable of completely dominating the airspace in any conflict they enter. The Russian crap they always end up fighting against hasn't proven capable of even marginally disrupting our gameplan...

[@OpaqueNihilist]

The first guy clearly doesn't know what he's talking about but comparing a F16 to a SU-35 is a bit much. It's not like the F16 is 25 years older or anything...

[@jasong5094]

@@OpaqueNihilist It's not really about the airframe anymore. They've taken these airframes about as far as they can go on maneuverability and speed. Now it's about the technology that is put into it, and the US is constantly updating theirs, leaving Russia further and further behind. That's why the US swats down opposing fighters like flies and Russia can't even establish air supremacy over a battlefield in a country that barely has an air force.

[@OpaqueNihilist]

@@jasong5094 Russia isn't that far away, in some ways they are still ahead (publicly, we all know what the U.S. D.O.D. spends in research) the main difference is in our better and more advanced micro chips, most munitions (a few glaring exceptions) and the biggest one being Satellites, Comms and Radar. Those things are all a few decades ahead of anyone (except Israel, we let them steal our stuff). Patriot lacks behind S400 let alone S500 yet the Russians could NEVER build something like an AEGIS equipped destroyer. Their general positioning is defensive while ours is well, less so. The main point of vulnerability being Taiwan because of the afore mentioned Microchips. The air defenses we've historically swatted down like flies have been around 40 years and a decapitated command short of our capabilities. I think that only around Iraqi 15 MIG29's and Mirages actually saw combat, and even then neither had been updated with Radar compared to the F15 and 16's we sent. Everything else they had was 1960's era.

[@lightninrod70stang]

The MiG-29 does NOT have super cruise capability. Also, the F16 has a significantly higher turn rate, better acceleration, and much better visibility from the cockpit. Not to mention all the advanced avionics and information processing capabilities in the newer versions.

[@brookwhiteman9810]

Yeah I mean tbh it's not even close and I think the su 30 is probably a closer comparison but even then I favor the f16 avionics and it's list of guided weapons

[@DennisMerwood-xk8wp]

Drinking the Yanky KOOLAID eh my man!

[@lightninrod70stang]

@@DennisMerwood-xk8wp No need for Kool Aid. Actual accounts from pilots who have flown both aircraft and practiced dogfighting them against each other are available and easy to find with a quick little Google search. I'll take the actual pilots' words and experiences in this matter over some KZbinr who obviously didn't do much research before putting out a video.

[@chrisg9627]

Neat, concise and accurate assessment, thank you.

[@andrewwhelchel5499]

If you're gonna call yourself Military TV, maybe don't have an F-15 Eagle on the thumbnail of a video about F-16s

[@sicKlown86]

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.

[@hinkelman]

Political needs +1, logistical needs +1

[@patricktanna4947]

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.

[@metafrast7422]

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-ji5mn]

@@metafrast7422 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

[@metafrast7422]

@@Nick-ji5mn 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

[@Damons-Old-Soul]

​@@metafrast7422 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.

[@metafrast7422]

@@Damons-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

[@TheHelixballerone]

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.

[@lucdelhaize4029]

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-tm3rc]

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.

[@jqmachgunner2577]

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]

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.

[@thomasroth4695]

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 ?

[@jqmachgunner2577]

@@thomasroth4695 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.

[@jqmachgunner2577]

@@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.

[@TheRelativy]

@@jqmachgunner2577 And then, as we Saw in ukraine, a single man with old shoulder lauch Igla missle can still take it down.

[@yvindaandalen6708]

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.

[@leeengelsman1855]

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

[@alastairnewman1233]

@@leeengelsman1855 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!"

[@trufetytrufe]

they are only talking about the Mig-29s because of the Polish Mig-29s that they were going to give Ukraine. I don't think Russia relies on the 29 too much for their mission packages or air defense, and I am sure that the ones they have, to some degree, have been updated. Not only that but what is it being used for? And who is gonna fly it? Who will work on it and keep it flying?

[@sasquatchycowboy5585]

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.

[@chayoto]

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

[@kdavis5460]

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.

[@israelpg77]

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

[@Smithsj82]

F-16 is a multi role fighter/bomber. It can carry a large number of bombs, missiles onboard. Mig 29 can only wish it could perform the role of F-16.

[@mierbeuker8148]

Even if the mig was the most maneuverable jet on Earth, if it gets killed before it even sees the enemy, its maneuverability means absolutely nothing.

[@Louis-Senior]

It's not hard to chaff, notch and fly low to avoid radar. Although the F-16 does have the advantage in long to mid range combat, an experienced Mig-29 pilot would have no trouble getting close and initiating a dogfight.

[@Caseytify]

The truth doesn't like in statistics. For example, the P-40 has been traditionally considered a second rate fighter, but actually performed fairly well under 15,000 feet. American designs have been largely less maneuverable than their opponents since ww2, yet they managed to attain air superiority in every war. The answer is a combination of doctrine, strategy, and tactics. For example, the F4F was (by the numbers) outclassed by the Zero, but tactics such as the Thach weave to a great degree neutralized that advantage. Both the AAF and the Navy learned to avoid slow, turning combat against Japanese fighters. In fact, "zoom & boom" was the signature of Claire Chennault's Flying Tigers. BTW, most of the major carrier battles were fought with F4F Wildcats. The F6F Hellcats didn't make an appearance until late 1943. Food for thought. This trend continues today. Back in ww2 the Soviets developed some damn fine combat pilots, but the institutional knowledge was lost. The US had a similar problem, but they recognized it in time, and fixed it with programs like TOPGUN and Red Flag. Western pilots fly many more hours per year than do Russian pilots, and the former engage in various missions, while the Russians are limited to a single primary. Add to that a tradition for centralized control, and the Russians don't look so good.

[@btbd2785]

New Viper can Super Cruise. Also has a top speed of 1500mph! It's ridiculous for a single jet engine aircraft. Do love the Mig 29 and Newest Mig 35.

[@colinmanley7349]

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.

[@carlosgutierrez3968]

What makes the F-16 so deadly is its weapon package

[@alpine9996]

Uh, no. It’s excellently trained pilots is what makes them so deadly.

[@lenkautsugi5747]

Mig 35 vs f16v/block 70 vs gripenE I'll go with gripenE

[@stephenwalsh1332triumph]

Clint Eastwood is still trying to steal the fox bat 🦇🤣

[@6XCcustom]

Unfortunately, the F16, F15, F18 planes are manufactured according to the specifications that the USA has, they need long taxiways, long runways and that these are clean otherwise these planes suck FOD into the engines Ukaina's runways aren't built for the West's requirements, and now it's no better, to put it mildly. If Ukraine builds new runways suitable for the F16, the Russians see this immediately and easily knock them out The only western fighter aircraft that is manufactured from the drawing board to be able to operate from bases in the forest is the Swedish SAAB 39 Gripen in wartime, Sweden must operate from bases in the forest to have any chance of operating our warplanes for any length of time The SAAB 39 Gripen is made to take off and land from normal roads and can be maintained by conscripts with a highly trained technical officer and costs much less in maintenance compared to the F16 The SAAB 39 Gripen can handle both American and European weapons such as the IRIS-T, the Metior missile and the Sjömålrobot 15 The Gripen A has performed well when participating in the Read Flag exercise, better than the F16 the only plane that was totally superior to the Gripen was the F22 this plane plays in a league of its own if you are interested, go to Gobal Defense crop and see what the SAAB 39 Gripen A performed in Alaska Red Flag exercise 2006 and it has not gotten worse, on the contrary the Gripen C and now the brand new Gripen E performs in a completely different class Or look at Professor Justin Bronk at RUSI, his particular areas of expertise include the modern combat air environment, Russian and Chinese ground-based air defenses and fast jet capabilities there are good videos on youtube watch Ward Carroll he spent 20 years in the U.S. Navy as an F-14 Radar Intercept Officer here they have a number of programs about which fighter plane is best suited to Ukraine and Justin Bronk at RUSI explains in a good way what is required of a plane that should be able to operate in Ukraine now Zelenskyj has asked Sweden a number of times for the SAAB 39 Gripen C but unfortunately Sweden has said no, I can only hope we change our mind but I doubt it Sweden should have been able to send 20-30 planes of the type c, the best would have been to send the e model Now this is not enough, so no matter what, Ukraine will need more fighter jets from the USA and the F16 is a good plane, how can they then be operated under the conditions Ukraine has, they have to solve somehow

[@DennisMerwood-xk8wp]

These F-16's flown by Ukranian pilots will not be ready to use before the war is over. And the Russians will destroy them on the ground anyway - along with their runways and airports.

[@loktom4068]

Hollywood comes first rescue.

[@infoscholar5221]

The F-16 would shoot the Mig d0wn, before the Mig could ever even know it was there. Manuver dogfights are a thing of the past, outside of the movies.

[@Smithsj82]

You are correct. American aircraft stop being built for dog fights after the F-4 retired. The armament system of a 16 is far superior to Russian junk. Iraq had Russian MiGs laying all over the desert. Russia has no idea what a laser guided bomb is.

[@realnapster1522]

Lol they are both 4th gen fighters. F16 has no advantage over Mig29.

[@34ccsn]

The proper comparison would be the mig 35 vs f 16.

[@thealonerunner8284]

That's why a F16 had been shoot down by MIG 21.

[@Smithsj82]

@@thealonerunner8284 Russia just might shoot down a couple of F-16’s. That’s ok! However the main objective is to bomb the hell out of Russian troops to clear the way for the offensive. I see a week of continuous bombardment of Russian troops 2 weeks prior to the offensive by aircraft, helicopters, HIMARS and artillery before the offensive begins. Once at Melitipol, HIMARS and GLSBD can takeout the Kerch Bridge, Railroad, Simferopol and Sevastopol. Attacking the dug in Russians in Crimea can be starved for food, water and ammunition.

[@KlipsenTube]

The F-15 was designed to replace earlier USAF fighters, but not all fighter pilots aggreed that a big, twin engined fighter with long range missiles was the best solution. Instead, they wanted a nimble fighter - and against all odds they got it in spades. For a hot war against Russia, it might be wise to get 3-4 basic F-16's instead of one F-35 ... just like it proved wise to get 2-3 F-16's instead of one F-15. Whatever they say about aircraft being replaceable, and pilots not so much, they also more willingly send pilots in cheap planes into combat, saving the expensive planes for "more important" targets.

[@charlotteantiquepowerengin6277]

Lol. Mig 29s used to fall out of the sky routinely...back in the 90s. They've only gotten worse

[@williamtell5365]

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.

[@mightyjoeyoung1390]

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

[@bjPops]

May I ask how many have you maintained?

[@BrandoDrum]

@@mightyjoeyoung1390 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.

[@realnapster1522]

@@BrandoDrum that’s not true. It’s still 4th gen and dated. US won’t sell then new gen fighters but old junk will be given to Ukraine.

[@LSmoney215]

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.

[@metafrast7422]

During training battles that were held in the USA, Ukraine and India, between the F-15 and Su-27, in short and long distances, the F-15 lost in most cases, I don’t think that the F-16 would have shown better results.

[@Desafinado30]

The F-15 has yet to lose in combat

[@metafrast7422]

@@Desafinado30 The F-15 has always been used in asymmetric military conflicts, where the enemy did not have normal air defense. However, as far as I know in 1979, an Israeli F-15 was shot down by a Syrian fighter. In 81g. according to Babich, one F-15 was shot down by a Syrian MiG-25p. In 82, one F-15 was damaged by a missile from a MiG-21MF, and in 83, one F-15 was allegedly shot down by a MiG-23. According to Yugoslavia: there is a photo from the F-15, from the pierced wing of which kerosene is gushing. On Iraq: in the 91st, in one of the briefings, the United States reported that "it seems that one of the American F-15s was shot down in an air battle." Heard this post myself. Then somehow everything was hushed up. A year later, the United States did admit one loss in aerial combat, but it was an F-18. According to Russian intelligence, during the first UIA in Iraq on the night of January 17, 1991, one F-15E was shot down in a MiG-25 using an R-40 missile. For example, the same story was with NATO in Yugoslavia, the propagandists were so zealous that they filmed their own downed F-15E and showed it to the whole world calling it MIG-29. On March 26, over Bosnia, Lieutenant Colonel Slobodan Peric (MIG-29 from 127 squadron 204 IAP "Knight Lazar Knights") shot down an American F-15E, after which he was shot down by another F-15. As for training battles, the F-15 lost in training battles to the Su-27 three times. It happened in the USA, India and Ukraine.

[@metafrast7422]

@@markmarco6277 Any aircraft is vulnerable to modern air defense, even the most modern aircraft.

[@ihatetrainyards4859]

@@markmarco6277 Had a tough time by shooting down the entire Iraqi Air Force without even one being shot down in combat and only a couple sustaining damage?

[@ihatetrainyards4859]

Yeah, weird sh*t happens in training, like that one time a swedish submarine sunk an entire carrier group despite that being impossible in reality.

[@AndrewVanDay]

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.

[@vic2265]

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.

[@Vrey662]

MiG 29 ❤ 🇵🇪

[@viswanath4473]

Except for engine

[@cliffisfuckingawesome3508]

You're wrong

[@mtbtrax1003]

@@cliffisfuckingawesome3508 he is right, russia is master of all flying tank turrets proves that, no other country can send tankparts into space

[@cliffisfuckingawesome3508]

@@mtbtrax1003 😂

[@ziadajam5433]

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

[@ziadajam5433]

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

[@davidnelson5474]

Fighter Aircraft do matter But it will always be the Pilot training that matters.

[@moorishnationalism63]

F 16 better

[@yunnayun9367]

no

[@recoil53]

Just the avionics and targeting were enough to put it over. There is a reason why standard Russian doctrine is to launch multiple missiles at once.

[@EasyPeasy_Japanesey]

​@@yunnayun9367 Yes

[@hehe-jg8zz]

doesn't matter if you don't know how to fly it

[@SunsetNova]

F16 is superior

[@danbell3827]

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.

[@galesams4205]

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.

[@watchthe1369]

It was also a budgetary necessity with a High-Low mix. The high end being the F-15 and generally expected to be only used by the USA and CLOSE allies. The f-16 was designed to be shared out to NATO whose countries were still recovering from WW2 the F-16 would be a cheaper high end option for those allies. It wasn't until the 80's that Europe started working at developing its own jets aside from Britain.

[@user-gi5iy4kf7g]

Well, that's the JAS Gripen Ukraine wants and probably the best plane for them too.

[@lucdelhaize4029]

It is not even a contest. Lower powered Grippen outperforms in everything except speed and speed is not everything unless it can be capitalised upon.

[@Kumpelblase397]

There arent enough Grippen around. Someone would would need to pull them out of Operational Flights. But there are more then enough F16 in Storage to supply Ukraine.

[@ch2onic]

@@lucdelhaize4029 Its not speed its energy what is a combo of both speed and altitude and it is very useful. how well you can turn wont mean a thing if you cant catch anyone or the fights over BVR

[@user-bq1zp2bu8o]

having been an F-16 Pilot for over 17 years, and dogfighting Mig 29, I can state unequivocally that this guys entire video is largely full of absolute bunk, with exception to the baseline history. I can gurantee the viper is FAR superior.

[@csinalabama]

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.

[@pinayinfrance2642]

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-xc2zv]

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!

[@pinayinfrance2642]

@@Maddog-xc2zv 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-xc2zv]

@@pinayinfrance2642 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.

[@andreig.3880]

Of course, the fact that the fulcrum is very maneuverable at low speeds is something that seems like it can be treated as a "what if?" But if we understand that for the same turn rate the F-16 pilot is simply squeezed like a lemon then it is clear. The fact that the F-16 turns with 9 g doesn't seem like an advantage to me, on the contrary. The fulcrum simply does not need so many g's to bend the trajectory... And we are not comparing in the vertical plane, where things are even clearer. To be honest, the "thrust to weight" ratio is defining for a fighter plane.

[@TheJackelantern]

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.

[@AndrewCampbell-ut6jk]

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.

[@johnstreet797]

they are pulling cadets out of flight school way to soon and sending them to die for no reason. sounds russian

[@stillamarine1001]

Two words sums this up. Superior capabilities.

[@hyperslow3810]

I just did some research. The MIG is only more agile at 200 knots or less. As soon as the speed goes up. The F-16 can get its nose around faster than the 29.

[@user-fg9ss3yl2m]

Great video, thank you for using miles.

[@jamesstreet228]

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.