F4:AF DACT BFM REPORT: F-16C-52 vs MiG-29S: BALANCED


There’s been some recent debates about this particular scenario purely in F4:AF. Since it’s common knowledge that the MiG isn’t modeled as detailed as the Viper, we leave most real world reports out of this dialogue, although occasional references are made where SIM and RL coalesce.

This particular scenario and debate surfaces often because it’s a common “problem” to the new Falconeer that is delving into the world of BFM after that first Campaign WVR meeting with a MiG and gets “handled”.

Against the AI there have been numerous posts, ACMIs, analysis, and tactical discussions that explain how to defeat the MiG. However, it is often been questioned whether the modeling inaccuracies within the MiG are enough to make it an all around superior BFM platform by comparison to the Viper in F4:AF. This is taking the pilot skill factor out of the equation and look at the scenario just purely from a statistical paper performance aspect. The only portion where pilot skill is present is the proficiency at which the tests were conducted in the ACMIs included with this report, and the calculations of his findings from aforementioned tests.

It’s been our conclusion that the aircraft performance comparisons are of such a balanced nature within their respective envelopes, the outcome of a DACT BFM engagement could only be decided by the skill of the individual pilots. This is also weighing the advantages and disadvantages each aircraft has on paper. The weight factor was taken from historical BFM accounts where the DACT similarities are consistent with our current tests.

Since RL comparisons to this DACT scenario could be argued, we’ve also taken the liberty to record live head to head ACMI footage between pilots of relatively equal skill, and each had them fly vs the other taking turns with the MiG and Viper. This simulates, or highlights the points at which each aircraft can capitalize on one or more of their advantages. Basically, it gives a live picture of the statistical data is executed from the perspective of two pilots, both having the opportunity to fly both aircraft in DACT head to head. This portion of the report can be made available upon request. While related and is an excellent demonstration of what is seen here on paper, it still maintains the arguable “piloting skill” factor.

Included at the bottom of this work are the ACMIs and datasheet of most of the recorded tests. Any requests, questions, or concerns regarding the film and datasheet, or a desire for more info; by all means ask.

Therefore, I’ll get into the individual short reports of the specific performance areas covered.


Sustained Turn Rate: MiG-29S

From 15,000 to Sea Level both at Max Clean Gross Weight (MCGW) and under Bingo Fuel the MiG enjoys a better turn rate of an average of 2 degrees per second more (DPS). It also enjoys a tighter radius, therefore making it a slightly faster and tighter turning aircraft. The MiG’s preferred corner speeds from 15,000 to SL are just below the F-16s, and is more pronounced below 330 knots where the MiG benefits from high AoA maneuvers without the penalty of accurate drag modeling. This also matches real world reports where the MiG enjoys tighter turning, and nose pointing authority below the F-16s lower corner speeds.

However, as a result of cornering at lower speeds, the MiG gives up vertical generalship because of the speed difference of Viper and MiG cornering in their respective envelopes. We’ve also discovered as the MiG draws closer to the cornering speeds of the Viper, the MiG pilot suffers higher g-loading longer than the Viper. Considering all pilots g-loading tolerance in Falcon are equal, longer, higher g-loading causes pilot fatigue sooner. Obviously, this forces an extension, speed and G reduction, or unloading to reduce fatigue therefore reducing turn effectiveness.

So while the MiG enjoys slightly better turning, it doesn’t come without cost. This is an excellent DACT balance.

Max Instantaneous Turn Rate: MiG-29S

From 15,000 to Sea Level both at MCGW and under Bingo Fuel the MiG enjoys a faster MITR and tighter radius downhill. Its radius advantage is not as prevalent here, but the rate advantage downhill is near 3 DPS faster. This makes it a dangerous opponent when armed with all aspect IR, and HMS across a two circle merge.

Thrust to Weight Comparisons: Balanced

In vertical climb tests between the two aircraft, it has been determined that the performance is so close, that only piloting skill can make the difference. Executing 4G climb outs to 90 vertical produced very close numbers on max altitude reached.

Due to the closeness of the tests, vertical maneuvering while at similar energy states is balanced and can only be separated by piloting skill.

Roll Rate and Maneuverability: F-16C-52

Roll rate tests were confirmed to be roughly equal once the aircraft started actual movement. However, we also noticed that the Viper’s response time to stick inputs is faster than the MiG’s. This gives the Viper superior maneuverability in changing angle of bank for desired plane of motion. It should also be mentioned that the MiG also suffers from over-roll inertia by comparison to the Viper putting it at another time disadvantage for precise angle of bank choices prior to moving in a particular plane of motion.

Deceleration: F-16C-52

From 15,000 to Sea Level the Viper enjoys about equal to the MiG from it’s upper to lower corner speeds in both planes of motion. However, as the fight proceeds below the Viper’s corner speeds (such as entering a rolling scissors, downhill leafing fights, or other slower types of BFM maneuvers) the F-16 slows down considerably faster.

Like in many RL HUD tapes we see, this is consistent with engagements that go from hard cornering to geometric advantage at slower speeds for the kill. This is also consistent in F4:AF whether fighting the AI, or another human opponent.

It should also be mentioned that straight and level flight deceleration favors the MiG of course due to its less aerodynamic design and heavier weight. The reason the Viper enjoys maneuvering deceleration advantage is due to it’s AoA+drag modeling, obviously as AoA increases so does the surface area to the wind causing more drag. The MiG doesn’t have as many breakpoints modeled as the Viper, which is also why we see the MiG's superior turn rates from slower speeds when the Viper is in mid to upper corner.

Acceleration: F-16C-52

From 15,000 to Sea Level the Viper enjoys greater acceleration. There is one place at SL where the MiG accelerates faster from 700 to 800 knots but that is due to its faster top speed at SL.

It should be noted that from Sea Level to 15,000 the Viper’s acceleration advantage increases and has a higher top speed than the MiG at 15,000.

This acceleration advantage enables allows the Viper greater ease of engaging and disengaging from the ability to accelerate far enough from the MiG to ensure a new neutral merge, full escape, or making it more difficult for the MiG to escape should he disengage. This also allows for the Viper to regain energy faster in unloaded situations, effectively allowing it to counter the turn fighting MiG with an angle fight of its own.

Top Speed: F-16C-52

While at Sea Level the MiG enjoys a faster top speed by .4 MACH, or approximately 40 knots, the Viper dominates as you increase altitude all the way up to 15,000. At this altitude the Viper simply walks away from the MiG. This allows the Viper from altitude to simply, escape, horizontally or vertically extend and reenter the fight at its leisure.



Dive: Balanced

In dive tests from 30,000 and 20,000 down to an altitude of 10,000 the Viper’s small increase in performance isn’t enough to make much of a difference. This was only tested at a 50deg dive angle.

Armament: F-16C-52

This is comparing the Gsh-30-1 and M61 A1 guns in F4AF. The Viper enjoys an advantage here simply to rate of fire, and amount of projectiles in the air during a short burst by comparison to the MiG. More projectiles in the air increase hit percentage. Although the HUD symbology for both aircraft is the same, the MiG suffers from the pipper not lining up with a “kill” gun solution of pipper on target. Due to the aligning of the gun one must be forced to guestimate further and aim a bit left of the target to increase probability of a hit.

It should be noted that the 30mm damage effects from the MiG are worrisome and is indeed modeled. However, this isn’t enough to make up for its non-calibrated aiming system, and slower rate of fire.

Finally, surface area to shoot at (hit box) compared to number of projectiles fired goes definitely in the Viper’s advantage. The MiG has a larger hit box, and more rounds on target from a Viper kill shot. Unfortunately range and ballistic effects to 20mm vs 30mm, bullet dispersion at increasing ranges beyond 3000 etc are not modeled.

Conclusion:

It’s been our conclusion before this report, and remains afterwards that in F4:AF the differences in DACT BFM performance are not enough to declare one aircraft superior over the other, but that piloting ability decides the outcome.

The weight of the individual advantages and disadvantages are at margins that do not allow for commanding control over a DACT BFM engagement.

On a final note, please be advised that all of our live combat testing between humans taking turns flying each aircraft, has been consistent with our findings during pre-flight analysis. All pilots flying both sides are of relatively similar skill levels, although this is subjective, it balances during the aircraft exchange and secondary hop.

Thanks for reading,
The Aggressor Order

<click below>
ACMIs and DATA SHEET

EDIT: ACMI Database Directory

ACMI Database