After the fall of iron curtain East German pilots trained with western pilots and against F-16s too. Those excercises showed that MiG-29 was superior in dog fight. Big part of this dog fight superiority was due the helmet mounted sights in (on??) MiGs and off-boresight missiles- never to mention excellent passive IR tracking sensor(s). but in larger scale excercises (many aircraft on both sides) western tactics & command & control of airwar were proven to be much better and kill-ratio turned against MiGs. In duel they were superior- I don´t remember exactly what was the kill-ratio (results of those excercises were published and analyzed in Finnish Military magazines in the first half of 90´s) but it was at least 1:3 or even more. It´s interesting that the Finnish military originally planned to use AMRAAMs in F/A-18s as BVR missiles and for close combat they wanted to use Israeli off-boresight missiles (Python-??) or Russian Archers which both use helmet mounted sights- both system could have been integrated in F/A-18 but Americans didnt allow the use of foreign weapon systems in those fighters.

I suppose we have to look at the historys of each machine.The F16 is a strike fighter,and considered the "cheap" Multirole kite of choice to bulk out the USAFs numbers. The 29 is a dedicated Air to Air platform.its like putting a ME-110 up against a P51 and saying,hey these Zestorers must suck.A better option for comparison is F15c Vs Mig29.Thats more role for role.Personally i reckon the WVR battle goes to the Fulcrum here.But does WVR matter?Not according to the pilots.(source: Nick Richardsons book "no escape zone")In a few years,(2-5),the fulcrum will be facing F22's. Goodnight Irene.

Original F-16 and MiG-29 were both air-to-air fighters and ground attack capabilities have been later added on F-16. Such a process is on the way on MiG-29 modernization program too but basically Russian have fallen far behind in this process. Basically they have a plane that could match F-16 in ground attack capability (MiG-29SMT and MiG-29UBT) but they don´t have money to bring them in field use. Russian equivalent of F-15 is basically Su-27 and it´s derivatives, but I think that later sukhoi models are better than F-15s although it cannot be said for sure because there hasn´t been fights between Su-27s and western aircraft. In Africa (Ethiopia vs Eritrea)Su-27s downed MiG-29s but it can be also due better pilots. Of course the original Su-27 is not good when comparing to modernized F-15.

Tommy, Mustarvis is correct about the history of the F-16. And, the fact that the F-16s ground attack capabilities were added later didn't prevent it from becoming an outstanding ground attack platform. In fact, when the Israelis destroyed the Iraqi nuclear weapons facility at Osirak (the one which didn't exist, according to the UN), they used F-16s for the precision bombing. The F-15s were there for escort purposes, only. Mustarvis, I had an interesting conversation with a retired American fighter pilot a while back. A very senior pilot. He said that the orginal F-16s, the "A" models were the best dogfighters he had ever flown. As the program evolved, they hung more and more new systems onto the airframe to give added capabilities. By the time the "C" models came in, the plane was capable of far more missions than it had been orginally designed for, but had added so much additional weight that the manuevering capabilities had noticably degraded. The later models were less capable dogfighters, but could engage BVR and be used for all sorts of strike missions the original plane couldn't do. bsl

Yeah,just looked it up in my big boys book of combat jets.I must be utterly rusty to forget the Falcon was a airsuperiority platform initally. Time to get genned up on this area,the last time i went through a "aircraft phrase" was '94.

Why are we comparing the F-18 to a Mig 29? A multirole aircraft with an emphasis on strike missions against a dedicated air to air fighter? I've said it beforre, I'll say it again: For "any given situation", there is a better jet than the F-18 hornet, but, there is no better "plane for any given situation" than the F-18 Hornet.

I would just mention that the Danish Air Force have upgraded their F-16A with AMRAAM.

F18 with AMRAAM and in the case of the RAAF ASRAAM should come out on top in a REAL shooting match. Couple AWACS, ECM & Data Link.

First shot BVR (which is dependent on avionics and disposeable armament, not the aircraft) and a generally higher fuel state? The best generalist out there, but it might be surpassed by other aircraft in any role? Not ringing endorsements of the F-18. Which makes sense, since it was never as good as a fully funded multirole F-14 would have been, and wasted develompent/production funding that could have gone to more F-14s at reduced per-unit cost. The F-18 is basically a lightweight fighter (F-17) burdened with a load of extra fuel and carrier alterations. Hence its flight performance is unspectacular as is the resultant fuel/weapons compromise. They regularly get wiped by F-16s in excersises. It's not surprising that the same thing would happen vs. MIG-29s, which are in concept basically F-17s taken a step farther.

What are we talking? War fighting capability? F18 beaten by F16? Who & where? If F18 gets first shot with AMRAAM-generally the case against early export variants-it has an unenviable advantage. After the merge, depending on the speed of the fight, other factors come into play-pilot ability and alpha. F14 is a good airplane for only one country-the USA. Nobody else could aford such an expensiv and initially specialised capability. And the F18, in an ideal world, will enter the fight with a higher fuel state. Couple this with AMRAAM and you have a distinct advantage over the 29. When a Hornet and a 29 meet in play over the skies of Germany, it is an Exercise in perishable skills. Dogfighting. Probable not the full ECM, AWACS, BVR nightmare a Mig29 driver will face in the real world.