I was doing some quick looking and the answer I got was the F-18 would have an edge in long range combat but the Mig would be more likely to win in a dogfight - but like what I'd classify the Eurofighter Typhoon vs the Rafale, each has I'd say a partial advantage in one area (Rafale for ground attack (it has a greater range and one more hardpoint), carrier capabilities and cost [cost per hour of flight], Eurofighter for air to air), it's a it depends on the equipped radar and missiles and if the pilot is rested and skilled...
@@FirstNameLastName-tg3rc I think that unless you mean cost per flight hour, the Rafale is a lot more expensive than Typhoon because of low production volumes
@@Ry_TSG That is what I mean (and thanks for pointing it out although I was looking at per unit cost and the answer I got for that was the same to Eurofighter being more expensive).
The hornet doesn’t fall behind by a noticeable amount in instantaneous turn rates. In a 1 circle nose to nose turn fight, cobra is entirely useless so at that point it’s pilot skill that determines the outcome of the dogfight since these 2 aircraft perform somewhat similarly.
In modern air combat there will be no "dogfighting" and the aircraft with the best radar and longest range missiles will win the day. The "cobra" maneuver is great for airshows but has no practical use in combat.
@@simul8guy75 Not necessarily, radar locks can be stunted and missiles can miss. there are many situations that can lead to a dogfight, but the cobra maneuver is for sure a bad idea in combat
Near the end of this video it was said that both planes are equal and that it was the pilot of each that determined the resolution of any conflict between them if one occurred and I agree wholeheartedly.
The Super Hornet replaced the Hornet. The Super Hornet's replacement - the F-18 Mega Hornet - will be operational in the next decade. The uber Mega Hornet is expected to be ready by 2040. Sadly, none of us will not be alive by the time the F-18 Ultra Super Mega Awesome Hornet is operational.
I see right away an important point was missed. The Hornet can take off at its full weight and fuel capacity, from a carrier. The MIG cannot. Because the Russian carrier doesn't have a catapult and uses a ski jump instead
See that’s where you’re wrong. The MiG-29K is an exception. The above mentioned problem applies to the Sukhoi Su-33 and Shenyang J-15 due to their massive empty weight. The MiG-29, being lighter, can carry its full combat load of 4.5 tons.
The American pilots have a huge training advantage over their Russian counterparts. Unless you are a Russian pilot flying in one of their two flight demonstration teams, your actual training time in the air is significantly less than American pilots. The Russian GDP just can’t support both the equipment procurement costs and aggressive training hours. Advantage Super Hornet.
Thank you for adding at the end that it would depend on the pilot's flying skills because you can't go by specifications of an aircraft. I remember reading about Chuck Yeager when he was summoned to test fly and go over a North Korean Mig-15 that was captured after the pilot defected with it. First, Yeager flew an F-86 against it and was able to outfly it in a simulated dogfight, getting on its tail for what would've been a shoot down in real life. Next, Yeager switched and flew the Mig and outflew the F-86 and was able to get on its tail. And what was the reason the Top Gun school was formed in 1969?
looking at them in Ukraine the Russian pilots aren't to flash infact every facet of their armed forces are not great, so I think id like to be in any of the US fighters I think they are far better pilots and have had war experience well trained and the Top Gun school put out great pilots, look at the Israel their are great pilots and are rarely beaten in a fight. I think the Russians would be in deep shit if they haft to go up against F22s or F35s
If I'm being honest, I'm biased. I've always liked the F/A-18.. especially, the Super Hornet. Combined with its superior avionics n more reliable ordnance, I believe it's the better plane. As far as I'm aware, alot of the MiG's super-maneouverability is dependent on payload n fuel carriage.
The AOA of the hornet and fulcrum isn’t too different. Both have large leading edge root extensions that generate large vortices over the wings to increase lift particularly in instantaneous turn rates and high angles of attack.
that is true however in a dog fight guns only, the mig 29 has the advantage by the fact they its high thrust and low weight. that enables it to turn fight the F/A18 much better. that is if you ever get in a dog fight without missiles and both be trained equally. like that's ever gonna happen.
I don't think the Mig 29 has the same aoa as the hornet. If i'm not mistaken the mig has a 26 degree AoA limiter where as the hornet isn't AoA limited. The mig can of course bypass the flight control system and it's AoA limit but it's supposedly slugging once it gets slow where as the hornet is very nimble at slow speeds. The Mig does have pretty nose authority without the cobra button, but it's more of a point defense interceptor and rate fighter. They are close enough within visual range that it's probably going to come down to the better pilot or particular circumstances at the merge, but outside of visual range the super hornet has a major advantage with it's superior aesa radar.
@@yujinhikita5611 That's assuming the Hornet pilot lets himself get duped into a rate fight. The Mig has a major disadvantage in that can't carry much fuel. If he's going to rate fight the hornet he's going to be sitting in full burner which will mean he is on the clock.
I’m surprised of the range and payload of the Russian aircraft. I thought aircraft not catapulted had limitations in payload and fuel load. Not to mention fuel load burn during take off.
Fokker Triplane vs. Sopwith Camel Me-109 vs. Spitfire F-86 Sabre vs. Mig-15 FA-18 Super Hornet vs MiG-29 same - same in each case, depends on tactical situation and pilot skill.
The one factor in these style of videos can't account for is the skill and talent of the crew. And the corruption in the Russian military is so high that I wouldn't be shocked if these aircraft are under maintained
The FA-18 is not an all out fighter, it is a fighter bomber. It is, in fact, the first in its class to knock out an enemy plane and go on to successfully bomb a target.
Nice video of a Mig-29 launching from a Russian 'Ski Ramp' carrier deck and it looks impressive but there is one problem with this, Mig-29 cannot carry any munitions when launched from a 'Ski Ramp' carrier deck, the aircraft is too heavy, it would drop like a rock into the drink. The Russians have 1 aircraft carrier and it is a POS, it rarely leaves the dock because of mechanical issues. The Mig 29 carrying ordnance can only be launched from a ground based runway and they have limited range when loaded with ordnance. Russian jets look impressive but you don't see the incredible mechanical issues they have with that jet. The pilots are poorly trained because they can't keep enough jets flyable to train them. This is the real truth.
@@fanfeck2844 The navy is very capable. Over 70 percent of the military is modernize idiot. Even this video shows that the Mig is more modernized than the f18. Stop spreading propaganda
Beautiful jet fighers. Both of them. I can only imagine what airplane will come if the engineers of both companies will work together. I like the shape of the mig-29.
in 2022 we can safely assume the MiG-29K is an overall inferiour fighter to all western Jets in service. But its the doktrin, to allow for praise for the Russian "High-Tech" :)
In the Gulf war, a F/A-18 hornet was able to shoot down a Mig-29 from beyond visual range. The super hornet is even more capable than it's predecessor and has proven itself since it's introduction. The Mig 29k's in service with the Indian navy have proven to be unreliable and problematic.
The super hornet is slower, heavier, with lower thrust to weight ratio than the original f 18. The only thing it can do better is fly further and carry a bit more ordinance.
@@cfisher11 yes as now the f18E will be in operation until 2060 with the block 3 upgrade and tbh it's the us 3rd most stealth fighter jet in service rn, as the block 3 will make the rcs lower then 0.5 square meters and the f18 is getting more range with two 515gal conformal fuel tanks as the f18 is really a underrated fighter jet as it is really good in both bombing runs and air to air combat.
@@sophoniasmessele Not necessarily. The Rhino is also maneuverable, but has better energy retention and can therefore hold out longer in the fight. It also has better low-speed handling. And it's also likely that the Rhino would never get close enough to dogfight anything. The BVR capability outmatches the Russian jets by qn absurd amount.
Idk how russia has one of the biggest navies when they literally have 1 aircraft carrier and a handful of surface combatant ships I know they have a large amount of submarines but by comparison to the US's navy size its not even close especially on the surface
Typo at 2:45 should say 57,400ft for the MIG-29k also the FA-18 can be piloted solo or with a co-pilot. The single pilot is the F/A-18E and the dual pilots is the F/A-18F.
Well this post has aged badly, with war between Russia and the rest of us being more of a probability than a possibility now than it has in 35-40 years
I think they are both extremely dangerous with the Russian possibly having the advantage during the dog fight but, the mission is to take each other out and the one who can see the opponents first, will have the first opportunity to accomplish the mission. As principle, to accomplish the objectives, one must keep focused of the objetcs therefore (keep eyes on the ball) if one of the pilots cannot see the object or losses sight of it, he is less likely to accomplish such objectives. F/A-18 Super hornet is most likely to accomplish it one on one. The Americans have 608? That increases the possibility of taking the migs down 80%.
I like how they show the MiG parts sped up a bit and they showed the Hornet barely doing anything. I know for a fact that a Hornet with a good pilot is capable of much much more and can do pretty much anything the MiG can do and more. Both amazing machines; it always comes down to the pilot. I have always heard that Russian planes have reliability issues, etc. But don't know how true that is. The SuperHornet has a bit of an edge when it comes to BVR range and may have more modern avionics. Let's just pray to God in Heaven that we never have to find out which is better.
The F 18 is not an air Dominus fighter they have 35 an F 22 would be escorting them through a country like Russia comparison it’s not accurate due to the fact F 18 is a bomb delivery aircraft with a couple air defense missiles
Soviet/Russian navy doctrines werent the same. Russian ship Admiral Kuznetsov, isnt classed as aircraft carrier, but missile cruiser with airplanes on it. Russian aircrafts on ship are there to protect the ship, not to attack other countries. Ships purpose is to attack other ships with supersonic antiship missiles P500 and P700. Su33 carrier fighter can carry antiship missiles. But its main purpose is defending the ship. Just like other big Russian ships, their purpose is massive missile attack on enemy navy fleet. They never wanted to compete with US in number of aircraft carriers, as its bottomless pit for economy, they simply changed purpose of their carriers. USSR had 3 carriers, one got into Ukraine, and two in Russia. Russia sold one to India, and Ukraine sold one to China. India and China dont use antiship missiles on their carriers, but use them solely as aircraft carriers.
The only Russian aircraft carrier is a pile of garbage that has been out of service for 3 years, had a major accident in drydock, and probably won't be back in service for another 3 years. Even then it will be obsolete in comparison to US nuclear-powered super carriers.
@@simul8guy75 also can’t even be close to the same amount of armament and fuel load taken off the Russian skateboard jump they got instead of catapult lol ( not sure how much more the us can take off with , just know it’s definitely a huge advantage)
Actually, if you really want to compare US vs Russian carrior borne aircraft, The F-18 would win, any number of US aircraft taking off from a carrier fs zero taking off a Russian carrier. Russia hasn't had a fit carrier for several years now since the Adm Kuznetzov had a fire and since then has been home ported undergoing repairs (which Russia probably will never complete). In other words, Russia doesn't have a carrier, so can't have carrier borne aircraft. But even when the Adm Kuznetzov was sailing, because it isn't a CATOBAR and uses a ski jump, it's unlikely that any aircraft like the MIG-29 could take off with more than about half its ordinance and fuel... maybe less.
Ain’t gonna lie the Mig-29 Fulcrum has had my heart since I first saw one as a young kid. Our F/A-18s are the epitome of hideous. Nothing about hornets or super hornets is pretty. It’s a mediocre fighter, say what you want. You’re entitled too your words and opinion this is just mine and it isn’t meant to trigger or anger any of you, you good? Ok but let’s be honest the Mig-29 is just fucking gorgeous! They’re easily the most attractive Russian fighter jet, sukhoi are impressive but they’re gawky and oddly shaped, the fulcrum is just that, perfect at any angle.
Legacy hornets aren't in service with the US Navy and they are not equally armed the aim-120 is superior to the r77 the super hornet also has Superior range
As an experienced Air Intercept Controller with knowledge of systems and tactics that can't be discussed here, the MiG-29 would never get within range for maneuverability to be a factor. Flankers would be a challenge, but even those would find themselves on the defensive before they could close enough to engage.
@@bear6284 That advantage was many years ago during testing after the cold war ended in the 1990's. "Vympel R-73 (NATO reporting name AA-11 Archer) off-boresight short-range air-to-air missile, the MiG-29 Fulcrums had a clear advantage in dogfights over the Western counterpart, the US Air Force F/A-18 Hornet." That was 2 generations of missiles ago. The American avionics have greatly improved since then. Almost all engagements are BVR. I would bet on the F-18.
@@stuartwiner7920 but the mig 29 is still a better dogfighter due to its manueverability. Do you know wich country has best electronic warfare systems?
@@bear6284 Maneuverability is less important in beyond-visual-range engagements. Avionics and missiles are more important. That's why the West usually wins.
@@stuartwiner7920 has the west ever fought russia before no so how doe the west always win . Also just answer if you know wich country excel and is in number 1 in electronic warfare .
It's typical that russia focuses more on maneuverability and firepower, the US focuses more on superior technology and targeting systems. Which doctrine is superior? I guess that depends if the russians can outmaneuver the missiles that the americans are already firing from 50 miles outside of the russians radar range and get close enough to counter.
With way better upgrades and radar not to mention communication from other fighter jets like the F-35 aiding and assisting the FA-18 platform the Russian migs don't stand a chance.im not so sure even a su-57 can defeat the new upgraded block 3's because of technology
Fighter planes from Russia have weak avionics systems and spare parts are hard to get... So the best choice for a super monuaver is to use Russian planes and mix avionics systems from other countries that are more trusted.
The answer is no. No, there is no comparison. Hornet wins. It's not even close. And even comparing the Russian navy to the US Navy is beyond laughable. Role it back to one Carrier Group and its still barely comparable.
BOEING F/1A8 super HORNET is better than soviet mig29 fulcrum the mig29 has look down shoot down an mig29 shot down a mig29 in training the amram fire and forget missile PIOLT aim and fire the fighter doesn't have to see the shot HORNET in action since 1986 Libya and desert storm 1991 VS mig29 no changes in he'll but I take the super HORNET over mig29
Get your facts straight. The Hornet fighter is a single seat aircraft. The EA Growler is the dual seat electronic warfare platform. The Hornet has been in service since way before '99. Not even two minutes into this crappy video and you get that much wrong already!?!?!?!? Sad. Thumbs down.
Fa 18 low cost more robustvwith better avionocs.but the Mig is way more maneuverable and speed .also cost be far less. Upgraded avioniçs and robustness would make it well above the fa18. F5 with big modifiivations.low vost
I guess the last few months have shown the world that the Mig 29 is not all that anymore? I agree with Westley, the Mig will never get in range of the F-18 to use any of it bitchen aerodynamic capabilities.What I know is that I would not want to be a Russia, or Chinese pilot having to go up against American F-18s.
Yeah but what he didn’t even dwell on is the price of each plane and that for the cost of 1 F18 you can have 2 Mig29’s. So that’s 2 Migs versus 1 F18 actually. Lol.
I think the Mig 29 is faster and more maneuverable longer range. In all out dog fight carriers against carriers, the F16 would clearly win. Russia has no working carrier
The one who can detect the other farthest and shoot first would win which would be the f18, and thats why the US has spent billions in developing advanced radar systems.
The answer is...the USAF would win, because the Russians suck at coordinated combat. It's not about which airplane is better. It's about which team is better.
It’s hands down the Hornet to prevail over the MIG, the Hornet can see further, quicker, the Hornet has better trained Naval pilots, they get a lot more time in the air to train, and lastly, Russian weapons system to not perform as advertised , just look at Its performance in Ukraine
one thing to be said about it. i dont know much about either of these models seeing as im not much of an engineer or aerodynamics scientist or anything and the closest i can get to info on these is internet data and sims so not the 100% most effective sources of data but even watching Mil-flight sims i can say that super maneuverability isnt everything in a fight and may even be fatal in a fight if not used right. not saying it dosnt have its place but thats just it its a one off scenario if you do something like a post stall maneuver. especially seeing as the hornet is really good in high AoA fights aswell. i would venture to say that in the proper fight at the proper time either could score a close range kill if they employ their best skills. but i do like both airframes cause they both got their querks but still good comparison of the two. thumbs up for highlighting many of their good features
So it has a better targeting radar than the MiG 29. Face it the F18 is a slug. It flies and climbs slower, it turns slower. WTF. It costs twice as much.
Fighting each other from long distance I give the edge to the Super Hornet as it has superior radar and avionics. The American pilots would most likely use tactics that would keep them outside of the Migs killing range and shoot first in this scenario.
@@appa609 The missile has similar range, but you have to detect your target before you can lock-on and launch. The MiG-29 is unable to support the weapon to it's full range.
Миг 29 это фронтовой истребитель, созданный для поддержки сухопутных войск, защиты от самолетов противника. Он и спроэктирован для этих целей. F-18 сделан для авиансца т.е это совсем другое назначение, также F18 более тяжелый. Зачем их сравнивать? Они разные и выполняют разные задачи. Как для меня оба хорошо спроэктированы инженерами и просто красивые.
I would say a carrier aircraft has that exact same mission. Defend the aircraft carrier and support ground troops and attack ground targets. Mig29 is a point defense fighter from what I understand. So wouldn’t that be the same as defending an aircraft carrier? I think the f 18 would more likely see a su27 but yeah. I think comparing the mig 29 to f18 makes sense. Su27 makes more sense I guess.
@@forfun6273 мой друг ты прав в общих значениях, но самолеты разные. Они разные как кроссовер и легковое авто ,потому что решают разные задачи. Ты пытаешься убедить что это оба истребителя и в этом я с тобой согласен. А кого первей увидит вопрос риторический. Потому что у обоих множество модернизаций и РЛС и вооружения. Поэтому как получится.. И какой будет летчик. Явного преимущества нет. Извини за плохой почерк..
@@ВладимирБва-х2и that makes sense. The F-18 was made for an aircraft carrier. The mig 29 was made to fill a different purpose. I like the mig 29 better then the F18 and F16 anyway. The aircraft’s by themselves minus all technology and missiles the mig 29 is just superior in my opinion.
