brummer@cc.helsinki.fi (03/18/91)
From: brummer@cc.helsinki.fi I read somewhere that the Israeli Airforce had many encounters with Syrian Migs during the campaign in Lebanon beginning of 80. What was the drop ratio? As I understood it the F-15 and F-16 -planes handled remarkably. These planes would interest me, because Finland is going to renew its airforce and buy 60 new fighters. Under discussion are Mig-29, Mirage 2000(?), Saab Gripen and F-16. Is the F-16 really up-to-date anymore? How would a F-16 handle against a Mig-25 or -29? (have there been any encounters? I don't really know too much about planes) 51 years ago:13.3.1940 the finish winterwar ended after 100 days of severe fighting between Finland (4 million inhabitants) and the Soviet Union leaving Finland its independence. Too bad we can't choose our neighbours... Brummer@cc.Helsinki.fi <Mirko Brummer>
hnkst2@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Hanhwe N. Kim) (03/19/91)
From: "Hanhwe N. Kim" <hnkst2@unix.cis.pitt.edu> In article <1991Mar18.003736.23374@cbnews.att.com> brummer@cc.helsinki.fi writes: > > >From: brummer@cc.helsinki.fi >I read somewhere that the Israeli Airforce had many encounters with >Syrian Migs during the campaign in Lebanon beginning of 80. >What was the drop ratio? As I understood it the F-15 and F-16 -planes >handled remarkably. These planes would interest me, because Finland is >going to renew its airforce and buy 60 new fighters. >Under discussion are Mig-29, Mirage 2000(?), Saab Gripen and F-16. >Is the F-16 really up-to-date anymore? >How would a F-16 handle against a Mig-25 or -29? (have there been any >encounters? I don't really know too much about planes) > The Isreali Airforce in its conflict with Syria over lebannon's Bekka Valley achieved a drop ratio of something like 70+ to 1. The Israelis flew f15's and f16s, supported by Awacs on Hawkeyes (propeller driven E2's used by the US Navy rather than the E3's used by the USAF) and used RPV's (remotely piloted vehicles) to find and attack SAMs. The Syrians flew mig23's and were supported by SAMs. In addition to reconfirming the skill of Israeli pilots the conflict demonstrated the potency of having Awacs: The Awacs operators were able to see the Syrians taking off and able to direct f15s and f16s in a manner that insured that Israeli pilots would have numerical superiority on each encounter ... I can't remember where I read this.. The f16 itself is a very agile plane with good dogfighting capabilities, and probably will not be outclassed by the other choices. Recently, air warfare specialists seem to be of the opinion that pilot skill and especially actual combat experience, or realistic training like the US navy's Top gun school and USAF's red flag exercises are more important than marginal advantages in weopon range, air speed, etc. The instructors at the USAF Red flag exercises are top rate pilots and fly really cheap f5's(freedom fighters) against f15/16's, and usually win! Also among really good pilots, numerical advantage in a dogfight is a very big plus ... and hence the advantage of airborne radar and control. In light of the complete ineffectiveness of the Iraqi air defense against an Awacs armed invader, I'd suggest that finland and other small countries that have to be 'porcupines' to defend against potentially technologically AND numerically superior invaders consider integrated dispersed groundbased electronic countermeasures against Awacs and soviet Il-79(? radar planes, or surface to air anti-radiation missiles. Just my opinion of course -Han Kim
v059l49z@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Paul C Stacy) (03/19/91)
From: v059l49z@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Paul C Stacy) In article <1991Mar18.003736.23374@cbnews.att.com>, brummer@cc.helsinki.fi writes... >What was the drop ratio? As I understood it the F-15 and F-16 -planes I think someone stated here awhile back that at one time it was about 128:0 against Syrian MiGs. I know that the Israelis did very well overall. >How would a F-16 handle against a Mig-25 or -29? (have there been any >encounters? I don't really know too much about planes) Against a MiG-25, no real contest. It's next to useless in a dogfight (though it would get off the first shot as most any plane would since the F-16 doesn't have beyond-visual-range ability (yet.)) Against a -29 it would probably often come down to pilot ability. As for encounters with -29's and F-16's I don't know of any (at least that anyone is talking about.) Paul "Joe Friday" Stacy
jln@leland.stanford.edu (Jared Nedzel) (03/19/91)
From: jln@leland.stanford.edu (Jared Nedzel) In article <1991Mar18.003736.23374@cbnews.att.com> brummer@cc.helsinki.fi writes: >From: brummer@cc.helsinki.fi >I read somewhere that the Israeli Airforce had many encounters with >Syrian Migs during the campaign in Lebanon beginning of 80. >What was the drop ratio? Israel shot down about 80 Syrian aircraft and lost only 2 of its own (they were lost to ground fire, not air-air combat). > As I understood it the F-15 and F-16 -planes >handled remarkably. While the results in the 1980 Israel-Syrian conflict can be partly attributed to technology, don't discount the affects of skill and training. The IAF is reknowned as one of the world's best air forces. Syrian pilots are not anywhere near as well regarded. The IAF also had superior aircraft (F-15s and F-16s vs. Mig-23s) and AWACS planes while the Syrian radar sites were damaged and jammed. >These planes would interest me, because Finland is >going to renew its airforce and buy 60 new fighters. >Under discussion are Mig-29, Mirage 2000(?), Saab Gripen and F-16. >Is the F-16 really up-to-date anymore? The F-16 first flew in 1977, so it is not new technology. It is still a potent aircraft, though. A major limitation of the plane has been the lack of a beyond-visual-range missile. Hopefully that will change as AMRAAM comes on line. (I hope this won't start another "radar-missiles aren't any good" flame war. Radar-guided missiles have dramatically improved since the Vietnam war and apparently scored the first kill of the Gulf War.) >How would a F-16 handle against a Mig-25 or -29? (have there been any >encounters? I don't really know too much about planes) The Mig-25 is a high-altitude, high-speed interceptor. It was developed by the USSR to counter the XB-70 high-altitude Mach 3 bomber that the US was developing in the '60s (and which was canceled). Some versions of the Mig-25 have reached Mach 3 (which is a whole lot faster than the F-16), but it is reported that after doing so the engines were pretty well shot (see Belenko, Viktor, "Mig Pilot" -- an autobiography of a Mig-25 pilot who defected with his plane to Japan). The Mig-25 has terrible pilot visibility and is very unmaneuverable. It also has a relatively short range. In sum, an out-dated plane that has severe limitations. (Note that the USSR has produced a successor to the Mig-25, [Mig-31??]. I don't know much about its capabilities, though.) The Mig-29 is another story entirely. It is certainly more comparable to the F-16. It has thrust/weight ratio a bit better than 1, it is *very* manuverable, and it has an excellent infrared search-and-track system slaved to the pilots helmet. Avionics are said to be back in the steam-dial age, though (like the F-4). Although Mig-29s were shot down in the Gulf War by allied pilots, I wouldn't write off the Mig-29 as being inferior; the Iraqi pilots were not known for their skill at dogfighting and they had lost their ground-control radar intercept capability, while the allied pilots were able to rely on AWACS aircraft for radar control. Western pilots who have flown the Mig-29 were quite impressed (Aviation Week has run pilot reports on both the Mig-29 and Su-27 in the past year.) >Brummer@cc.Helsinki.fi <Mirko Brummer> > -- Jared L. Nedzel --------------------------------------------------------------------- e-mail: nedzel@cive.stanford.edu jln@portia.stanford.edu
v059l49z@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Paul C Stacy) (03/20/91)
From: v059l49z@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Paul C Stacy) In article <1991Mar18.003736.23374@cbnews.att.com>, brummer@cc.helsinki.fi writes... >What was the drop ratio? As I understood it the F-15 and F-16 -planes I think someone stated here awhile back that at one time it was about 128:0 against Syrian MiGs. I know that the Israelis did very well overall. >How would a F-16 handle against a Mig-25 or -29? (have there been any >encounters? I don't really know too much about planes) Against a MiG-25, no real contest. It's next to useless in a dogfight (though it would get off the first shot as most any plane would since the F-16 doesn't have beyond-visual-range ability (yet.)) Against a -29 it would probably often come down to pilot ability. As for encounters with -29's and F-16's I don't know of any (at least that anyone is talking about.) Paul "Joe Friday" Stacy
smpod@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Stefan) (03/20/91)
From: smpod@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Stefan) In brummer@cc.helsinki.fi writes... >I read somewhere that the Israeli Airforce had many encounters with >Syrian Migs during the campaign in Lebanon beginning of 80. >What was the drop ratio? As I understood it the F-15 and F-16 -planes >handled remarkably. I think the ratio was around 80 to 1 or 0! Most of the kills went to F-15s >These planes would interest me, because Finland is >going to renew its airforce and buy 60 new fighters. >Under discussion are Mig-29, Mirage 2000(?), Saab Gripen and F-16. >Is the F-16 really up-to-date anymore? >How would a F-16 handle against a Mig-25 or -29? (have there been any >encounters? I don't really know too much about planes) IMHO: I think that the F-16 could handle the 25s and 29s (assuming that the MiG-25s stick around to fight). The avionics of the 16 would outweight whatever aerodynamic advantage that the 29 has. The only advantage that the MiG-25 has is speed and a large search radar and would be at a strict disadvantage in a dogfight. Now if you could install Western technology avionics in a MiG 29.... Of course the main determinant in combat is pilot training, experience, tactics and morale.
scott@graft.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Silvey) (03/22/91)
From: scott@graft.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Silvey) smpod@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Stefan) writes: |> >I read somewhere that the Israeli Airforce had many encounters with |> >Syrian Migs during the campaign in Lebanon beginning of 80. |> >What was the drop ratio? As I understood it the F-15 and F-16 -planes |> >handled remarkably. |> |> I think the ratio was around 80 to 1 or 0! |> Most of the kills went to F-15s Actually, I heard that the F-15's would paint the Syrians up with radar, launching their Sparrows, while the F-16's would be vectored in behind the them with their radars shut down. The F-16's would get about 2/3 of the kills with sneak-attack Sidewinder shots. This may have been a description of just one engagement that I read though. |> >How would a F-16 handle against a Mig-25 or -29? (have there been any |> >encounters? I don't really know too much about planes) |> |> IMHO: |> |> I think that the F-16 could handle the 25s and 29s |> The avionics of the 16 would outweight whatever |> aerodynamic advantage that the 29 has |> Now if you could install Western technology avionics in a MiG 29.... Typically, F-16 export variants don't have all the electronics our native aircraft have. The F-16 normally has an advantage with integrated weapon systems and ECM/ECCM equipment, but I'm fairly sure that these are all watered down for export. The Mig29 on the other hand has that nifty new Infra-Red Search and Track system, allowing them to sneak up on intruders without alerting them with radar. The Mig also gets radar missiles, while the F-16 doesn't. Some of the disadvantages would be shorter range and inferior IR missiles (assuming they don't get AA-11's). Note however, that the aerodynamics is a significant advantage for the Mig ... it's almost as maneuverable, has much more power, and has great low-speed/high angle-of-attack performance. In fact, I just read somewhere that the Mig29 can sustain a 9G turn?! (I'm not so sure if this is true -- did someone post that here?). |> Of course the main determinant in combat is pilot training, experience, |> tactics and morale. The old "airplane's only as good as it's pilot". /-----------------------------------------------------------------------------\ | Scott Silvey | Ronald Reagan to surgeons in emergency ward after | | scott@xcf.berkeley.edu | being shot: | | | | | Flames to /dev/null | "Please tell me you're Republicans." | \-----------------------------------------------------------------------------/
RAUTAMMI@kontu.utu.fi (Rauno Tamminen) (03/26/91)
From: Rauno Tamminen <RAUTAMMI@kontu.utu.fi> In article <1991Mar18.003736.23374@cbnews.att.com>, brummer@cc.helsinki.fi writes: > Finland is going to renew its airforce and buy 60 new fighters. > Under discussion are Mig-29, Mirage 2000(?), Saab Gripen and F-16. > Is the F-16 really up-to-date anymore? > How would a F-16 handle against a Mig-25 or -29? The MiG-29 is out of question. It is too expensive comparing to it's capabilities. Our new fighter will be one of these: - Mirage 2000F (Dassault Avitation) - F-16 A/B MLU (General Dynamics) - Jas Gripen (Saab) Because what we need is an interceptor and an air-superiority fighter I would prefer Mirage, althought it is the most expensive and it has the poorest aerodynamics. Does anyone know if Mirage 2000 has any air-to-air kills? Did it engage any bogies in Gulf? And What kind of updates are made to this F-16 MLU ? Sorry my bulky english. -- Rauno Tamminen, Computer Science, University of Turku, Finland Email: rautammi@kontu.utu.fi, rautammi@firien.bitnet "Aliquando praeterea rideo, jocor, ludo, homo sum!"