jtgorman@cs.arizona.edu (J. Taggart Gorman) (01/15/91)
From: "J. Taggart Gorman" <jtgorman@cs.arizona.edu> While watching the order of battle for the potential fight, I noticed and then remembered that the Iraqis have some Mig-29s. They are stripped down export versions, right? Even if they were stripped down pretty hard, wouldn't they still be a match for most fighters? They are some of the best planes in production right now. I know they wouldn't be a match against a 100nm Phoenix missile, but against some poor F-16 only armed with Sidewinders, it might be a deadly furball. If these Mig's are operational, I bet they are on the top ten list of priority air targets. | John Taggart Gorman Jr. | "I'm a no rust build up man myself." | | -Christian Slater | jtgorman@caslon.cs.arizona.edu | in 'Heathers'
swilliam@dtoa1.dt.navy.mil (Williams) (01/16/91)
From: swilliam@dtoa1.dt.navy.mil (Williams) > ... remembered that the Iraqis have some Mig-29s ... wouldn't they > still be a match for most fighters? They are some of the best planes > in production right now. I know they wouldn't be a match against a 100nm > Phoenix missile, but against some poor F-16 only armed with Sidewinders, > it might be a deadly furball. This is one common mistake that many people tend to make; i.e., many people tend to think that it is the weapons that wins the wars, when it is actually the fighting men who have better training and use their weapons to their fullest advantage that win the wars. Furthermore, a superior weapon is useless if it cannot be kept in operational condition (meaning adequacy of technical service and availability of replacement parts). Just remember the F-14s that Iran had during the Iran-Iraq war; they mostly stayed on the ground for lack of replacement parts.
deichman@cod.nosc.mil (Shane D. Deichman) (01/18/91)
From: deichman@cod.nosc.mil (Shane D. Deichman) >From: "J. Taggart Gorman" <jtgorman@cs.arizona.edu> > > While watching the order of battle for the potential fight, I noticed and >then remembered that the Iraqis have some Mig-29s. They are stripped down >export versions, right? I recall seeing in my copy of _The_World's_Greatest_Interceptor_Aircraft_ that the MiG-29 was exported to Syria in a version classified as the "MiG-30," essentially a MiG-29 with MiG-23 avionics. There was no men- tion of any sales to Iraq, though this book is a couple of years old.... Since Iraq has had a rather close relationship with the Soviets (especially in terms of missile purchasing), I wouldn't be surprised if they DID have a few "MiG-30s." -shane "the Ayatollah of Rock-and-Rollah"
bell@krypton.arc.nasa.gov (01/19/91)
From: bell@krypton.arc.nasa.gov \ While watching the order of battle for the potential fight, I noticed and \then remembered that the Iraqis have some Mig-29s. They are stripped down \export versions, right? \ Even if they were stripped down pretty hard, wouldn't they still be a match \for most fighters? They are some of the best planes in production right now. The avionics of the Russian version is primitive by today's standards. The Iraqi version is even more so. The outcome of a dogfight is mainly dependant on pilot quality; to some extent equipment is secondary, e.g. in WWII the Finns, with biplanes, bested the Soviets in more modern monoplanes.
anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Lee) (01/19/91)
From: anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Lee) In <1991Jan17.053752.29563@cbnews.att.com> davisp@skybridge.SCL.CWRU.Edu (Palmer Davis) writes: >Other way around. The AIM-54 is big and relatively unmaneuverable; it's >intended to shoot down targets that are also big and relatively unmaneuverable, >like long-range bombers and ASMs. (And carried by the big and relatively >unmaneuverable F-14.) If the MiG saw the missile in time (or even had a Sorry to disagree but I think the F14 is more maneuverable then you think. Back in the early days of the F15s, the Navy F14s used to regularly beat the F15s in dogfight simulations. Also don't forget the engagements against the Su and Mig fighters of the Libyan air force. -- Anthony Lee (Michaelangelo teenage mutant ninja turtle) (Time Lord Doctor) ACSnet: anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz TEL:+(61)-7-371-2651 Internet: anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au +(61)-7-377-4139 (w) SNAIL: Dept Comp. Science, University of Qld, St Lucia, Qld 4072, Australia
biow@tove.cs.umd.edu (Christopher Biow) (01/19/91)
From: biow@tove.cs.umd.edu (Christopher Biow) In article <1991Jan17.053752.29563@cbnews.att.com> davisp@skybridge.SCL.CWRU.Edu (Palmer Davis) writes: >In article <1991Jan15.021838.23936@cbnews.att.com> jtgorman@cs.arizona.edu (J. Taggart Gorman) writes: >>I know [Fulcrums] wouldn't be a match against a 100nm Phoenix missile, but >>against some poor F-16 only armed with Sidewinders, it might be a deadly >>furball. >Other way around. The AIM-54 is big and relatively unmaneuverable; it's >intended to shoot down targets that are also big and relatively unmaneuverable, >like long-range bombers and ASMs. (And carried by the big and relatively >unmaneuverable F-14.) If the MiG saw the missile in time (or even had a >working RWR), it would stand a much better chance of dodging it than an AIM-9 >from an F-16 or other UN fighter. I couldn't resist a reply to this underestimation of the F-14. Any modern missile has, given certain conditions (launch altitude, airspeed, attitude, target angle, target aspect, target speed, etc.) a max range, beyond which it will drop out of the sky prior to impact, or else won't be able to track the target. It also has a no-escape range, within which it will kill a 6G maneuvering target. Although missile maneuver ability helps, speed and engine burn time/power count too, on both ranges. To write off the Phoenix against maneuvering targets is a mistake. My machine goes down in 60 seconds. More tomorrow. Chris ZZ ZZ
gordon@meaddata.com (Gordon Edwards) (01/19/91)
From: gordon@meaddata.com (Gordon Edwards) In article <1991Jan17.053752.29563@cbnews.att.com>, davisp@skybridge.SCL.CWRU.Edu (Palmer Davis) writes: |> |> |> From: davisp@skybridge.SCL.CWRU.Edu (Palmer Davis) |> In article <1991Jan15.021838.23936@cbnews.att.com> jtgorman@cs.arizona.edu (J. Taggart Gorman) writes: |> > |> >I know [Fulcrums] wouldn't be a match against a 100nm Phoenix missile, but |> >against some poor F-16 only armed with Sidewinders, it might be a deadly |> >furball. |> > |> |> Other way around. The AIM-54 is big and relatively unmaneuverable; it's |> intended to shoot down targets that are also big and relatively unmaneuverable, |> like long-range bombers and ASMs. (And carried by the big and relatively |> unmaneuverable F-14.) If the MiG saw the missile in time (or even had a |> working RWR), it would stand a much better chance of dodging it than an AIM-9 |> from an F-16 or other UN fighter. |> A few random thoughts: The F-16/MiG-29 comparison is a bit unfair. A better comparison is the MiG-29/ F/A-18. They are very similar in looks, size, and performance. It is worth noting that there are a number of maneuvers that the F/A-18 equals or exceeds the performance of the F-16. A 9g turn isn't everything and it will leave you low on the airspeed side. The F-16 is very limited on AoA and has no BVR weapon capability (until AMRAAM). The F/A-18 has very good AoA and can carry Sparrows on conformal mounts (minimizes drag). The AIM-54/F-14 combo is severely restricted in a limited war situation (don't want to shoot down any more air liners). The F-14 pilots essentially have to close within range of their TCS and visually identify the targets. If the AIM-54 is launched at 100nm, it is very hard to detect for a couple of reasons. 1. The long range flight profile is such that it flies up to ~100,000 ft and then comes straight down on the target at approx, Mach 5 (it is VERY fast). 2. The AIM-54C uses inertial midcourse (like the AMRAAM) as opposed to the earlier semi-active midcourse. Thus threat receivers will not allow much time to react. Finally, if you've ever seen one of the F-14A+ with the improved engines, you would probably retract your statement about maneuverability. Granted, its not in the F/A-18/MiG-29 class, but a good Tomcat pilot would be a very tough foe. Even prior to the improved engines (> 27,000lbs. thrust each), the unique design of the Tomcat allowed it to generate a tremendous amout of lift (the area between the engines, called the "pancake", generates 40% additional lift). -- Gordon (gordon@meaddata.com)
randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton) (01/21/91)
From: randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton) biow@tove.cs.umd.edu (Christopher Biow) writes: >Any modern missile has, given certain conditions (launch altitude, airspeed, >attitude,target angle, target aspect, target speed, etc.) a max range, beyond >which it will drop out of the sky prior to impact, or else won't be able to >track the target. It also has a no-escape range, >within which it will kill a 6G maneuvering target. Although missile maneuver >ability helps, speed and engine burn time/power count too, on both ranges. >To write off the Phoenix against maneuvering targets is a mistake. I have a question that has been bugging me for a LONG LONG time. Typically, what percent of the maximum range (the one given in Janes et al) is this no-escape range? If I'm a hot pilot in a hot plane, and willing to manuver at 500 feet, how fast can I get to the enemy before his Sparrow/Phoenix/AAMRAM gets me? If any one has any clues, I'd really like to hear. -Thanks -Randy */) -- ============================================================================= My feelings on George Bush's promises: "You have just exceeded the gulibility threshold!" ============================================Randy@ms.uky.edu==================
gsnow@pro-freedom.cts.com (System Administrator) (01/21/91)
From: gsnow@pro-freedom.cts.com (System Administrator) In-Reply-To: message from deichman@cod.nosc.mil |I recall seeing in my copy of _The_World's_Greatest_Interceptor_Aircraft_ |that the MiG-29 was exported to Syria in a version classified as the |"MiG-30," essentially a MiG-29 with MiG-23 avionics. There was no men- |tion of any sales to Iraq, though this book is a couple of years old.... | |Since Iraq has had a rather close relationship with the Soviets (especially |in terms of missile purchasing), I wouldn't be surprised if they DID have |a few "MiG-30s." The Iraqis DO have Mig-29's, CNN has showed some gun/nose camera videos of some being blown up on the ground. Gary --- UUCP: ogicse!clark!pro-freedom!gsnow | Pro-Freedom: 206/253-9389 ProLine: gsnow@pro-freedom | Vancouver, Wa ARPANet: crash!pro-freedom!gsnow@nosc.mil | Apple*Van InterNet: gsnow@pro-freedom.cts.com | Vancouver Apple Users Group
john@uunet.UU.NET (John A. Weeks III) (01/22/91)
From: newave!john@uunet.UU.NET (John A. Weeks III) > From: anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Lee) > In <1991Jan17.053752.29563@cbnews.att.com> davisp@skybridge.SCL.CWRU.Edu (Palmer Davis) writes: > > (And carried by the big and relatively unmaneuverable F-14.) > Sorry to disagree but I think the F14 is more maneuverable then you think. You bet it is! In Top Gun training, F-14's fly against the F-5 and F-16. An airplane has to be extrodinary to stay with an F-5. If you pit a well trained F-14 pilot against any plane/pilot combination in Iraq, the Iraqie better start looking for a soft place to land. I saw the Navy F-14 demonstation team perform this summer with the Soviet Mig-29 display team. The Mig-29 cobra manuver was impressive, but the F-14 was either vastly superior, or the Mig-29 pilots were holding back. One of the Tomcat pilots made a 90 degree turn at the end of the runway with burners on, then pulled the plane straight up, where it accelerated until it was out of sight. During the right hand turn, the jet blast caused hats and umbrellas to go flying, while no other plane in the show created any type of noticable jet blast or prop wash. Except when doing high-speed fly-bys and demonstrating the swing wings, the F-14 did not fly more than 1/4 mile without making some type of turn. If you would like to see two Tomcats showing off, rent the movie "Final Countdown". A pair of Tomcats play with two AT-6's dressed up as Zeros. > Also don't forget the engagements against the Su and Mig fighters of the > Libyan air force. The planes that the F-14's faced were not a match for the F-14's. The Libyans would have faced about the same chances if they were flying Zeros or F4U Corsairs. This was the same situation that the Syrians faced at the Golan Turkey Shoot where Syria lost 78 or so planes to the Isrealies with no loss to Isreal. -john- -- =============================================================================== John A. Weeks III (612) 942-6969 john@newave.mn.org NeWave Communications ...uunet!rosevax!tcnet!wd0gol!newave!john ===============================================================================
john@uunet.UU.NET (John A. Weeks III) (01/22/91)
From: newave!john@uunet.UU.NET (John A. Weeks III) > From: bell@krypton.arc.nasa.gov > > While watching the order of battle for the potential fight, I noticed and > > then remembered that the Iraqis have some Mig-29s. They are stripped down > > export versions, right? > The avionics of the Russian version is primitive by today's standards. Unless you know something about the Mig-29 that I don't, the quality of the Mig-29 avionics is somewhat of a media myth. I recently saw 2 Mig-29 fly at the High On Kalamazoo air show. According to both the Soviets and the USAF hosts, the Mig-29 has almost state-of-the-art radar and avionics. The USAF claimed that the Mig-29 has electronics roughly similar to the F/A-18 Hornet. Some even claim that the Soviets lifted the plans for the Hornet. The Soviets claim that the Mig-29 is very similar to the Hornet, except that the Mig-29 radar is has a slightly longer range. The only glitch that I saw in the Mig-29 is that the engines are slightly behind, they were a bit smokey and slightly louder than expected. Please keep in mind that the Mig-29 is not in the same class as the F-14 or F-15. > The Iraqi version is even more so. Iraq purchased Mig-30 aircraft from the Soviet Union. A Mig-30 is a Mig-29 airframe with the avionics and radar of a Mig-23. This could be termed as primitive--no match for a Tomcat or Eagle. > The outcome of a dogfight is mainly dependant on pilot quality In general, this is true. But the Iraqies are basically overwhelmed. The moment they launch a plane, it shows up on an AWACs screen, while they have almost no clue where the coalition planes are except when they are dropping bombs. -john- -- =============================================================================== John A. Weeks III (612) 942-6969 john@newave.mn.org NeWave Communications ...uunet!rosevax!tcnet!wd0gol!newave!john ===============================================================================
fiddler@Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (01/22/91)
From: fiddler@Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Hix) In article <1991Jan19.041309.4869@cbnews.att.com>, bell@krypton.arc.nasa.gov writes: > > The avionics of the Russian version is primitive by today's standards. The > Iraqi version is even more so. The outcome of a dogfight is mainly dependant on > pilot quality; to some extent equipment is secondary, e.g. in WWII the Finns, > with biplanes, bested the Soviets in more modern monoplanes. During the Winter War, the Finns *were* flying modern (well, the Brewster Buffalo was fairly modern) monoplanes against Russian biplanes such as the Tchaika. At the very least, it wasn't completely one-sided. -- ------------ The only drawback with morning is that it comes at such an inconvenient time of day. ------------
tighe@hydra.convex.com (Mike Tighe) (01/24/91)
From: tighe@hydra.convex.com (Mike Tighe) > From: anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Lee) >> davisp@skybridge.SCL.CWRU.Edu (Palmer Davis) writes: >> Other way around. The AIM-54 is big and relatively unmaneuverable; it's >> intended to shoot down targets that are also big and relatively >> unmaneuverable, like long-range bombers and ASMs. (And carried by the big >> and relatively unmaneuverable F-14.) > Sorry to disagree but I think the F14 is more maneuverable then you think. > Back in the early days of the F15s, the Navy F14s used to regularly beat > the F15s in dogfight simulations. Also don't forget the engagements > against the Su and Mig fighters of the Libyan air force. I think you are confusing the F-15 with the F-4. It was the F-4 (slatted wing) that was defeated in maneuverability tests by the F-14, not the F-15. These test were set up by the Navy, and conducted at Grummann's Calverton facility, in the early days of the F-14 program. In fact, one (of many) reason the AF chose the F-15 over the F-14 (back when the buzzword was commonality) was the increased maneuverability of the F-15. --
mst@relay.EU.net (Markus Stumptner) (01/25/91)
From: vexpert!mst@relay.EU.net (Markus Stumptner) >From article <1991Jan22.014153.18512@cbnews.att.com>, by newave!john@uunet.UU.NET (John A. Weeks III): > One of the Tomcat pilots made a 90 degree turn at the end of the runway > with burners on, then pulled the plane straight up, where it accelerated > until it was out of sight. During the right hand turn, the jet blast > caused hats and umbrellas to go flying, while no other plane in the > show created any type of noticable jet blast or prop wash. That is a clear indication the others were holding back, since the F-14 engine thrust is not that much stronger that that of other planes (I do not have the exact figures, but I think it is on the order of 20000 pounds per engine for the older ones, and 27000 for the newer versions, while the F100 engines of the F-15 are were in the 25-30000 range from the outset). Markus Stumptner mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at Technical University of Vienna vexpert!mst@uunet.uu.net Paniglg. 16, A-1040 Vienna, Austria ...mcsun!vexpert!mst
swilliam@dtoa1.dt.navy.mil (Williams) (02/04/91)
From: swilliam@dtoa1.dt.navy.mil (Williams) In article <1991Jan28.035947.8725@cbnews.att.com> SMPOD@VENUS.LERC.NASA.GOV writes: > According to both the Soviets and the USAF hosts, the Mig-29 has almost > state-of-the-art radar and avionics. Yes, but do the Soviets include their "state-of-the-art" radar and avionics in the package when they sell their MiG-29 to third world countries?
com259h@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au (02/04/91)
From: com259h@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au In article <1991Jan28.035947.8725@cbnews.att.com>, SMPOD@VENUS.LERC.NASA.GOV writes: > From the dozen or more aviation journals that I've read (and that includes > interviews of Western pilots that flew the MiG-29 ), the avionics of the MiG > and Su-27 does not compare with today's Western fighters. In an Australian aviation journal from late last year there was an article about Aust's Chief Air Marshal (C-in-C of RAAF, name forgotten) who was apparantly the first Westerner to fly the Mig 29. He flew the 2 seat trainer version and commented on how the instrumentation appeared to be the sort of standard that was used in Western aircraft in the late 60's to early 70's. It was *hinted* that this may have been deliberate, to give a false impression of how out of date the Mig 29 is. Bull@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au OR com259h@monu1.cc.monash.oz Alias: Gareth Bull, The Opal Dragon All opinions expressed are the result of paranoid delusions!
smpod@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Stefan) (02/09/91)
From: smpod@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Stefan) /In article com259h@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes... I doubt that the Soviets are trying to fool us since they need foreign currency badly and one source of currency is military hardware. Also the quality of avionics is highly dependant on a state-of-the-art microchip industry which the Soviet is sorely lacking.