Malaysian MiG-29s got trounced by RN Sea Harrier F/A2s in Exercise Flying Fish

[KDR]

Royal Navy's 800 Squadron page says "Each RN pilot faced the MiG-29 in
combat and found the Sea Harrier to be a good match for the MiG.
Thanks to the Blue Vixen radar the Sea Harrier won every time in
beyond visual range engagements and also scored some notable successes
when converting to the visual fighting arena."

http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/content.php3?page=5298

[Red]

"KDR" > wrote in message
m...
> Royal Navy's 800 Squadron page says "Each RN pilot faced the MiG-29 in
> combat and found the Sea Harrier to be a good match for the MiG.
> Thanks to the Blue Vixen radar the Sea Harrier won every time in
> beyond visual range engagements and also scored some notable successes
> when converting to the visual fighting arena."
>
> http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/content.php3?page=5298

This doesn't mean a thing. It was a training exercise, and its the rules the
exercise was run under that make/made the difference. These exercises are
run as set pieces. Typically with no loser's (due to international
relations) with one side doing one thing and the other side is doing
something else.

Red

[av8r]

"Rue Britannia!!!!!!!!"

[Andrew Chaplin]

av8r wrote:
>
> "Rue Britannia!!!!!!!!"

They've probably been waiving the rules again.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Harry Andreas]

In article >, av8r > wrote:

> "Rue Britannia!!!!!!!!"

Been watching Rocky & Bullwinkle again have you?

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[John Halliwell]

In article >, KDR
> writes
>Royal Navy's 800 Squadron page says "Each RN pilot faced the MiG-29 in
>combat and found the Sea Harrier to be a good match for the MiG.
>Thanks to the Blue Vixen radar the Sea Harrier won every time in
>beyond visual range engagements and also scored some notable successes
>when converting to the visual fighting arena."
>
>http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/content.php3?page=5298

Well they've trounced everything else :)

Sounds like a sales pitch to me, after all they'll be looking for
someone to take them off their hands over the next few years.

--
John

[Dudhorse]

"Red" > wrote in message
om...
>
> "KDR" > wrote in message
> m...
> > Royal Navy's 800 Squadron page says "Each RN pilot faced the MiG-29 in
> > combat and found the Sea Harrier to be a good match for the MiG.
> > Thanks to the Blue Vixen radar the Sea Harrier won every time in
> > beyond visual range engagements and also scored some notable successes
> > when converting to the visual fighting arena."
> >
> > http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/content.php3?page=5298
>
> This doesn't mean a thing. It was a training exercise, and its the rules
the
> exercise was run under that make/made the difference. These exercises are
> run as set pieces. Typically with no loser's (due to international
> relations) with one side doing one thing and the other side is doing
> something else.
>
> Red
>
.... my guess the rules of engagement kept everything subsonic.
>

[Pechs1]

<< my guess the rules of engagement kept everything subsonic. >><BR><BR>

And "a hamburger in another package is still a hamburger"
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Red]

"Pechs1" > wrote in message
...
> << my guess the rules of engagement kept everything subsonic. >><BR><BR>
>
> And "a hamburger in another package is still a hamburger"
> P. C. Chisholm
> CDR, USN(ret.)
> Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye
Phlyer

Try telling that to McDonalds. (Ronald)

Red

[Paul J. Adam]

In message
>, Dudhorse
> writes
>... my guess the rules of engagement kept everything subsonic.

Nah, just fuel constraints on the MiGs :) Agile they may be, long-legged
they aren't.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 9/2/03 12:37 PM, in article , "Paul
J. Adam" > wrote:

> In message
> >, Dudhorse
> > writes
>> ... my guess the rules of engagement kept everything subsonic.
>
> Nah, just fuel constraints on the MiGs :) Agile they may be, long-legged
> they aren't.

I can't imagine the MiG's being much more fuel limited than the Sea Harrier.
The AV-8B's I worked with on KH were HORRIBLE on fuel (0+45) was about all
they could handle.

--Woody

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, "Doug \"Woody\" and
Erin Beal" > writes
>On 9/2/03 12:37 PM, in article , "Paul
>J. Adam" > wrote:
>> Nah, just fuel constraints on the MiGs :) Agile they may be, long-legged
>> they aren't.
>
>I can't imagine the MiG's being much more fuel limited than the Sea Harrier.
>The AV-8B's I worked with on KH were HORRIBLE on fuel (0+45) was about all
>they could handle.

A MiG-29 wanting to go supersonic long enough to fight might be on a
fifteen-minute cycle, if it also wanted to carry a weapon. (Remember the
Su-7? Something like six minutes' on burner from full fuel before the
tanks are dry. Not down to reserves, _dry_.)

The MiG-29 is a dangerously agile point-defence interceptor, and it's
got afterburners to further reduce its endurance. The Harriers are
short-cycle, but at least they get max thrust dry (and I'm led to
believe that carrier fuel reserves are somewhat more stringent than
land-based... willing to be corrected)

I just don't see MiG-29s having time and fuel to get up to speed,
arrange a supersonic intercept on agile opponents, and make it back to
base on a routine basis.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[John Halliwell]

In article >, Paul J. Adam
> writes
>The MiG-29 is a dangerously agile point-defence interceptor, and it's
>got afterburners to further reduce its endurance. The Harriers are
>short-cycle, but at least they get max thrust dry (and I'm led to
>believe that carrier fuel reserves are somewhat more stringent than
>land-based... willing to be corrected)
>
>I just don't see MiG-29s having time and fuel to get up to speed,
>arrange a supersonic intercept on agile opponents, and make it back to
>base on a routine basis.

From Sharkey's book on SHAR fuel consumption:

'When at full power and at low level (the worst situation for high fuel
consumption) it used very little gas; less than 200 pounds of fuel per
minute (compared with the F-4's 1800 pounds). This latter attribute
meant that it could outlast any other known fighter in fully developed
combat - a truly excellent characteristic.'

--
John

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 9/2/03 7:07 PM, in article , "John
Halliwell" > wrote:

> In article >, Paul J. Adam
> > writes
>> The MiG-29 is a dangerously agile point-defence interceptor, and it's
>> got afterburners to further reduce its endurance. The Harriers are
>> short-cycle, but at least they get max thrust dry (and I'm led to
>> believe that carrier fuel reserves are somewhat more stringent than
>> land-based... willing to be corrected)
>>
>> I just don't see MiG-29s having time and fuel to get up to speed,
>> arrange a supersonic intercept on agile opponents, and make it back to
>> base on a routine basis.
>
> From Sharkey's book on SHAR fuel consumption:
>
> 'When at full power and at low level (the worst situation for high fuel
> consumption) it used very little gas; less than 200 pounds of fuel per
> minute (compared with the F-4's 1800 pounds). This latter attribute
> meant that it could outlast any other known fighter in fully developed
> combat - a truly excellent characteristic.'

That's against an F-4 (who can't turn inside and shoot). Against a more
agile fighter, I'd bet the Sea Harrier would get shot before it outlasted.

By the way, I'm not slamming the Sea Harrier... Had written orders to go fly
it at one time and was REALLY looking forward to it, but for the "good of my
career" I turned them down and took a staff job.

I know that the Blue Vixen is capable in the BVR stages of the fight, but in
close--pilots being equal--it's no match for a Hornet/Viper/Fulcrum.

--Woody

[Guy Alcala]

Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal wrote:

> On 9/2/03 7:07 PM, in article , "John
> Halliwell" > wrote:
>
> > In article >, Paul J. Adam
> > > writes
> >> The MiG-29 is a dangerously agile point-defence interceptor, and it's
> >> got afterburners to further reduce its endurance. The Harriers are
> >> short-cycle, but at least they get max thrust dry (and I'm led to
> >> believe that carrier fuel reserves are somewhat more stringent than
> >> land-based... willing to be corrected)
> >>
> >> I just don't see MiG-29s having time and fuel to get up to speed,
> >> arrange a supersonic intercept on agile opponents, and make it back to
> >> base on a routine basis.
> >
> > From Sharkey's book on SHAR fuel consumption:
> >
> > 'When at full power and at low level (the worst situation for high fuel
> > consumption) it used very little gas; less than 200 pounds of fuel per
> > minute (compared with the F-4's 1800 pounds). This latter attribute
> > meant that it could outlast any other known fighter in fully developed
> > combat - a truly excellent characteristic.'
>
> That's against an F-4 (who can't turn inside and shoot). Against a more
> agile fighter, I'd bet the Sea Harrier would get shot before it outlasted.
>
> By the way, I'm not slamming the Sea Harrier... Had written orders to go fly
> it at one time and was REALLY looking forward to it, but for the "good of my
> career" I turned them down and took a staff job.
>
> I know that the Blue Vixen is capable in the BVR stages of the fight, but in
> close--pilots being equal--it's no match for a Hornet/Viper/Fulcrum.

No doubt, although Sharkey did take on and beat F-15s and F-16s (the F-16s were
tougher, according to him), and it's apparently quite hard to get an IR lock (at
least with the missiles available in 1982; IIR types may not have that problem)
with a planform view from above, like when they're turning into you -- the wing
and stab mask the exhausts. And it is small and smokeless. But the best bet is
undoubtedly to kill the adversary BVR before maneuverability ever becomes an
issue. Give both a/c HMS and off-boresight missiles and maneuverability's
almost irrelevant.

Guy

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 9/2/03 10:41 PM, in article ,
"Guy Alcala" > wrote:

> Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal wrote:
>
>> On 9/2/03 7:07 PM, in article , "John
>> Halliwell" > wrote:
>>
>>> In article >, Paul J. Adam
>>> > writes
>>>> The MiG-29 is a dangerously agile point-defence interceptor, and it's
>>>> got afterburners to further reduce its endurance. The Harriers are
>>>> short-cycle, but at least they get max thrust dry (and I'm led to
>>>> believe that carrier fuel reserves are somewhat more stringent than
>>>> land-based... willing to be corrected)
>>>>
>>>> I just don't see MiG-29s having time and fuel to get up to speed,
>>>> arrange a supersonic intercept on agile opponents, and make it back to
>>>> base on a routine basis.
>>>
>>> From Sharkey's book on SHAR fuel consumption:
>>>
>>> 'When at full power and at low level (the worst situation for high fuel
>>> consumption) it used very little gas; less than 200 pounds of fuel per
>>> minute (compared with the F-4's 1800 pounds). This latter attribute
>>> meant that it could outlast any other known fighter in fully developed
>>> combat - a truly excellent characteristic.'
>>
>> That's against an F-4 (who can't turn inside and shoot). Against a more
>> agile fighter, I'd bet the Sea Harrier would get shot before it outlasted.
>>
>> By the way, I'm not slamming the Sea Harrier... Had written orders to go fly
>> it at one time and was REALLY looking forward to it, but for the "good of my
>> career" I turned them down and took a staff job.
>>
>> I know that the Blue Vixen is capable in the BVR stages of the fight, but in
>> close--pilots being equal--it's no match for a Hornet/Viper/Fulcrum.
>
> No doubt, although Sharkey did take on and beat F-15s and F-16s (the F-16s
> were
> tougher, according to him), and it's apparently quite hard to get an IR lock
> (at
> least with the missiles available in 1982; IIR types may not have that
> problem)
> with a planform view from above, like when they're turning into you -- the
> wing
> and stab mask the exhausts. And it is small and smokeless. But the best bet
> is
> undoubtedly to kill the adversary BVR before maneuverability ever becomes an
> issue. Give both a/c HMS and off-boresight missiles and maneuverability's
> almost irrelevant.
>
> Guy
>
>

True... Very true.

--Woody

[Chuck Johnson]

"Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal" > wrote in
:

> On 9/2/03 10:41 PM, in article
> , "Guy Alcala"
> > wrote:
>
>> Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/2/03 7:07 PM, in article ,
>>> "John Halliwell" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article >, Paul J. Adam
>>>> > writes
>>>>> The MiG-29 is a dangerously agile point-defence interceptor, and
>>>>> it's got afterburners to further reduce its endurance. The
>>>>> Harriers are short-cycle, but at least they get max thrust dry
>>>>> (and I'm led to believe that carrier fuel reserves are somewhat
>>>>> more stringent than land-based... willing to be corrected)
>>>>>
>>>>> I just don't see MiG-29s having time and fuel to get up to speed,
>>>>> arrange a supersonic intercept on agile opponents, and make it
>>>>> back to base on a routine basis.
>>>>
>>>> From Sharkey's book on SHAR fuel consumption:
>>>>
>>>> 'When at full power and at low level (the worst situation for high
>>>> fuel consumption) it used very little gas; less than 200 pounds of
>>>> fuel per minute (compared with the F-4's 1800 pounds). This latter
>>>> attribute meant that it could outlast any other known fighter in
>>>> fully developed combat - a truly excellent characteristic.'
>>>
>>> That's against an F-4 (who can't turn inside and shoot). Against a
>>> more agile fighter, I'd bet the Sea Harrier would get shot before it
>>> outlasted.
>>>
>>> By the way, I'm not slamming the Sea Harrier... Had written orders
>>> to go fly it at one time and was REALLY looking forward to it, but
>>> for the "good of my career" I turned them down and took a staff job.
>>>
>>> I know that the Blue Vixen is capable in the BVR stages of the
>>> fight, but in close--pilots being equal--it's no match for a
>>> Hornet/Viper/Fulcrum.
>>
>> No doubt, although Sharkey did take on and beat F-15s and F-16s (the
>> F-16s were
>> tougher, according to him), and it's apparently quite hard to get an
>> IR lock (at
>> least with the missiles available in 1982; IIR types may not have
>> that problem)
>> with a planform view from above, like when they're turning into you
>> -- the wing
>> and stab mask the exhausts. And it is small and smokeless. But the
>> best bet is
>> undoubtedly to kill the adversary BVR before maneuverability ever
>> becomes an issue. Give both a/c HMS and off-boresight missiles and
>> maneuverability's almost irrelevant.
>>
>> Guy
>>
>>
>
> True... Very true.
>
> --Woody
>

Man that's laughable. The Brits enjoy trumping up the very minor
curious attributes of their strange birds.
They say similar things about the other assets that comprise their fleet
of indigenously designed aircraft. May I name a few?

The Panavia (British Designed) Tornado F.3? ("...the F-14 was
considered, but it was not up to the job... ...inferior radar..." I
love that one--Hardee har-har! Inferior indeed! Lets talk about the
development time for the Foxhunter radar).

How about the Electric Lightning F.6? ("Pioneered supercruise!" ...
sure; "better than an F-15" uh-huh, bear in mind F.6 did not have a
gun--just two short range and very ineffective missiles.
Although no longer in service, it's frequently brought up as a high
water mark of British aircraft engineering. Even among the Brits it had
a notorious reputation for being short ranged and almost impossible to
maintain.

Lastly, who can forget the beautiful Blackburn Buccaneer? ("Faster than
an F-16 or F-15 with a full load of armament..." OK... ****'s getting
deep.)
I'm not trying be belittle the Brits, but this aircraft is still in
front line service (Although I'm sure that point will be disputed).
What they don't say is that the Buccaneer can only achieve this by
flying at the lowest of levels-which due to the density of the air, does
create high drag on the F-16 and F-15. But it also penalizes the
Buccaneers own range. At moderate altitudes where a typical aircraft
would fly the bulk of the journey before descending to attack (have you
ever seen a tanker at lo-lo level--other than landing?), both F-16 and
F-15 have superior range and speed-even with a full bag of ordinance.
The Buccaneer, assuming it had refueled several times to reach the
attack point, would promptly be shot out of the sky upon the initiation
of an attack. Why, you ask? She would make a wonderful target: Her
obsolete tail pipes would be glowing red hot, or better yet, the
opposition would have an excellent heat lock due to the boundary layer
control system (engine bleed gases exiting the wing leading edge) used
to enhance lift.

I love the Brits.

-Chuck

[TJ]

> How about the Electric Lightning F.6? ("Pioneered supercruise!" ...
> sure; "better than an F-15" uh-huh, bear in mind F.6 did not have a
> gun--just two short range and very ineffective missiles.

The English Electric Lightning F.6 carried two 30mm Aden in a belly pack.

> Lastly, who can forget the beautiful Blackburn Buccaneer? ("Faster than
> an F-16 or F-15 with a full load of armament..." OK... ****'s getting
> deep.)
> I'm not trying be belittle the Brits, but this aircraft is still in
> front line service (Although I'm sure that point will be disputed).

If I read you correctly, just a small point. The Buccaneer was retired from
RAF service in 1994. The Buccaneer still flies today on the private scene in
South Africa.

TJ

[Nele_VII]

Chuck Johnson wrote in message ...
>"Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal" > wrote in
:
>
>> On 9/2/03 10:41 PM, in article
>> , "Guy Alcala"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/2/03 7:07 PM, in article ,
>>>> "John Halliwell" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article >, Paul J. Adam
>>>>> > writes
>>>>>> The MiG-29 is a dangerously agile point-defence interceptor, and
>>>>>> it's got afterburners to further reduce its endurance. The
>>>>>> Harriers are short-cycle, but at least they get max thrust dry
>>>>>> (and I'm led to believe that carrier fuel reserves are somewhat
>>>>>> more stringent than land-based... willing to be corrected)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I just don't see MiG-29s having time and fuel to get up to speed,
>>>>>> arrange a supersonic intercept on agile opponents, and make it
>>>>>> back to base on a routine basis.
>>>>>
>>>>> From Sharkey's book on SHAR fuel consumption:
>>>>>
>>>>> 'When at full power and at low level (the worst situation for high
>>>>> fuel consumption) it used very little gas; less than 200 pounds of
>>>>> fuel per minute (compared with the F-4's 1800 pounds). This latter
>>>>> attribute meant that it could outlast any other known fighter in
>>>>> fully developed combat - a truly excellent characteristic.'
>>>>
>>>> That's against an F-4 (who can't turn inside and shoot). Against a
>>>> more agile fighter, I'd bet the Sea Harrier would get shot before it
>>>> outlasted.
>>>>
>>>> By the way, I'm not slamming the Sea Harrier... Had written orders
>>>> to go fly it at one time and was REALLY looking forward to it, but
>>>> for the "good of my career" I turned them down and took a staff job.
>>>>
>>>> I know that the Blue Vixen is capable in the BVR stages of the
>>>> fight, but in close--pilots being equal--it's no match for a
>>>> Hornet/Viper/Fulcrum.
>>>
>>> No doubt, although Sharkey did take on and beat F-15s and F-16s (the
>>> F-16s were
>>> tougher, according to him), and it's apparently quite hard to get an
>>> IR lock (at
>>> least with the missiles available in 1982; IIR types may not have
>>> that problem)
>>> with a planform view from above, like when they're turning into you
>>> -- the wing
>>> and stab mask the exhausts. And it is small and smokeless. But the
>>> best bet is
>>> undoubtedly to kill the adversary BVR before maneuverability ever
>>> becomes an issue. Give both a/c HMS and off-boresight missiles and
>>> maneuverability's almost irrelevant.
>>>
>>> Guy
>>>
>>>
>>
>> True... Very true.
>>
>> --Woody
>>
>
>Man that's laughable. The Brits enjoy trumping up the very minor
>curious attributes of their strange birds.
>They say similar things about the other assets that comprise their fleet
>of indigenously designed aircraft. May I name a few?

Please try.
>
>The Panavia (British Designed) Tornado F.3? ("...the F-14 was
>considered, but it was not up to the job... ...inferior radar..." I
>love that one--Hardee har-har! Inferior indeed! Lets talk about the
>development time for the Foxhunter radar).

What to talk about it? It took more time for development. How long was AWG-9
overdue?

>
>How about the Electric Lightning F.6? ("Pioneered supercruise!" ...
>sure; "better than an F-15" uh-huh, bear in mind F.6 did not have a
>gun--just two short range and very ineffective missiles.
>Although no longer in service, it's frequently brought up as a high
>water mark of British aircraft engineering. Even among the Brits it had
>a notorious reputation for being short ranged and almost impossible to
>maintain.

You have no clue. F.3 had no gun (F.3A had, just for Your information). And
for the range, MiG-21 is no better (range, performance, radar-only better
armament) and is still in service. Maintainability was no problem in UK,
only. Saudi and Kuwaiti maintainers didn't get enough training, that's it.
BTW, when Egypt bought F-4E from USA, soon they had 75% unserviceability
because of the poor training.

>
>Lastly, who can forget the beautiful Blackburn Buccaneer? ("Faster than
>an F-16 or F-15 with a full load of armament..." OK... ****'s getting
>deep.)
>I'm not trying be belittle the Brits, but this aircraft is still in
>front line service (Although I'm sure that point will be disputed).
>What they don't say is that the Buccaneer can only achieve this by
>flying at the lowest of levels-which due to the density of the air, does
>create high drag on the F-16 and F-15. But it also penalizes the
>Buccaneers own range. At moderate altitudes where a typical aircraft
>would fly the bulk of the journey before descending to attack (have you
>ever seen a tanker at lo-lo level--other than landing?), both F-16 and
>F-15 have superior range and speed-even with a full bag of ordinance.
>The Buccaneer, assuming it had refueled several times to reach the
>attack point, would promptly be shot out of the sky upon the initiation
>of an attack. Why, you ask? She would make a wonderful target: Her
>obsolete tail pipes would be glowing red hot, or better yet, the
>opposition would have an excellent heat lock due to the boundary layer
>control system (engine bleed gases exiting the wing leading edge) used
>to enhance lift.
>

Go visit http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/contents.html to learn
something about Brit planes because what You write has nothing to do with
the reality.

>I love the Brits.

And You should to.

>
>-Chuck
>

Nele

NULLA ROSA SINE SPINA

[Ian Craig]

The F14 wasn't considered for the F3 job. It was considered, sorry forced
onto the list by the yanks, for the original bomber role when the government
realised that cancelling TSR2 was probably the biggest mistake ever made.
The F3 came about because there was nothing else around that did the job
that was wanted. It did have problems, but speak to any of the crews from
the Red Flag, and they were full of admiration for F3 crews. We had
datalink capability that the americans didnt use, and we whipped their ass!
(Until they caught up, but then the ruskies didnt have anything similar at
that time)
"Nele_VII" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Chuck Johnson wrote in message ...
> >"Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal" > wrote in
> :
> >
> >> On 9/2/03 10:41 PM, in article
> >> , "Guy Alcala"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >>> Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 9/2/03 7:07 PM, in article ,
> >>>> "John Halliwell" > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> In article >, Paul J. Adam
> >>>>> > writes
> >>>>>> The MiG-29 is a dangerously agile point-defence interceptor, and
> >>>>>> it's got afterburners to further reduce its endurance. The
> >>>>>> Harriers are short-cycle, but at least they get max thrust dry
> >>>>>> (and I'm led to believe that carrier fuel reserves are somewhat
> >>>>>> more stringent than land-based... willing to be corrected)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I just don't see MiG-29s having time and fuel to get up to speed,
> >>>>>> arrange a supersonic intercept on agile opponents, and make it
> >>>>>> back to base on a routine basis.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> From Sharkey's book on SHAR fuel consumption:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 'When at full power and at low level (the worst situation for high
> >>>>> fuel consumption) it used very little gas; less than 200 pounds of
> >>>>> fuel per minute (compared with the F-4's 1800 pounds). This latter
> >>>>> attribute meant that it could outlast any other known fighter in
> >>>>> fully developed combat - a truly excellent characteristic.'
> >>>>
> >>>> That's against an F-4 (who can't turn inside and shoot). Against a
> >>>> more agile fighter, I'd bet the Sea Harrier would get shot before it
> >>>> outlasted.
> >>>>
> >>>> By the way, I'm not slamming the Sea Harrier... Had written orders
> >>>> to go fly it at one time and was REALLY looking forward to it, but
> >>>> for the "good of my career" I turned them down and took a staff job.
> >>>>
> >>>> I know that the Blue Vixen is capable in the BVR stages of the
> >>>> fight, but in close--pilots being equal--it's no match for a
> >>>> Hornet/Viper/Fulcrum.
> >>>
> >>> No doubt, although Sharkey did take on and beat F-15s and F-16s (the
> >>> F-16s were
> >>> tougher, according to him), and it's apparently quite hard to get an
> >>> IR lock (at
> >>> least with the missiles available in 1982; IIR types may not have
> >>> that problem)
> >>> with a planform view from above, like when they're turning into you
> >>> -- the wing
> >>> and stab mask the exhausts. And it is small and smokeless. But the
> >>> best bet is
> >>> undoubtedly to kill the adversary BVR before maneuverability ever
> >>> becomes an issue. Give both a/c HMS and off-boresight missiles and
> >>> maneuverability's almost irrelevant.
> >>>
> >>> Guy
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> True... Very true.
> >>
> >> --Woody
> >>
> >
> >Man that's laughable. The Brits enjoy trumping up the very minor
> >curious attributes of their strange birds.
> >They say similar things about the other assets that comprise their fleet
> >of indigenously designed aircraft. May I name a few?
>
> Please try.
> >
> >The Panavia (British Designed) Tornado F.3? ("...the F-14 was
> >considered, but it was not up to the job... ...inferior radar..." I
> >love that one--Hardee har-har! Inferior indeed! Lets talk about the
> >development time for the Foxhunter radar).
>
> What to talk about it? It took more time for development. How long was
AWG-9
> overdue?
>
> >
> >How about the Electric Lightning F.6? ("Pioneered supercruise!" ...
> >sure; "better than an F-15" uh-huh, bear in mind F.6 did not have a
> >gun--just two short range and very ineffective missiles.
> >Although no longer in service, it's frequently brought up as a high
> >water mark of British aircraft engineering. Even among the Brits it had
> >a notorious reputation for being short ranged and almost impossible to
> >maintain.
>
> You have no clue. F.3 had no gun (F.3A had, just for Your information).
And
> for the range, MiG-21 is no better (range, performance, radar-only better
> armament) and is still in service. Maintainability was no problem in UK,
> only. Saudi and Kuwaiti maintainers didn't get enough training, that's it.
> BTW, when Egypt bought F-4E from USA, soon they had 75% unserviceability
> because of the poor training.
>
> >
> >Lastly, who can forget the beautiful Blackburn Buccaneer? ("Faster than
> >an F-16 or F-15 with a full load of armament..." OK... ****'s getting
> >deep.)
> >I'm not trying be belittle the Brits, but this aircraft is still in
> >front line service (Although I'm sure that point will be disputed).
> >What they don't say is that the Buccaneer can only achieve this by
> >flying at the lowest of levels-which due to the density of the air, does
> >create high drag on the F-16 and F-15. But it also penalizes the
> >Buccaneers own range. At moderate altitudes where a typical aircraft
> >would fly the bulk of the journey before descending to attack (have you
> >ever seen a tanker at lo-lo level--other than landing?), both F-16 and
> >F-15 have superior range and speed-even with a full bag of ordinance.
> >The Buccaneer, assuming it had refueled several times to reach the
> >attack point, would promptly be shot out of the sky upon the initiation
> >of an attack. Why, you ask? She would make a wonderful target: Her
> >obsolete tail pipes would be glowing red hot, or better yet, the
> >opposition would have an excellent heat lock due to the boundary layer
> >control system (engine bleed gases exiting the wing leading edge) used
> >to enhance lift.
> >
>
> Go visit http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/contents.html to learn
> something about Brit planes because what You write has nothing to do with
> the reality.
>
> >I love the Brits.
>
> And You should to.
>
> >
> >-Chuck
> >
>
> Nele
>
> NULLA ROSA SINE SPINA
>
>

[Ian Craig]

"Chuck Johnson" > wrote in message
5.241...
> "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal" > wrote in
> :
>
> > On 9/2/03 10:41 PM, in article
> > , "Guy Alcala"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 9/2/03 7:07 PM, in article ,
> >>> "John Halliwell" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> In article >, Paul J. Adam
> >>>> > writes
> >>>>> The MiG-29 is a dangerously agile point-defence interceptor, and
> >>>>> it's got afterburners to further reduce its endurance. The
> >>>>> Harriers are short-cycle, but at least they get max thrust dry
> >>>>> (and I'm led to believe that carrier fuel reserves are somewhat
> >>>>> more stringent than land-based... willing to be corrected)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I just don't see MiG-29s having time and fuel to get up to speed,
> >>>>> arrange a supersonic intercept on agile opponents, and make it
> >>>>> back to base on a routine basis.
> >>>>
> >>>> From Sharkey's book on SHAR fuel consumption:
> >>>>
> >>>> 'When at full power and at low level (the worst situation for high
> >>>> fuel consumption) it used very little gas; less than 200 pounds of
> >>>> fuel per minute (compared with the F-4's 1800 pounds). This latter
> >>>> attribute meant that it could outlast any other known fighter in
> >>>> fully developed combat - a truly excellent characteristic.'
> >>>
> >>> That's against an F-4 (who can't turn inside and shoot). Against a
> >>> more agile fighter, I'd bet the Sea Harrier would get shot before it
> >>> outlasted.
> >>>
> >>> By the way, I'm not slamming the Sea Harrier... Had written orders
> >>> to go fly it at one time and was REALLY looking forward to it, but
> >>> for the "good of my career" I turned them down and took a staff job.
> >>>
> >>> I know that the Blue Vixen is capable in the BVR stages of the
> >>> fight, but in close--pilots being equal--it's no match for a
> >>> Hornet/Viper/Fulcrum.
> >>
> >> No doubt, although Sharkey did take on and beat F-15s and F-16s (the
> >> F-16s were
> >> tougher, according to him), and it's apparently quite hard to get an
> >> IR lock (at
> >> least with the missiles available in 1982; IIR types may not have
> >> that problem)
> >> with a planform view from above, like when they're turning into you
> >> -- the wing
> >> and stab mask the exhausts. And it is small and smokeless. But the
> >> best bet is
> >> undoubtedly to kill the adversary BVR before maneuverability ever
> >> becomes an issue. Give both a/c HMS and off-boresight missiles and
> >> maneuverability's almost irrelevant.
> >>
> >> Guy
> >>
> >>
> >
> > True... Very true.
> >
> > --Woody
> >
>
> Man that's laughable. The Brits enjoy trumping up the very minor
> curious attributes of their strange birds.
> They say similar things about the other assets that comprise their fleet
> of indigenously designed aircraft. May I name a few?
>
> The Panavia (British Designed) Tornado F.3? ("...the F-14 was
> considered, but it was not up to the job... ...inferior radar..." I
> love that one--Hardee har-har! Inferior indeed! Lets talk about the
> development time for the Foxhunter radar).
>
> How about the Electric Lightning F.6? ("Pioneered supercruise!" ...
> sure; "better than an F-15" uh-huh, bear in mind F.6 did not have a
> gun--just two short range and very ineffective missiles.
> Although no longer in service, it's frequently brought up as a high
> water mark of British aircraft engineering. Even among the Brits it had
> a notorious reputation for being short ranged and almost impossible to
> maintain.
>
> Lastly, who can forget the beautiful Blackburn Buccaneer? ("Faster than
> an F-16 or F-15 with a full load of armament..." OK... ****'s getting
> deep.)


Would this be the same Buc that carried a full load at 250ft (or below) that
the F16s and F15s were BANNED (yes you did read that right) from fighting in
the weeds due to the severe performance advantage enjoyed by the Buc. Not
sure if its true, but I've heard that at least one f16(?) tried to fight in
the weeds, and ended up becoming a weed?


> I'm not trying be belittle the Brits, but this aircraft is still in
> front line service (Although I'm sure that point will be disputed).
> What they don't say is that the Buccaneer can only achieve this by
> flying at the lowest of levels-which due to the density of the air, does
> create high drag on the F-16 and F-15. But it also penalizes the
> Buccaneers own range. At moderate altitudes where a typical aircraft
> would fly the bulk of the journey before descending to attack (have you
> ever seen a tanker at lo-lo level--other than landing?), both F-16 and
> F-15 have superior range and speed-even with a full bag of ordinance.
> The Buccaneer, assuming it had refueled several times to reach the
> attack point, would promptly be shot out of the sky upon the initiation
> of an attack. Why, you ask? She would make a wonderful target: Her
> obsolete tail pipes would be glowing red hot, or better yet, the
> opposition would have an excellent heat lock due to the boundary layer
> control system (engine bleed gases exiting the wing leading edge) used
> to enhance lift.
>
> I love the Brits.
>
> -Chuck
>