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