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 MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk