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

"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/...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.

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

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

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

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

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

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