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

"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

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?

What utter Bullsh**. The Buc would not last 5 minutes in the same sky
with an F -15 or an F-16. It was, repeat was, a fine a/c thirty years
ago, now it is a museum piece.

Al Minyard

So at a rough guess, you don't believe me? Well thats your choice, but when
you consider the air mass displacement the buc had at low level, anybody
trying to get in behind it was going to end up in trouble, as I previously
mentioned. This was in the days before a true look down shoot down missile
existed, and anything that did try to lock on, usually ended up (or would
have if they were real missiles - Red Flag) getting lost in ground return -
the point I was making.

"Alan Minyard" wrote in message
...


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?

What utter Bullsh**. The Buc would not last 5 minutes in the same sky
with an F -15 or an F-16. It was, repeat was, a fine a/c thirty years
ago, now it is a museum piece.

Al Minyard

"Ian Craig" wrote in
:

So at a rough guess, you don't believe me? Well thats your choice,
but when you consider the air mass displacement the buc had at low
level, anybody trying to get in behind it was going to end up in
trouble, as I previously mentioned. This was in the days before a
true look down shoot down missile existed, and anything that did try
to lock on, usually ended up (or would have if they were real missiles
- Red Flag) getting lost in ground return - the point I was making.

"Alan Minyard" wrote in message
...


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?

What utter Bullsh**. The Buc would not last 5 minutes in the same
sky with an F -15 or an F-16. It was, repeat was, a fine a/c thirty
years ago, now it is a museum piece.

Al Minyard


Yeah, I don't believe you. What you quote is a 'book legend.' A
practice almost exclusively enjoyed by the British.
Whatever happened to British understatement? Instead its given way to
British Hyperbole: seemingly impossible feats of daring do accomplished
only by Brits in their obsolete, funny looking airplanes.

I'm getting tired...
Can you tell me a good fairy tale? Why don't you tell me the story about
the Buc that hooked a tumbleweed on its pitot tube.
I love that one!

Your Pal,
Chuck

Nope - never heard that one. Care to enlighten me?

I have heard about the USAF fitter (don't know what the americans call
them?) who did pull-ups on a pitot probe and bent it. Rather than fix it he
bent the rest of the flights? Heard that one - I'm sure I could find it and
read it to you some other time??

"Chuck Johnson" wrote in message
. 165.241...
"Ian Craig" wrote in
:

So at a rough guess, you don't believe me? Well thats your choice,
but when you consider the air mass displacement the buc had at low
level, anybody trying to get in behind it was going to end up in
trouble, as I previously mentioned. This was in the days before a
true look down shoot down missile existed, and anything that did try
to lock on, usually ended up (or would have if they were real missiles
- Red Flag) getting lost in ground return - the point I was making.

"Alan Minyard" wrote in message
...


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?

What utter Bullsh**. The Buc would not last 5 minutes in the same
sky with an F -15 or an F-16. It was, repeat was, a fine a/c thirty
years ago, now it is a museum piece.

Al Minyard


Yeah, I don't believe you. What you quote is a 'book legend.' A
practice almost exclusively enjoyed by the British.
Whatever happened to British understatement? Instead its given way to
British Hyperbole: seemingly impossible feats of daring do accomplished
only by Brits in their obsolete, funny looking airplanes.

I'm getting tired...
Can you tell me a good fairy tale? Why don't you tell me the story about
the Buc that hooked a tumbleweed on its pitot tube.
I love that one!

Your Pal,
Chuck

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 20:47:38 +0100, "Ian Craig"
wrote:

Nope - never heard that one. Care to enlighten me?

I have heard about the USAF fitter (don't know what the americans call
them?) who did pull-ups on a pitot probe and bent it. Rather than fix it he
bent the rest of the flights? Heard that one - I'm sure I could find it and
read it to you some other time??

That was a Greek guy guarding two transient aircraft, not an American.
It was reported in Flight International.

Mary
--
Mary Shafer
"There are only two types of aircraft--fighters and targets"
Major Doyle "Wahoo" Nicholson, USMC

"Mary Shafer" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 20:47:38 +0100, "Ian Craig"
wrote:

Nope - never heard that one. Care to enlighten me?

I have heard about the USAF fitter (don't know what the americans call
them?) who did pull-ups on a pitot probe and bent it. Rather than fix it
he
bent the rest of the flights? Heard that one - I'm sure I could find it
and
read it to you some other time??

That was a Greek guy guarding two transient aircraft, not an American.
It was reported in Flight International.

Indeed, it was a Greek guard who did this on one of four Mirage F.1EQ
underway from France to Iraq, in April 1981. After noticing he did something
wrong, he bent the pitot probes on the other three aircraft too... The
French had to fly-in a team of technicians with spare parts to solve the
problem.... ;-)))

Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
and,
Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/t...hp/title=S6585

"Tom Cooper" wrote in
:

"Mary Shafer" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 20:47:38 +0100, "Ian Craig"
wrote:

Nope - never heard that one. Care to enlighten me?

I have heard about the USAF fitter (don't know what the americans
call them?) who did pull-ups on a pitot probe and bent it. Rather
than fix it
he
bent the rest of the flights? Heard that one - I'm sure I could
find it
and
read it to you some other time??

That was a Greek guy guarding two transient aircraft, not an
American. It was reported in Flight International.

Indeed, it was a Greek guard who did this on one of four Mirage F.1EQ
underway from France to Iraq, in April 1981. After noticing he did
something wrong, he bent the pitot probes on the other three aircraft
too... The French had to fly-in a team of technicians with spare parts
to solve the problem.... ;-)))

Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
and,
Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/t...hp/title=S6585



More British (penis) envy of their French neighbors. How tiresome...
and yet fun!

Not that I love the French, but I love the unrestrained never ending
British jealousy directed at the evidently technically superior French
(Planes, Trains and Automobiles--oops! I forgot ships too (Queen Mary
II)!).

As for the Brits, they do degrade their neighbors in remarkably good
taste. Jolly Good!

On a military note, what's the deal with the MoD considering 'drastic
reductions' in the Eurofighter orders?

"Chuck Johnson" wrote in message
. 165.241...
"Tom Cooper" wrote in
:

More British (penis) envy of their French neighbors. How tiresome...
and yet fun!

Not that I love the French, but I love the unrestrained never ending
British jealousy directed at the evidently technically superior French
(Planes, Trains and Automobiles--oops! I forgot ships too (Queen Mary
II)!).

As for the Brits, they do degrade their neighbors in remarkably good
taste. Jolly Good!

On a military note, what's the deal with the MoD considering 'drastic
reductions' in the Eurofighter orders?

Chuck,
if this was sent to my adress, let me tell you, first of all, I'm not
British: I'm a pretty weird mix with a WASP, German and even Slavic
backgrounds. In short: a product of a familiy with 700 years of
military-service tradition.

If you want to bash me, call me a "prototype K.u.K. bourgeois", no problem:
just not "British". ;-)))

As second: that with the bent pitot tubes simply happened: that is a fact.
And, it was done by a Greek guard to a French aircraft. So, sorry: not my
fault.

Re. your military note: everybody is talking about "drastic cuts" of the
EF-2000's production run already since years. Sometimes they do this, many
times not. Germany already threatened to get out of the project completely,
two or so years back....

Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
and,
Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/t...hp/title=S6585

The deal with the MoD 'considering drastic cuts' - probably the same thing
as the DoD doing exactly the same thing to F(should I add the /A?)-22.
Politics......


"Chuck Johnson" wrote in message
. 165.241...
"Tom Cooper" wrote in
:

"Mary Shafer" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 20:47:38 +0100, "Ian Craig"
wrote:

Nope - never heard that one. Care to enlighten me?

I have heard about the USAF fitter (don't know what the americans
call them?) who did pull-ups on a pitot probe and bent it. Rather
than fix it
he
bent the rest of the flights? Heard that one - I'm sure I could
find it
and
read it to you some other time??

That was a Greek guy guarding two transient aircraft, not an
American. It was reported in Flight International.

Indeed, it was a Greek guard who did this on one of four Mirage F.1EQ
underway from France to Iraq, in April 1981. After noticing he did
something wrong, he bent the pitot probes on the other three aircraft
too... The French had to fly-in a team of technicians with spare parts
to solve the problem.... ;-)))

Tom Cooper
Co-Author:
Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988:
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
and,
Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat:
http://www.osprey-publishing.co.uk/t...hp/title=S6585



More British (penis) envy of their French neighbors. How tiresome...
and yet fun!

Not that I love the French, but I love the unrestrained never ending
British jealousy directed at the evidently technically superior French
(Planes, Trains and Automobiles--oops! I forgot ships too (Queen Mary
II)!).

As for the Brits, they do degrade their neighbors in remarkably good
taste. Jolly Good!

On a military note, what's the deal with the MoD considering 'drastic
reductions' in the Eurofighter orders?