From: liats3@cspyr1.cs.adfa.oz.au (LIANG TIAN)
Subject: Re: How good is the Mig29 vs F16/F18 ?
Organization: Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra, Australia
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:39:44 GMT


From liats3@cspyr1.cs.adfa.oz.au (LIANG TIAN)

>From eoahmad@ntu.ac.sg (Othman Ahmad)

>I think Mig29 is vastly superior to F16/F18 and even F15, even when we
>include weapon system.
  Debatable.

>First airframe superiority:
>		F15D	F18A/B	F16A/B	MIG29
>Gross wts(lbs):68000	51900	37500	60000
				       ^^^^^
  The 29 is not that big. From FirePower(41), Orbis, the 29 has a max
loaded weight of 39700lbs. 

>Speed(Mach):	2.5	1.7+	2+	2.3
>Thrust/weight:	?	?	?	1.2
>Rate of turn:	8G	8G	8G	9G/16degrees/s(snap)?
  Wrong, wrong, wrong. The 15, 18 and 16 all can up to 9Gs.(various
sources).

>Angle of Attack:			highest?
>range(nm)				200
>Weapons:	4xAIM7	2xAIM9	2XAIM9	6XAA10	
  These specs are misleading and useless. The -15 can carry a max
of 4 BVR(AIM7 or AIM120), and 4 AIM9. The 16 can carry 2 BVR and 2 AIM9
for newer blocks. The -18 has always been able to carry 2 BVR and 2
(possible 4) AIM9. The -29 usually carry 2 Apex(or equ) and 4  Aphid(or
equ). (Aust Aviation, Jun 1990) The -16 is only capable of pulling 9Gs
with only 2 AIM9(FP 41) but I would like to see the -29 pull 9Gs with
6 AAM without bits falling off.

>Look down
>radar range(nm):			60
		-15	-18	-16	-29
		100	38	30	54

  You miss one important factor - Combat Range:
		-15	-18	-16	-29
		600	405	490	350
  And all these a/c except the -29 can perform inflight refuelling.
  				(Aust Aviation, Jun 1990)
  Seems like the -29 has even shorter legs than the -18, which
is saying something! :)

>Missile specs:

>AIM9 Sidewinder: short range missile
>AIM7 Sparrow:	24+ nm
>AA10:		probably like AA-7 which is 15 nm and 12 for look down.

>Data is from AW&ST, March 16,1992.
>If someone can expand on the data by quoting Janes, it will be most
>appreciated.

>The airframe therefore can carry a lot more missiles and therefore the
>avionics must be more powerful as well.
  Argument not necessarily true. Anyway, the -29 doesn't carry a lot
more missiles.

>	In terms of weapons carried, it is more like F15D. Performance wise
>with 2 engines is also more like F15 but I believe with even higher angle of
>attack making it able to have a high rate of climb and manoevrability.
>In the interceptor role, to compare it with F18 is obviously in the Mig29 
>favour given its higher speed which implies higher thrust/weight ration and
>manoevrability, quick interception capability.
>	Manoevrability is in the class of F16 and F15 but with high angle of
>attack capability which makes it even more superior. The airframes of the
>F15 is very old, the F16, although newer are not in the class of the twin
>engine Mig29, which ensures it higher rate of survivability compared to F16.
  Remember that the -29 is the most modern of all the a/c discussed here.
  Survivability. Why don't you compare -18 with -29 then. They both have
twin engines. BTW, the survivability of a/c with 1 or 2 engines is
debatable. I wondered if there are any studies done on this?

>	From data that I read about Mig25 caputured a long time ago, the soviet
>equipment were crude but works.
  Relevance??

>	If a radar is capable of look down capablility, it means that it has
>pulse dopler capability, which makes it harder to jam.
  A NO-93 Flash Dance coherent pulse Doppler LDSD radar. (Aust Aviation,
Jun 1990)

>	However the success of a plane in combat depends on its pilots. The
>lack of Mig29 equipment is exaggerated given the availability of HUD. The
>pilot training may not be as comprehensive as the US pilots but with better
>equipment, it may be compensated. The success of the Israelis against the
>arabs may be due to tactics and preparations such as the use of AWACS,
>rather than the superiourity of F15 over Mig29. Also the arabs(Syria) do not
>have a lot of Mig29.
>	Iraq may have a small number but they have never used it or rather
>no chance to use it when it is bombarded by stealth bombers. Did the
>stealth actually target the Mig29 bases more frequently than others?
>	Did any Mig29 actually took off? If they took off, they may knock off
>some Allied planes.

  If you can get it, look up Australian Aviation, June 1990. It has a very
good article on the -29. It also has a table of air-superiority performace
of a/c in the pacific Rim area. The a/c compared are the -25C(USAF, JASDF),
-28A(USN, RAAF), -16A(USAF Sth Korea, Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand),
-27B(USSR), -29A(USSR, India, Nth Korea, (and now Malaysia??)). 

>	Malaysia had bought an undisclosed number of Mig29. With 28 Hawk200,
>Malaysia could be the best air force in Asean, if the Mig29 is proven to be
>much superior to F16 with long range attack capability, but those AWACS from
>Singapore are formidable opponents, especially if they are protected by the
>SAM umbrella of Singapore.
>	I'm not sure of the strength of Thai and Vietnam air forces. The
>chinese have a lot of air planes but I'm not sure if they can cover the
>spratlys. Maybe the Hawk200 can be a match for Mig21 chinese derivatives, if
>they can land on those tiny islands.
  Dangerous ground here.
  I just want to say, as a Singaporean, that the relationship between
Malaysia and Singapore is very good, warm, cordial, etc. The above
statements was quite disconcerting to me as it implies a picture of
competition and hostility( "... AWACS from Singapore are formidable 
opponents, ...").

>--
>Othman bin Ahmad, School of EEE,
>Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 2263.
>Internet Email: eoahmad@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg
>Bitnet Email: eoahmad@ntuvax.bitnet

/***********************************************************/
Disclaimer: Above are my _personal_ thoughts and blabbing
	    and is not the view, policy, etc of any 
	    organisation[s] I am/was/will be in. 
Liang Tian Soon
liats3@cspyr1.cs.adfa.oz.au
/***********************************************************/


Newsgroups: sci.military