From: siong@fraser.sfu.ca (Siong Heng Chan)
Subject: Re: Malaysia to choose F16 or Mig29
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 23:20:00 GMT

eoahmad@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg (Othman Ahmad) writes:


>IMO Malaysia should go for Mig 29. It is dual engined, and carbon fibred
>body. It is in the class of F15, whereas F16 is only with the Mig23.

First of all, do you know that the Mig 29 plane is actually an old design?
Well, when I was younger, I was really interested in aeroplanes be it 
commercial of fighters so I collected everything I could find on planes.
In one of the Airplane magazine (one of the 1990 issues), I found out that
the Mig 29 wasn't living up to my expectation.  The first time the aircraft
was fully surveyed (the US had this chance when a Russian pilot defected to
the west via Japan in the 60's or 70's) it was found that the Mig 20 is 
actually designed in the 50's.  A lot of its equipments were out dated.
It is also found that the aircraft is not agile at all so it is almost
useless in dogfight.  The only advantage the Mig 29 has is that it is 
really fast, one of the fastest actually.  Other than its speed, it is 
certainly not in the class with many of the US fighters.  It's only
mission is to locate target from long distance, fire hoping that the target
will be shot and turn back.  

>Based on Malaysian experiece with singled engined F5, there are a lot of
>accidents. Malaysia should opt for dual engined aeroplanes. It will save
>us lots of money. Each plane costs US $38million(?). We can still bargain!
>	Malaysia should buy at least 2 squadrons, i.e. 24 aircraft. 

Basically, there is nothing wrong with singled engined planes.  The only 
problem our airforce has is that the F5s are old!  Malaysia made a BIG 
Mistake when she bought the F5s.  The F5s were actually used by the US
during the Vietnam war.  One thing I don't understand is why in the world
did the Malaysian Government buy such an old batch of planes and almost
condemned by the US?????? 
 
>I'm not sure of the characteristics of these Mig29. They could be the latest.
>I read somewhere in old aircraft books that they are equipped with look-down
>radar which is better than F16(?).

The above is crap!  As I have said before, the Mig 29 design is OLD!
One more thing, their radars are the worst characteristic of the Mig 29.
Their radar is also following the design of the 50's.  It is bulky, heavy
and generates a lot of heat.  They aren't that powerful either
.
>	Surely by now there is no secret any more. We can know exactly what
>armament is carried by these Mig 29 versus F16. Can it carry exocet missiles,
>or other anti-ship missiles etc? F16 surely cannot, it is too small. It can
>only carry bombs.

Of course the Mig 29 carries long range missiles.  It just shoots them at long
distance and run.  Certainly the F16s has more advantages.

>These Mig 29 are beautiful. They would look good in our airshows. Even the
>german pilots admit that it is more manoevrable than the Nato Tornadoes.
>Hopefully they are also as robust as those Russian planes, especially under
>or "rough" technicians.

Hey, Othman, we don't need to show off here.  I feel our beloved country has
put in enough in their defence buget.  The money would be better spent if it
were used in education and industry.
By the way, Othman, why are you bringing this up?  We Malaysians are peace 
loving people.  We are not going to have wars with everybody.

Anyone who are reading this, please don't put us Malaysians in the same class
as Othman here.  We are all peace loving people.  We DON'T LIKE WARS.
I'm sure most of the usual Malaysians will agree with me.
 


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

Siong, Cmpt Sci, SFU.