From: liats3@cspyr1.cs.adfa.oz.au (LIANG TIAN)
Subject: Re: F16 vs Mig29 for Malaysia
Organization: Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra, Australia
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:16:11 GMT


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

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

>Malaysia is offered by USA for 30 F16 at bargain prices. At the same
>time Mig29 is also offered, I believe at cheap prices. Even if Mig29 were
>slightly more expensive, I prefer Mig29 because:
>i)beautiful, good for Malaysian Image in Air Shows and good moral for Malaysian
>in our own shows, I do not like war, too expensive. Entertainment, yes.
  You got to be kidding. You are advocating buying a particular wpn system
because it looks better!! I admit the -29 is a beautiful aircraft but this
is a trivial point. 

>ii)twin engineed, ensuring survivability. Knowing the quality of our technicians
>the maintainance of engines are bound to be suspect. Based on the number of
>crashes of our A4 and F5 single engined aircraft, Mig 29 will be most suitable.
>Our pilots will not be so advanteurous as the Top Gun pilots in inducing 
>spins. In case of our severe tropical storms, just do not fly. 
>	We need to save money. At $40M US per piece, they are damned expensive.
  Train the technians. I don't believe you can say with any authority about
the quality of the techs. BTW, I don't think Russian engines are built as
well as Western ones. (This I read in Jane's)

>iii)more manoevrable. I believe it is in the class of F15. It has high 
>acceleration. It does not consume so much petrol because of its carbon fibre
>body. Is the F16 still made up Aluminium(large percentage). From the specs,
>that I can recall, it has the same weight as the F16, do not know which version.
>F15 is heavier. The german pilots also commented on the higher manoevrability of
>Mig29 versus Tornadoes.
>	This manoevrability makes it even more attractive at Air Shows.
  Again, I don't believe this line of reasoning, which is based on asthetics.

>	This feature also ensures survivability under missile attacks. It can
>escape from missiles.
  the -29 will kick the s..t out of a -15 in a dogfight. They are a generation
apart and built differently. the -15 was to be an interceptor with BVR
Sparrows. It was manoverable for its day because of its big wing area and
powerful engines. The -29 was built to be very manoverable and carry missiles
as well. It is supposed to be better or at least on par with the -16 and -18.
Escaping from missles? Manoverablity would help but with most missiles being
able to pull about 20gs(guessing only!), any plane would need more than
manoverability to evade missiles - ECM, countermeasures etc.

>Its usefulness depends on the country and purpose. Let me explain what Malaysia
>is. Malaysia is made up of a lot of tropical jungle. Like Vietnam.
>	It is located at very strategic straits of Malacca. It is made up of
>2 parts. Peninsular Malaysia(West) and East Malaysia(North of Borneo Island).
>	Peninsular Malaysia is almost like an island. To the north lies
>Thailand. The volatile south china sea, claimed by Vietnam, China as well,
>separates the 2 parts of Malaysia.
>The most immediate threat will be Vietnam, China. Singapore is not considered
>a threat because it is democratic, at least by me. Why should common people
>want to die? The same with Thailand. These 2 countries are also richer and
>has no point in dying.
  That's true, all we want is more $$$ :)

>	The jungle in Malaysia,like Vietnam, is thick. I do not think that
>tanks can go through them like the german panzer through the forest towards
>france in 2nd World War. The tanks or vehicles must go through known roads.
>	The battle should be at those roads. F16 can be a good bomber but
>I'm sure Mig29 can be just as good. Mig33 is even better,but must be more
>expensive. With smart bombs and missiles, this should be less of a problem.
>I'm out of touch with Military Science. I do not know of the capability of
>Mig29 and F16, at least the latest one.
  It doesn't matter if the target is a road, a hilltop or a building,
ground attack will be the same.
  -29 or -16 would also have a important task to gain air superority. I
don't the details of their ground attack capabilities. 

>	Another entrance is through the seas. Either of these planes can be
>equipped to carry anti-ship missiles, like exocet on the Mirage III of the
>Argentinian navy.
  Should be no worries for both planes.

>	It is due to this consideration that Malaysia first considered
>Tornado, but its dog fighting ability is suspect. It may be good at delivery,
>detection, and ECM but may be suspect once it is detected and hunted down.

  I must admit I am a bit bias towards the -16. Some problems u might
consider:
1) Malaysian had been using Western equipment for quite a while(A4,F5).
   Switching might cause quite a bit of retraining for techs. And if you
   are worried about the quality of the Malaysian techs, u should worry
   about their proficency after a MAJOR changover.
2) Retraining cost would be high, so would the changeover needed for
   new logistic support. Think about getting new weapons for the -29.
   I don't think you can fire a Sidewinder off a -29.:)
3) about logistic support. Russian/CIS/whatever don't have a good record
   for supporting other countries with maintance etc. Maybe the talks with
   India will help in this respect. Read Jane's weekly for more on this.
4) Commodity with other countries. Singapore, Thailand and Indonesia
   already have the -16. Buying the -16 would mean there is a potential
   for Malaysia to share knowledge on the -16 and its maintanance with these
   countries. Even a joint repair bases?

/***********************************************************/
				Liang Tian Soon
				liats3@cspyr1.cs.adfa.oz.au
/***********************************************************/


Newsgroups: sci.military