Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: gordon@meaddata.com (Gordon Edwards)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Mig-29 operated by Iraq
Keywords: AIM-54, olive drab fuzzy bananas
Message-ID: <1991Jan19.043722.6663@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 19 Jan 91 04:37:22 GMT
References: <1991Jan15.021838.23936@cbnews.att.com> <1991Jan17.053752.29563@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Lines: 61
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: gordon@meaddata.com (Gordon Edwards)


In article <1991Jan17.053752.29563@cbnews.att.com>,
davisp@skybridge.SCL.CWRU.Edu (Palmer Davis) writes:
|> 
|> 
|> From: davisp@skybridge.SCL.CWRU.Edu (Palmer Davis)
|> In article <1991Jan15.021838.23936@cbnews.att.com>
jtgorman@cs.arizona.edu (J. Taggart Gorman) writes:
|> >
|> >I know [Fulcrums] wouldn't be a match against a 100nm Phoenix missile, but 
|> >against some poor F-16 only armed with Sidewinders, it might be a deadly 
|> >furball.
|> >
|> 
|> Other way around.  The AIM-54 is big and relatively unmaneuverable; it's
|> intended to shoot down targets that are also big and relatively
unmaneuverable,
|> like long-range bombers and ASMs.  (And carried by the big and relatively
|> unmaneuverable F-14.)  If the MiG saw the missile in time (or even had a
|> working RWR), it would stand a much better chance of dodging it than
an AIM-9
|> from an F-16 or other UN fighter.
|> 

A few random thoughts:
The F-16/MiG-29 comparison is a bit unfair.  A better comparison is the MiG-29/
F/A-18.  They are very similar in looks, size, and performance.  It is worth
noting that there are a number of maneuvers that the F/A-18 equals or exceeds
the performance of the F-16.  A 9g turn isn't everything and it will leave you
low on the airspeed side.  The F-16 is very limited on AoA and has no BVR
weapon capability (until AMRAAM).  The F/A-18 has very good AoA and can carry
Sparrows on conformal mounts (minimizes drag).

The AIM-54/F-14 combo is severely restricted in a limited war situation (don't
want to shoot down any more air liners).  The F-14 pilots essentially have to 
close within range of their TCS and visually identify the targets.

If the AIM-54 is launched at 100nm, it is very hard to detect for a couple of
reasons.

1.  The long range flight profile is such that it flies up to ~100,000 ft and
    then comes straight down on the target at approx, Mach 5 (it is VERY fast).

2.  The AIM-54C uses inertial midcourse (like the AMRAAM) as opposed to the
    earlier semi-active midcourse.  Thus threat receivers will not allow much
    time to react.

Finally, if you've ever seen one of the F-14A+ with the improved engines, you
would probably retract your statement about maneuverability.  Granted, its not
in the F/A-18/MiG-29 class, but a good Tomcat pilot would be a very tough foe.
Even prior to the improved engines (> 27,000lbs. thrust each), the
unique design
of the Tomcat allowed it to generate a tremendous amout of lift (the area 
between the engines, called the "pancake", generates 40% additional lift).


-- Gordon     (gordon@meaddata.com)