Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: tighe@hydra.convex.com (Mike Tighe)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Mig-29 operated by Iraq
Message-ID: <1991Jan24.035051.21821@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 24 Jan 91 03:50:51 GMT
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 26
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: tighe@hydra.convex.com (Mike Tighe)
> From: anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Lee)
 
>> davisp@skybridge.SCL.CWRU.Edu (Palmer Davis) writes:
 
>> 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.)
 
> Sorry to disagree but I think the F14 is more maneuverable then you think.
> Back in the early days of the F15s, the Navy F14s used to regularly beat
> the F15s in dogfight simulations.  Also don't forget the engagements
> against the Su and Mig fighters of the Libyan air force.
 
I think you are confusing the F-15 with the F-4. It was the F-4 (slatted
wing) that was defeated in maneuverability tests by the F-14, not the F-15.
These test were set up by the Navy, and conducted at Grummann's Calverton
facility, in the early days of the F-14 program.
 
In fact, one (of many) reason the AF chose the F-15 over the F-14 (back
when the buzzword was commonality) was the increased maneuverability of the
F-15.
--