Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!pacbell.com!att!cbnews!cbnews!military From: jln@leland.stanford.edu (Jared Nedzel) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: F-16 ? Message-ID: <1991Mar19.044105.8316@cbnews.att.com> Date: 19 Mar 91 04:41:05 GMT References: <1991Mar18.003736.23374@cbnews.att.com> Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (william.b.thacker) Organization: AIR, Stanford University Lines: 73 Approved: military@att.att.com From: jln@leland.stanford.edu (Jared Nedzel) In article <1991Mar18.003736.23374@cbnews.att.com> brummer@cc.helsinki.fi writes: >From: brummer@cc.helsinki.fi >I read somewhere that the Israeli Airforce had many encounters with >Syrian Migs during the campaign in Lebanon beginning of 80. >What was the drop ratio? Israel shot down about 80 Syrian aircraft and lost only 2 of its own (they were lost to ground fire, not air-air combat). > As I understood it the F-15 and F-16 -planes >handled remarkably. While the results in the 1980 Israel-Syrian conflict can be partly attributed to technology, don't discount the affects of skill and training. The IAF is reknowned as one of the world's best air forces. Syrian pilots are not anywhere near as well regarded. The IAF also had superior aircraft (F-15s and F-16s vs. Mig-23s) and AWACS planes while the Syrian radar sites were damaged and jammed. >These planes would interest me, because Finland is >going to renew its airforce and buy 60 new fighters. >Under discussion are Mig-29, Mirage 2000(?), Saab Gripen and F-16. >Is the F-16 really up-to-date anymore? The F-16 first flew in 1977, so it is not new technology. It is still a potent aircraft, though. A major limitation of the plane has been the lack of a beyond-visual-range missile. Hopefully that will change as AMRAAM comes on line. (I hope this won't start another "radar-missiles aren't any good" flame war. Radar-guided missiles have dramatically improved since the Vietnam war and apparently scored the first kill of the Gulf War.) >How would a F-16 handle against a Mig-25 or -29? (have there been any >encounters? I don't really know too much about planes) The Mig-25 is a high-altitude, high-speed interceptor. It was developed by the USSR to counter the XB-70 high-altitude Mach 3 bomber that the US was developing in the '60s (and which was canceled). Some versions of the Mig-25 have reached Mach 3 (which is a whole lot faster than the F-16), but it is reported that after doing so the engines were pretty well shot (see Belenko, Viktor, "Mig Pilot" -- an autobiography of a Mig-25 pilot who defected with his plane to Japan). The Mig-25 has terrible pilot visibility and is very unmaneuverable. It also has a relatively short range. In sum, an out-dated plane that has severe limitations. (Note that the USSR has produced a successor to the Mig-25, [Mig-31??]. I don't know much about its capabilities, though.) The Mig-29 is another story entirely. It is certainly more comparable to the F-16. It has thrust/weight ratio a bit better than 1, it is *very* manuverable, and it has an excellent infrared search-and-track system slaved to the pilots helmet. Avionics are said to be back in the steam-dial age, though (like the F-4). Although Mig-29s were shot down in the Gulf War by allied pilots, I wouldn't write off the Mig-29 as being inferior; the Iraqi pilots were not known for their skill at dogfighting and they had lost their ground-control radar intercept capability, while the allied pilots were able to rely on AWACS aircraft for radar control. Western pilots who have flown the Mig-29 were quite impressed (Aviation Week has run pilot reports on both the Mig-29 and Su-27 in the past year.) >Brummer@cc.Helsinki.fi > -- Jared L. Nedzel --------------------------------------------------------------------- e-mail: nedzel@cive.stanford.edu jln@portia.stanford.edu