I'll preface this by saying that in most situations and facing a competent pilot, any type of Harrier is simply toast in WVR against most modern fighters.  But in the right circumstance it can be very dangerous. 

 

Once inside of the merge a competent SU/Mig pilot would be able to keep outside of the FA-2's weapons envelope while maintaining the initiative, waiting for a chance to score a kill shot. Remember the Russians could theoretically launch with a helmet guided IR shot while climbing, inverted, over the top in response to a tight Harrier turn.

 

Theoretically, but, again, the Harrier is really hard to see and makes a really poor IR target.  You are also giving the Archer + HMS combo way too much credit.  The HMS allowed the Archer about a 45 degree off-boresight (90 deg FOV) while on pylon, it's not comparable to the angles you get with modern HMS+HOBS missiles.

 

If the MiG pilot is disciplined and sticks to booming and zooming until he gets a clear shot then the Harrier is doomed.  If the MiG gets suckered into chasing the Harrier into turns he's going to have problems.

The Harrier always lacks power v. a F-teen or the more advanced Russian types.

 

Not really.  The Harrier lacks power compared to most 4th gen fighters at the speeds and altitudes where the 4th gen is designed to fight - above 15K feet and 450 kts.  However, the Harrier's engine is designed to operate low and slow, and it's still in its element at airspeeds where 4th gen types are losing power and bleeding energy like crazy.  So, again, it is very easy for an overconfident pilot to get into trouble going close in against a Harrier.

 

 

True but that has as much to do with how the Harriers were employed than its attributes.  Harriers flying from Invincible were very effective at using their radar for interception.  The Harriers flying from Hermes were told to rely on GCI, which was spectacularly ineffective at detecting low-flying strike aircraft.  Consequently the CAP performance was a mixed bag.  Both squadrons achieved about the same number of kills per aircraft but 801 was more effective at actually stopping attacks.

 

I am aware of that.  Nonetheless,  800 squadron relied on ship-based GCI while 801 squadron operated autonomously at lower altitude, and consequently was more effective CAP.  Obviously they would have been more effective with better equipment, with AEW, or both.

 

I'm not a Harrier fan because it isn't much of a fighter. By your own admition a competent pilot in a contemporary modern fighter can keep a Harrier from gaining advantage. A competent Harrier pilot would require luck to survive in an air to air engagement even with a Mig-29 that was reasonably well flown. The only exception is the superior BVR range of the FA-2 v. the Mig-29. The RAF's are now in mothballs.

As a strike fighter it can't carry much of a load, compared to conventional types, and in order to maximize it's load it needs a hard surface runway (so what was all that VTOL good for then?). It has a horrible safety record, is a bitch to maintain, has a limited internal fuel, and needs specialized equipment to operate (like a copious supply of special water to run the verticl

Pretty much.  I'm not trying to "tap dance" around anything, just pointing out that Harriers can in fact be really deadly in WVR.  Again, they have shown this in exercises against even top of the line modern fighters.  A WVR fight against a MiG-29 is not a foregone conclusion because the MiG is largely overrated in low and slow maneuverability, does not have good visibility, etc, and the Harrier's advantages capitalize on that.  On the other hand a Harrier against an F-16 in WVR would be in a lot more trouble, all else being equal.

Yeah...please, let's not get into the Bill Gunston "Replace everything with Harriers!" BS.  If Bill was French and on the internet, he'd probably use a handle like "French Strategist"...

 

Galderio, if we're talking a 1980s Third World War scenario, the MiG-29A would've been in big trouble, from the content of the article.  The Foxhounds would likely not be used in Central Europe because of the need to guard the USSR itself from American bombers, should things go really south.  The Fulcrums would likely be on their own, detected by E-3s from the moment they took off, and facing both F-15s and F-16s in dogfights. 

 

Germany only had one wing of Fulcrums.  Their other interceptors were (and remain, until the Typhoon in fully in service) the F-4F.  So it wasn't the "only" interceptor the Germans had.

 

 

I enjoyed reading the US pilot's review and opinions on the Mig-29. With over 500 hours in type he has enough experience to be considered an expert. That said, he compared it to western types and from a western perspective. Compared to what it was meant to replace, the Mig-23, Mig-21, and SU-22/21 series, and a smattering of other types, it was a great improvement. One might even say it was a "modern" fighter, even by western standards (just not as good as ours).

 

No it wasn't as good as one of our legacy fighters or the European Tornado for instance but in an honest moment, I imagine you would get even a Russian AF general of the day to admit they knew it wouldn't be, and were still happy to have it. It has generally good handling characteristics without many of the flaws of earlier types. It had better visibility than it's stable mates and probably handled better in IFR conditions, easier to teach in, et.. Probably an easier type to maintain.

 

The Russians have always accepted that they would not be at the very cutting edge of technology, but they beat the Luftwaffe with their own home built "compromises" and hand me downs that they were given by the allies. I'd say that in the good enough category it scores fairly high.

 

Check Six

 

Rocky

I don't know about that, Rocky.  I agree that for the Russians, the MiG-29's problems was seen as an acceptable tradeoff, whereas in the West it probably wouldn't have gotten past flight test.  After all, the Soviets always figured that most of their Frontal Aviation squadrons would be wiped out in a few weeks anyway, but since the war would be over by then, it wouldn't really matter.  Sucks if you're a MiG pilot, but oh well...welcome to being a cog in the machine, comrade.

 

Where I disagree is that the Red Air Force was able to defeat the Luftwaffe.  The Soviets had some very good pilots (Kozhedub, Pokryshkin, even Litvyak), but most were poor stuff.  Erich Hartmann took down over 300 of them, and said that he wouldn't feel afraid dogfighting 10 Russian Yaks or Lavochkins, but got scared if he was opposed by one American P-51.  And you figure that a German pilot who got over 100 kills in the West was considered exceptionally lucky (Priller), exceptionally skilled (Marseille), or just managed to live a long time (Galland), whereas in the East, 100 kills was just running with the crowd.  All that and the Luftwaffe also had stripped the Russian Front of fighter units to oppose the Allies in the West--JG 52 was at times pretty much it on the southern flank, and the Russians still didn't achieve air superiority until 1945, whereas the Western Allies had, by that time, basically air supremacy.

 

The Russians won the air battle on the Eastern Front only through sheer force of numbers, guts, and the fact that most German pilots were back home trying to defend the Reich.  That's my understanding of it, anyway--which goes a long way to explain the design limitations of the MiG-29.

 

I struggle to find in your reply, just what you are disagreeing with me about. Do we agree the Russians were probably happy with the Mig-29 which is a system that is/was not up to western standards. Do we agree thee Mig-29 was and is a compromise that improves upon earlier Russian types. I think we also agree that historically this isn't new. Russian aircraft have frequently lagged behind western types in aviation technology but they did win a big war against a technically superior adversary. The Germans certainly won allot (maybe most) of air the battles but the whole quality v. quantity thing became more important than which aircraft bled more energy in a high g turn. The Red Air Force of WWII wasn't technically the best but it was certainly good enough (the Red Air Force was on the winning side wasn't it?).

 

 My whole point in the Russian Position post was that although the Mig-29 wasn't up to western standards, that was okay with the Reds. For them it was good enough.

 

I am reminded about the old joke in NATO, circa about 1980, of the two Russian Army Generals drinking a fine bottle of wine and enjoying lunch in a Paris Cafe about a week after WWIII kicked off. The story goes something like this: as the French waiter refills their glasses for another toast, one proud Russian asks the other - "who won the air war?".

 

Check Six

 

Rocky

 

I agree with Rocky in that, whilst the MiG-29 certainly had its shortcomings, it was a quantum leap in capability over the types it replaced, especially the MiG-23.

 

Pre-AMRAAM era, it had a short-BVR/far-WVR engagement capability beyond the F-16's Sidewinder, it was fast, accellerated well, and could turn, unlike the Flogger.

 

Sure, the sustained-turn capability was poorer, but then so was its fuel load, so after a couple of passes or so any survivors would have to disengage anyway.