Eurofighter grounded!

On 17 Oct 2003 11:37:20 -0700, Kevin Brooks wrote:
(phil hunt) wrote in message ...
Typhoon has been designed from the beginning as a multi-role
aircraft.

Yes, but it is optimised for being a fighter. An optimised bomber
would look like an A-10 or Tornado.

"Would look like" seems to be rather shaky criteria to me. The F-15E
is most decidedly a muti-role aircraft with a decided strike
orientation--does it "look like a bomber"? Did the F-4? Or the
proabable King of Multi-Role, the F-16? And BTW, that example of
"Tornado" that allegedly epitomizes what a "bomber" should look like?
It too is multi-role--witness the ADF and ECM versions.

It is not a dogfighter. Tornado is optimised for fuel efficiency and
the ability to carry large amounts of munitions a long way.

A-10 is optimised for survivability, carrying a large bombload, and
direct cannon fire at a target.

F-16 is optimised for air-superiority. It has a high-performance
engine, is highly maneouvrable, and has a big radar to track other
aircraft. It can do other stuff, but that's not its primary role.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).

ess (phil hunt) wrote in message ...
On 17 Oct 2003 11:37:20 -0700, Kevin Brooks wrote:
(phil hunt) wrote in message ...
Typhoon has been designed from the beginning as a multi-role
aircraft.

Yes, but it is optimised for being a fighter. An optimised bomber
would look like an A-10 or Tornado.

"Would look like" seems to be rather shaky criteria to me. The F-15E
is most decidedly a muti-role aircraft with a decided strike
orientation--does it "look like a bomber"? Did the F-4? Or the
proabable King of Multi-Role, the F-16? And BTW, that example of
"Tornado" that allegedly epitomizes what a "bomber" should look like?
It too is multi-role--witness the ADF and ECM versions.

It is not a dogfighter. Tornado is optimised for fuel efficiency and
the ability to carry large amounts of munitions a long way.

Whoah. That "optimized for fuel efficiency" Tornado has legs just a
bit shorter than that F-15E I mentioned. And no, it was designed from
the outset as a multi-role aircraft--there was a reason it had the
nomenclature MRCA when it was originally developed.


A-10 is optimised for survivability, carrying a large bombload, and
direct cannon fire at a target.

That makes it primarily a CAS platform. Now why would you expect other
strike platforms to "look like" the A-10? Does the F-111? Or maybe the
A-7? How does a B-58 meet you "looks like" criteria, versus the old
BUFF?


F-16 is optimised for air-superiority. It has a high-performance
engine, is highly maneouvrable, and has a big radar to track other
aircraft. It can do other stuff, but that's not its primary role.

Care to guess what the "primary role" of the F-16 is, and always has
been, within the USAF (with the sole exception of the ADF variant)?
Yep, that's right, it spends (much, much) more of its time concerned
with BAI/CAS/SEAD than it ever has the air superiority role. At the
very beginning of the development program it was envisioned as
primarily being a lightweight air superiority product, but that
changed while it was still in early development and before it ever
entered into US service--it went multi-role rather early in its
gestation.

Brooks

On 17 Oct 2003 19:53:12 -0700, Kevin Brooks wrote:
(phil hunt) wrote in message ...

F-16 is optimised for air-superiority. It has a high-performance
engine, is highly maneouvrable, and has a big radar to track other
aircraft. It can do other stuff, but that's not its primary role.

Care to guess what the "primary role" of the F-16 is, and always has
been, within the USAF

It was designed as a low-cost airv superiority fighter to counteract
the USSR's large fleet of fighters and fighter bombers.

(with the sole exception of the ADF variant)?
Yep, that's right, it spends (much, much) more of its time concerned
with BAI/CAS/SEAD than it ever has the air superiority role.

That's because the USSR doesn't exist any more, and the USA has
tended to fight enemies with less capable air forces.

At the
very beginning of the development program it was envisioned as
primarily being a lightweight air superiority product, but that
changed while it was still in early development and before it ever
entered into US service--it went multi-role rather early in its
gestation.

Multi-role, but with an emphasis on air superiority. Just as the
A-10 has multi-role capability: you can shoot down other aircraft
with it, but no-one would say it's designed as a fighter.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).

"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..

Multi-role, but with an emphasis on air superiority. Just as the
A-10 has multi-role capability: you can shoot down other aircraft
with it, but no-one would say it's designed as a fighter.

Ever play a game called, "Air Wars"? You should give it a try. It's out of
print these days. I would kill for a copy of it and the qualified people to
play it. Play that game using an A-10 and you will change your story. I am
afraid that a simulation is about the only way you will find out where you
are incorrect. The A-10 is a dead duck against other AC outside of L-5.

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 00:28:03 -0600, Daryl Hunt wrote:

"phil hunt" wrote in message
...

Multi-role, but with an emphasis on air superiority. Just as the
A-10 has multi-role capability: you can shoot down other aircraft
with it, but no-one would say it's designed as a fighter.

Ever play a game called, "Air Wars"? You should give it a try. It's out of
print these days. I would kill for a copy of it and the qualified people to
play it. Play that game using an A-10 and you will change your story. I am
afraid that a simulation is about the only way you will find out where you
are incorrect. The A-10 is a dead duck against other AC outside of L-5.

Er, my whole point was that the A-10 isn't particularly good at
shooting down other auircraft. (But IIRC an A-10 once shot down a
helicopter).

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).

In article ,
ess (phil hunt) wrote:

Er, my whole point was that the A-10 isn't particularly good at
shooting down other auircraft. (But IIRC an A-10 once shot down a
helicopter).

On the other hand, in some exercises a couple of decades back, A-10s did
very well versus F-15s as long as they kept things down near the ground.
Hiding in the weeds kept the long-range missiles out of the equation,
and once they got into gun range, they broke even.

It's nice to have a gun that can kill the other guy from a couple of
miles out...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

In article , Chad Irby
wrote:

In article ,
ess (phil hunt) wrote:

Er, my whole point was that the A-10 isn't particularly good at
shooting down other auircraft. (But IIRC an A-10 once shot down a
helicopter).

On the other hand, in some exercises a couple of decades back, A-10s did
very well versus F-15s as long as they kept things down near the ground.
Hiding in the weeds kept the long-range missiles out of the equation,
and once they got into gun range, they broke even.

I wouldn't try that with the more modern radars currently on the F-15.
Fast mort.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 00:28:03 -0600, "Daryl Hunt"
wrote:


"phil hunt" wrote in message
...

Multi-role, but with an emphasis on air superiority. Just as the
A-10 has multi-role capability: you can shoot down other aircraft
with it, but no-one would say it's designed as a fighter.

Ever play a game called, "Air Wars"? You should give it a try. It's out of
print these days. I would kill for a copy of it and the qualified people to
play it. Play that game using an A-10 and you will change your story. I am
afraid that a simulation is about the only way you will find out where you
are incorrect. The A-10 is a dead duck against other AC outside of L-5.


Playing games is a long, long way from combat. People who play games
need to realize that they are "playing a game" that does not reflect
reality.

Al Minyard

Alan Minyard wrote:

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 00:28:03 -0600, "Daryl Hunt"
wrote:


"phil hunt" wrote in message
...

Multi-role, but with an emphasis on air superiority. Just as the
A-10 has multi-role capability: you can shoot down other aircraft
with it, but no-one would say it's designed as a fighter.

Ever play a game called, "Air Wars"? You should give it a try. It's out of
print these days. I would kill for a copy of it and the qualified people to
play it. Play that game using an A-10 and you will change your story. I am
afraid that a simulation is about the only way you will find out where you
are incorrect. The A-10 is a dead duck against other AC outside of L-5.


Playing games is a long, long way from combat. People who play games
need to realize that they are "playing a game" that does not reflect
reality.

Especially if they're playing SPI's old "Air War," which in many ways turned
physical reality on its head. See the mighty Buff outturn the F-104 at 480 KTAS
plus! David Isby's knowledge of physics was, shall we say, unusual.

Guy

Alan Minyard wrote in message . ..
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 00:28:03 -0600, "Daryl Hunt"
wrote:


"phil hunt" wrote in message
...

Multi-role, but with an emphasis on air superiority. Just as the
A-10 has multi-role capability: you can shoot down other aircraft
with it, but no-one would say it's designed as a fighter.

Ever play a game called, "Air Wars"? You should give it a try. It's out of
print these days. I would kill for a copy of it and the qualified people to
play it. Play that game using an A-10 and you will change your story. I am
afraid that a simulation is about the only way you will find out where you
are incorrect. The A-10 is a dead duck against other AC outside of L-5.


Playing games is a long, long way from combat. People who play games
need to realize that they are "playing a game" that does not reflect
reality.

Amen. Even some of the "professional" games (such as the Corps Battle
Simulation package used by the Army during division and corps level
Warfighter exercises, and the brigade-and-below sim package as well)
sometimes are wildly inaccurate, especially if you start trying to
apply it to specific tactical results.

Brooks


Al Minyard