F15E's trounced by Eurofighters

Actually,_one_generation apart although that generation is about 30 years
long. Typhoon benefits from better propulsion technology, controls
technology and somewhat better structural technology so it would be
strange
if a Typhoon wasn't substantially better than a F-15C. In fact if it turns
out not to be, a passel of British aero- and -propulsion engineers should
be
looking for jobs.

Now the story is they were C models?

I think he was simply making a comment, not revising the facts. If
ANYONE is surprised that cft-laden Mudhens got beaten by clean Eurofighters,
well, I guess they don't know a lot about airplanes. Same goes for
the -15C. Of course there the biggest difference wouldn't so much be the
plane (the Viper would be the best test in the USAF), but the a-a focused
(and skilled) pilots. Frankly, I don't see the fuss in saying a new fighter
was able to beat a design that's about 30 years old! It ought to! Eagles
have dominated the a-a arena because of their BVR capabilities and their
superior tactics, not because of their supreme WVR performance (where they
are at least partially inferior to several planes already).
To add even more fuel to this garbage fire is the testimony from our own
military pilots that such reckless behavior could get the -15E pilots in
seriously big trouble. Why would some of the best pilots (likely senior in
rank) risk such penalties (not to mention safety!) to start a fight when
they would be at a disadvantage? Machismo trumps good judgment? Not
likely. This is about as big a yawner as they get. Cheers,

Tony

Now the story is they were C models?

"t_mark" wrote ...
Actually,_one_generation apart although that generation is about 30
years
long. Typhoon benefits from better propulsion technology, controls
technology and somewhat better structural technology so it would be
strange
if a Typhoon wasn't substantially better than a F-15C. In fact if it
turns
out not to be, a passel of British aero- and -propulsion engineers
should
be
looking for jobs.

Now the story is they were C models?

No, my statement is that a Typhoon had better be superior to an ATA
configured Eagle (an F-15C), never mind a Mud Hen. There's no "story" there
and there's no stupid chauvinism either. In case you haven't noticed, the
main operator of Typhoons is Great Britain, who is on_our_side.

It makes no difference in the size of_my_weenie whether a thirty year old
McAir design is superior to a ten year old BAE design in a dog fight.

On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 20:40:27 -0500, "Paul F Austin"
wrote:

No, my statement is that a Typhoon had better be superior to an ATA
configured Eagle (an F-15C), never mind a Mud Hen. There's no "story" there
and there's no stupid chauvinism either. In case you haven't noticed, the
main operator of Typhoons is Great Britain, who is on_our_side.

It makes no difference in the size of_my_weenie whether a thirty year old
McAir design is superior to a ten year old BAE design in a dog fight.


I've never been into the "size" thing either--I've simply gone with
customer satisfaction. Eagles have satisfied the customer for a long
time, so there's something to be said for them.

What's at issue here is the (re-)education of the masses, which in a
democratic political structure, influence the direction of defense
spending. If they are told repeatedly that some low cost (dare I say
"free lunch") solution is effective, they will opt for it rather than
a more technologically and tactically superior one at higher cost.
(I'm not arguing that high cost per se is definitive.)

Over simplification, to the point that the GUM understand a very
technical situation such as twenty-first century air-superiority, is
dangerous. The idea that this spontaneous encounter between two
un-briefed and un-prepared adversaries in a decidedly WVR, tail-aspect
situation is somehow definitive of a paradigm shift in air/air is
ludicrous.

When the voters of Liverpool and Birmingham are writing their MP who
used to be the candle-stick maker in Nottinghamshire regarding the
superiority of Typhoons over Raptors and urging the investment of
precious defense pounds sterling, they have to understand the total
came, not simply they caused an overshoot and gunned the Eagle's
brains out, ergo the Eagle is dead, long live the Typhoon.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

"Ed Rasimus" wrote
"Paul F Austin" wrote:

No, my statement is that a Typhoon had better be superior to an ATA
configured Eagle (an F-15C), never mind a Mud Hen. There's no "story"
there
and there's no stupid chauvinism either. In case you haven't noticed, the
main operator of Typhoons is Great Britain, who is on_our_side.

It makes no difference in the size of_my_weenie whether a thirty year old
McAir design is superior to a ten year old BAE design in a dog fight.


I've never been into the "size" thing either--I've simply gone with
customer satisfaction. Eagles have satisfied the customer for a long
time, so there's something to be said for them.

What's at issue here is the (re-)education of the masses, which in a
democratic political structure, influence the direction of defense
spending. If they are told repeatedly that some low cost (dare I say
"free lunch") solution is effective, they will opt for it rather than
a more technologically and tactically superior one at higher cost.
(I'm not arguing that high cost per se is definitive.)

Over simplification, to the point that the GUM understand a very
technical situation such as twenty-first century air-superiority, is
dangerous. The idea that this spontaneous encounter between two
un-briefed and un-prepared adversaries in a decidedly WVR, tail-aspect
situation is somehow definitive of a paradigm shift in air/air is
ludicrous.

When the voters of Liverpool and Birmingham are writing their MP who
used to be the candle-stick maker in Nottinghamshire regarding the
superiority of Typhoons over Raptors and urging the investment of
precious defense pounds sterling, they have to understand the total
came, not simply they caused an overshoot and gunned the Eagle's
brains out, ergo the Eagle is dead, long live the Typhoon.

Eagle is a fine airplane and under some circumstances (the -15C with AESA,
in BVR engagements) is still competitive with anything in the air. It's
interesting that the Typhoon operators have suddenly found more urgency in
air to mud software and systems (as has the USAF for Raptor of course).

Right now, most of the potential Disturbers of the World's Peace have second
and third rate air forces. I wonder how long it will be before someone with
a first rate air force pops up on the RADAR and ATA becomes a key mission
again. Probably 20 years and probably China.

"Paul F Austin" wrote in message ...
"Ed Rasimus" wrote
"Paul F Austin" wrote:

No, my statement is that a Typhoon had better be superior to an ATA
configured Eagle (an F-15C), never mind a Mud Hen. There's no "story"
there
and there's no stupid chauvinism either. In case you haven't noticed, the
main operator of Typhoons is Great Britain, who is on_our_side.

It makes no difference in the size of_my_weenie whether a thirty year old
McAir design is superior to a ten year old BAE design in a dog fight.


I've never been into the "size" thing either--I've simply gone with
customer satisfaction. Eagles have satisfied the customer for a long
time, so there's something to be said for them.

What's at issue here is the (re-)education of the masses, which in a
democratic political structure, influence the direction of defense
spending. If they are told repeatedly that some low cost (dare I say
"free lunch") solution is effective, they will opt for it rather than
a more technologically and tactically superior one at higher cost.
(I'm not arguing that high cost per se is definitive.)

Over simplification, to the point that the GUM understand a very
technical situation such as twenty-first century air-superiority, is
dangerous. The idea that this spontaneous encounter between two
un-briefed and un-prepared adversaries in a decidedly WVR, tail-aspect
situation is somehow definitive of a paradigm shift in air/air is
ludicrous.

When the voters of Liverpool and Birmingham are writing their MP who
used to be the candle-stick maker in Nottinghamshire regarding the
superiority of Typhoons over Raptors and urging the investment of
precious defense pounds sterling, they have to understand the total
came, not simply they caused an overshoot and gunned the Eagle's
brains out, ergo the Eagle is dead, long live the Typhoon.

Eagle is a fine airplane and under some circumstances (the -15C with AESA,
in BVR engagements) is still competitive with anything in the air. It's
interesting that the Typhoon operators have suddenly found more urgency in
air to mud software and systems (as has the USAF for Raptor of course).

Right now, most of the potential Disturbers of the World's Peace have second
and third rate air forces. I wonder how long it will be before someone with
a first rate air force pops up on the RADAR and ATA becomes a key mission
again. Probably 20 years and probably China.

You know what, I've flown british jets and with british pilots, and
they both suck. i would take a us made jet anytime over the
eurofighter (i remember when it was called the eurofighter 90 lol) oh
yeah, i'm not american either. give me a us made jet anytime. i'll eat
my own crap when a typhoon wins over an f-22 in a neutral setup bfm
engagement.

"monkey" wrote in message
om...
"Paul F Austin" wrote in message
...
"Ed Rasimus" wrote
"Paul F Austin" wrote:

No, my statement is that a Typhoon had better be superior to an ATA
configured Eagle (an F-15C), never mind a Mud Hen. There's no "story"
there
and there's no stupid chauvinism either. In case you haven't noticed,
the
main operator of Typhoons is Great Britain, who is on_our_side.

It makes no difference in the size of_my_weenie whether a thirty year
old
McAir design is superior to a ten year old BAE design in a dog fight.


I've never been into the "size" thing either--I've simply gone with
customer satisfaction. Eagles have satisfied the customer for a long
time, so there's something to be said for them.

What's at issue here is the (re-)education of the masses, which in a
democratic political structure, influence the direction of defense
spending. If they are told repeatedly that some low cost (dare I say
"free lunch") solution is effective, they will opt for it rather than
a more technologically and tactically superior one at higher cost.
(I'm not arguing that high cost per se is definitive.)

Over simplification, to the point that the GUM understand a very
technical situation such as twenty-first century air-superiority, is
dangerous. The idea that this spontaneous encounter between two
un-briefed and un-prepared adversaries in a decidedly WVR, tail-aspect
situation is somehow definitive of a paradigm shift in air/air is
ludicrous.

When the voters of Liverpool and Birmingham are writing their MP who
used to be the candle-stick maker in Nottinghamshire regarding the
superiority of Typhoons over Raptors and urging the investment of
precious defense pounds sterling, they have to understand the total
came, not simply they caused an overshoot and gunned the Eagle's
brains out, ergo the Eagle is dead, long live the Typhoon.

Eagle is a fine airplane and under some circumstances (the -15C with
AESA,
in BVR engagements) is still competitive with anything in the air. It's
interesting that the Typhoon operators have suddenly found more urgency
in
air to mud software and systems (as has the USAF for Raptor of course).

Right now, most of the potential Disturbers of the World's Peace have
second
and third rate air forces. I wonder how long it will be before someone
with
a first rate air force pops up on the RADAR and ATA becomes a key
mission
again. Probably 20 years and probably China.

You know what, I've flown british jets and with british pilots, and
they both suck. i would take a us made jet anytime over the
eurofighter (i remember when it was called the eurofighter 90 lol) oh
yeah, i'm not american either. give me a us made jet anytime. i'll eat
my own crap when a typhoon wins over an f-22 in a neutral setup bfm
engagement.

When was it ever called Eurofighter 90? The technology demonstrator only
flew for the first time on 8th Aug 86 (and incidently displayed at the
Farnborough Airshow a fortnight later). So to turn round a tech dem into a
full production aircraft in 4 years is pushing it - for any country/company
in the world!

On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 07:10:23 -0000, "Ian" wrote:
snip a quite sensible discussion

You know what, I've flown british jets and with british pilots, and
they both suck. i would take a us made jet anytime over the
eurofighter (i remember when it was called the eurofighter 90 lol) oh
yeah, i'm not american either. give me a us made jet anytime. i'll eat
my own crap when a typhoon wins over an f-22 in a neutral setup bfm
engagement.

When was it ever called Eurofighter 90? The technology demonstrator only
flew for the first time on 8th Aug 86 (and incidently displayed at the
Farnborough Airshow a fortnight later). So to turn round a tech dem into a
full production aircraft in 4 years is pushing it - for any country/company
in the world!

I think he may be refering to an old German design called the TFK-90
in the 1980, some of the design features was used on the ECA about 4
years later, things like a twin tail were dropped among several
thousand other things... Note 1992 is the start of the Eurofighter
2000 project that is now the Eurofighter Typhoon...


I suppose in his world the F-22 was called the F-15 before its make
over ;-)

Cheers


John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

In article , "Ian"
wrote:

When was it ever called Eurofighter 90? The technology demonstrator only
flew for the first time on 8th Aug 86 (and incidently displayed at the
Farnborough Airshow a fortnight later).

I was there and took a photo of it. ISTR static display only.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

"monkey" wrote in message
om...
"Paul F Austin" wrote in message
...
"Ed Rasimus" wrote
"Paul F Austin" wrote:

(snip)

Eagle is a fine airplane and under some circumstances (the -15C with
AESA,
in BVR engagements) is still competitive with anything in the air. It's
interesting that the Typhoon operators have suddenly found more urgency
in
air to mud software and systems (as has the USAF for Raptor of course).

Right now, most of the potential Disturbers of the World's Peace have
second
and third rate air forces. I wonder how long it will be before someone
with
a first rate air force pops up on the RADAR and ATA becomes a key
mission
again. Probably 20 years and probably China.

You know what, I've flown british jets and with british pilots, and
they both suck. i would take a us made jet anytime over the
eurofighter (i remember when it was called the eurofighter 90 lol)

No you don't. It never was.

oh
yeah, i'm not american either. give me a us made jet anytime. i'll eat
my own crap when a typhoon wins over an f-22 in a neutral setup bfm
engagement.

Get your spoon ready then.

John