![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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! |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Question about the Eurofighter's air intakes. | Urban Fredriksson | Military Aviation | 0 | January 30th 04 04:18 PM |
China to buy Eurofighters? | phil hunt | Military Aviation | 90 | December 29th 03 05:16 PM |
Malaysian MiG-29s got trounced by RN Sea Harrier F/A2s in Exercise Flying Fish | KDR | Military Aviation | 29 | October 7th 03 06:30 PM |
Impact of Eurofighters in the Middle East | Quant | Military Aviation | 164 | October 4th 03 04:33 PM |