F15E's trounced by Eurofighters

"Harry Andreas" wrote in message
...
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.

--
Am pretty sure it was on flight display - could be wrong as was only 10 at
the time. Have some pics at work of it doing a display, but it may have went
back for another show?

In article , Ed Rasimus
wrote:


Sorry, but Eagles from day one were designed to be pretty darn good in
the phone booth, but that means mutual support and fluid attack. They
also are darn good BVR and got a helluva lot better when AIM-120 came
along. Their capability to search, sort and allocate revised the
tactics of the previous 25 years.

Don't want to interrupt a good arguement (one of the reasons I like
reading RAM), just want to assert that the F-15/USAF's ability to
search, sort and allocate started with the F-14 and the AWG-9
WCS, which was the first aircraft in the world, IIRC, to have
capabilities along those lines.

I'd be interesed in your perspective on this Ed.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

"monkey" wrote in message
om...
i don't want to insult you ed, but fighters have changed a lot since
you flew them. yes i'll give you that british guys are ok, but ask any
contemporary fighter pilot and he/she wil tell you that as a whole the
RAF has been lacking any kind of significant single seat experience.
Jag guys are great, but lets face it, it't got jack **** power and no
radar - you just can't fight in todays environment with an airplane
like that.

The jag was never designed as a fighter. It was originally intended as an
advanced trainer (to fit between the gnat (I think?) and the front line
aircraft.

Why is single seat operation an advantage in a tactical situation? Apart
form the obvious of only risking a single crewman at a time

On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 17:41:23 -0500, "Paul F Austin"
wrote:

Ed, IDR had an article on intraflight datalinks and their effects on fighter
operations. In the article they quoted some USAF fighter types as saying
that using networked tactics that almost no turning and burning occurred.
IRRC, the guy was quoted as saying that he rarely pulled even 2G and never
over 3. Can you comment?


I'd say the guy you talked to was state-of-the-art (and probably
senior to the average first assignment fighter pilot type!)

The clear direction is "data fusion" in which info comes from a
variety of sources and is integrated onboard into a full sphere
display. The advantages are many:

1. You don't have to broadcast yourself.
2. You aren't limited to a narrow forward FOV.
3. You can operate totally passive.
4. Software can prioritize.
5. Command and control can direct.
and on and on.

Downside is trying to create meaningful displays that give the
operator what is needed and don't overload the poor wetware with way
too much info.

As I was in the waning days of a mediocre career, I found it was not
that difficult to win regularly at considerably lower G than the
young, buff, Lts.


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

On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 15:01:24 -0800, (Harry
Andreas) wrote:

In article , Ed Rasimus
wrote:


Sorry, but Eagles from day one were designed to be pretty darn good in
the phone booth, but that means mutual support and fluid attack. They
also are darn good BVR and got a helluva lot better when AIM-120 came
along. Their capability to search, sort and allocate revised the
tactics of the previous 25 years.

Don't want to interrupt a good arguement (one of the reasons I like
reading RAM), just want to assert that the F-15/USAF's ability to
search, sort and allocate started with the F-14 and the AWG-9
WCS, which was the first aircraft in the world, IIRC, to have
capabilities along those lines.

I'd be interesed in your perspective on this Ed.

You'll get no disagreement from me. The Tom's BVR capability and
track-while-scan was new stuff when the AF was still smoking around
the country side in Phantoms.

I was addressing the issue from a strictly AF point of view. The Eagle
community, particularly some creative types like Jeff Cleaver up at
Soesterberg in the late '70s were revising the tactics at a high rate.
He was running two-ships in spreads of up to 20 miles and stacks on
the order of 20k feet. "Detached mutual support" became a possibility.


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

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
I also learned to fly fighters from brits among pilots from
many other nationalities, and i feel that they were the weakest of all
the europeans.

Whose better among Euros? While a lot of the countries have some good
drivers in specialties, the RAF seems to have the highest consistency
across the tactical spectrum. Germans are good, Italians are pretty
good, Danes and Norwegians are pretty good, French will tell you they
are great, Spanish have some good ones...

I'm thinking the Swedes might have something to add in. The Gripen is a
pretty killer plane and leverages a lot of the "net-centric" type tools. The
Viggen is no slouch though it's missiles aren't all that great. They've got
a 4th Generation plane out and they did it reasonably quick (compared to the
Typhoon and F-22). In

"Brian" wrote

"Ed Rasimus" wrote
I also learned to fly fighters from brits among pilots from
many other nationalities, and i feel that they were the weakest of all
the europeans.

Whose better among Euros? While a lot of the countries have some good
drivers in specialties, the RAF seems to have the highest consistency
across the tactical spectrum. Germans are good, Italians are pretty
good, Danes and Norwegians are pretty good, French will tell you they
are great, Spanish have some good ones...

I'm thinking the Swedes might have something to add in. The Gripen is a
pretty killer plane and leverages a lot of the "net-centric" type tools.
The
Viggen is no slouch though it's missiles aren't all that great. They've
got
a 4th Generation plane out and they did it reasonably quick (compared to
the
Typhoon and F-22). In

From what I've read, the Swedes have decades more "net-centric" operations
experience than the rest of the world. Viggens and Drakens before them were
fully integrated into the Swedish ADGE. Of course that's no more than F-102s
did in the fifties but the Drakens and Viggens also had-between-aircraft
data links that provided automatic cross-linked sensor and aircraft status
information.

On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 13:32:58 -0700, Ed Rasimus
wrote:

On 6 Mar 2004 10:06:24 -0800, (monkey) wrote:

i don't want to insult you ed, but fighters have changed a lot since
you flew them.

I'll be the last to flaunt my currency. The last systems I flew were
F-23, MiG-29, MiG-31, ASF (a notional Advanced Soviet
Fighter--paralleling ATF development) and F-15C, but those were all in
the multi-player interactive domes at Northrop--not real airplanes.
So, you've got the advantage on me.


I noticed you mentioned the Mig-31 in there. I was wondering
something. maybe you know the answer. I watched a Wings episode a
while back on the Mig-25 and -31 and the Mig-31 seems to be a pretty
impressive machine. My question is, is the reason those Alaskan
F-15Cs got the AESA radars to help them deal with Foxhounds? It just
seems a little strange that 1. more F-15s haven't got them and 2. that
the ones that did are way up in BFE. Also ISTR reading they're going
to be the first in the USAF to get the -9X.

On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 23:03:52 -0500, "Paul F Austin"
wrote:


"Brian" wrote

"Ed Rasimus" wrote
I also learned to fly fighters from brits among pilots from
many other nationalities, and i feel that they were the weakest of all
the europeans.

Whose better among Euros? While a lot of the countries have some good
drivers in specialties, the RAF seems to have the highest consistency
across the tactical spectrum. Germans are good, Italians are pretty
good, Danes and Norwegians are pretty good, French will tell you they
are great, Spanish have some good ones...

I'm thinking the Swedes might have something to add in. The Gripen is a
pretty killer plane and leverages a lot of the "net-centric" type tools.
The
Viggen is no slouch though it's missiles aren't all that great. They've
got
a 4th Generation plane out and they did it reasonably quick (compared to
the
Typhoon and F-22). In

From what I've read, the Swedes have decades more "net-centric" operations
experience than the rest of the world. Viggens and Drakens before them were
fully integrated into the Swedish ADGE. Of course that's no more than F-102s
did in the fifties but the Drakens and Viggens also had-between-aircraft
data links that provided automatic cross-linked sensor and aircraft status
information.



Let's not forget the Mig-31 in there either.

In article , Scott Ferrin
wrote:

On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 13:32:58 -0700, Ed Rasimus
wrote:

On 6 Mar 2004 10:06:24 -0800, (monkey) wrote:

i don't want to insult you ed, but fighters have changed a lot since
you flew them.

I'll be the last to flaunt my currency. The last systems I flew were
F-23, MiG-29, MiG-31, ASF (a notional Advanced Soviet
Fighter--paralleling ATF development) and F-15C, but those were all in
the multi-player interactive domes at Northrop--not real airplanes.
So, you've got the advantage on me.


I noticed you mentioned the Mig-31 in there. I was wondering
something. maybe you know the answer. I watched a Wings episode a
while back on the Mig-25 and -31 and the Mig-31 seems to be a pretty
impressive machine. My question is, is the reason those Alaskan
F-15Cs got the AESA radars to help them deal with Foxhounds? It just
seems a little strange that 1. more F-15s haven't got them

Stay tuned.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur