F15E's trounced by Eurofighters

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

"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

Just out of interest what British aircraft have you flown in?
"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.

On 5 Mar 2004 22:19:16 -0800, (monkey) wrote:


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.

It would be interesting for you to fill in some details about the what
and who. I've flown with RAF types on exchange duty and found them
incredibly well trained and knowledgeable. One of my earliest tactical
fighter IPs was an exchange Lightning driver who was instructing in
F-105 school. He could beat anybody in the squadron air-to-air in a
decidely non-air-to-air aircraft.

You would be hard pressed to find anyone in any service who is better
at low-level than a Buccaneer driver, and the talent and experience
carried right through to the Tornado force. For light, flex tactical
operations, the Jaguar guys are pretty impressive as well.

So, you might want to offer something to justify your strong opinion.

As for your future diet, you should be aware (based on your implied
experience) that "neutral set-up BFM" doesn't tell you squat about an
aircraft's air superiority real-world mission potential. On any given
day, a pair of similar generation tactical fighters flown by a pair of
reasonably trained and knowledgeable pilots can end a neutral setup
BFM engagement with either side winning.

I've lost a lot of neutral setup BFM engagements. I've won a few as
well. But, I've never lost a combat engagement.

You want ketchup with that lunch?


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

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. 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. I'm sure many of the folks here have seen nothing other
than unclassified performance numbers for a lot of these aircraft, nor
have they done a whole lot of military flying. What I'm trying to say
here is this - first, the US jets in general are very well designed,
the whole package - from the long range BVR sort/shot to engaged
maneuvering. So what, some F-15s (allegedly) got beat (lets not get
into the whole unbriefed engagement,/tr violation discussion here).
The fact of the matter is that the Eagle is very beatable in the phone
booth, because it wasn't designed to ever be there. Eagle drivers are
the kings of the BVR game. The F-22. When I talk about a neutral setup
I mean beak to beak, butterfly split type thing. I'm sorry I've seen
the numbers and the F-22 is one mean turning machine. As a matter of
fact I'm of the opinion that a good guy in a Hornet or big mouth 16
charlie will be able to do just fine against the typhoon. I'll send
you a hud tape to prove it if we ever get to exercise with these
guys...

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.

It would be interesting for you to fill in some details about the what
and who. I've flown with RAF types on exchange duty and found them
incredibly well trained and knowledgeable. One of my earliest tactical
fighter IPs was an exchange Lightning driver who was instructing in
F-105 school. He could beat anybody in the squadron air-to-air in a
decidely non-air-to-air aircraft.

You would be hard pressed to find anyone in any service who is better
at low-level than a Buccaneer driver, and the talent and experience
carried right through to the Tornado force. For light, flex tactical
operations, the Jaguar guys are pretty impressive as well.

So, you might want to offer something to justify your strong opinion.

As for your future diet, you should be aware (based on your implied
experience) that "neutral set-up BFM" doesn't tell you squat about an
aircraft's air superiority real-world mission potential. On any given
day, a pair of similar generation tactical fighters flown by a pair of
reasonably trained and knowledgeable pilots can end a neutral setup
BFM engagement with either side winning.

I've lost a lot of neutral setup BFM engagements. I've won a few as
well. But, I've never lost a combat engagement.

You want ketchup with that lunch?


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

"monkey" wrote
"Paul F Austin" wrote
"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.

I don't think anyone has made that claim. What is a problem is the 20 year
development cycle for military systems. ATF/F-22 development began about
twenty five years ago, LAH/Comanche about 25 years ago and JVX/V-22 about 20
years ago. This is great welfare for Merchants O' Death (of whom I'm one)
but it serves the nation badly. Those aren't the only systems. I've worked
on each of the four successor programs for DSP at one time or another. We're
due to launch the 25th and last DSP in the barn in 2006 and SBIRS High isn't
ready for prime time. GBI/NMD has been going off (mostly) and on for about
the same time. There's something seriously broken in the procurement of
Things That Go Fast and Explode.

By the way, good spelling and gramar lends credibility as a non Luser. HTH.

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.

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.

So, drawing from that endorsement of SS experience, you must wonder
how the USAF made the transition from year of F-4 dominance to be able
to handle Egos and Vipers? And, how did all those Hun drivers manage
to handle the F-4, coming from an under-powered, no-radar airplane?
And, how were the F-5 Aggressors able to teach so much Air/Air to
those over-powered Iggles and Snakes with their cosmic radars and
greater than 1-to-1 T/W ratios?

The point is you CAN fight in today's environment with a power
deficiency (as long as you can sustain a comfortable 7G and maintain
smash near corner at your chosen altitude). You can fight in today's
environment with a minimal sensor suite if you've got some data fusion
and a big brother on the horizon.

And, if you think fighting in today's environment is about
turning/burning and rolling your socks over the top of your boots,
you've missed a lot of the lectures.


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 sure many of the folks here have seen nothing other
than unclassified performance numbers for a lot of these aircraft, nor
have they done a whole lot of military flying. What I'm trying to say
here is this - first, the US jets in general are very well designed,
the whole package - from the long range BVR sort/shot to engaged
maneuvering. So what, some F-15s (allegedly) got beat (lets not get
into the whole unbriefed engagement,/tr violation discussion here).
The fact of the matter is that the Eagle is very beatable in the phone
booth, because it wasn't designed to ever be there. Eagle drivers are
the kings of the BVR game.

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.

When I talk about a neutral setup
I mean beak to beak, butterfly split type thing. I'm sorry I've seen
the numbers and the F-22 is one mean turning machine.

If you butterfly split, for beak-to-beak, you never go BVR, hence you
never employ all your systems, never get any mutual support, never
exercise any defense against all-aspect, never worry about F-poles,
etc. You don't integrate with AWACs, don't play ECM and simply pull
on the pole. If you call that "train like you fight" you must be
operating in a different military.

As for "mean turning machine", it's an aerodynamic fact of life that
stealth and agility are often mutually exclusive. Any airplane is a
compromise and the Raptor is no exception.

Given an effective 9G sustained limit on human physiology, then a
corner of 350 to 400 defines the limits of agility. To become a better
air/air fighter you broaden the envelope of your weapons. So, don't
look for any 1-v-1 marked superiority until there is some great
breakthrough in basic physics.

As a matter of
fact I'm of the opinion that a good guy in a Hornet or big mouth 16
charlie will be able to do just fine against the typhoon. I'll send
you a hud tape to prove it if we ever get to exercise with these
guys...

You probably won't get any HUD video of Raptors in a Bug or Viper,
since full weapons system exercise will mort you before the merge.


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

(monkey) wrote in message 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.

It was never called "eurofighter 90". You are mixng up MBB's TKF-90
proposal and ECA/ECF.

TJ

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On 6 Mar 2004 10:06:24 -0800, (monkey) wrote:

When I talk about a neutral setup
I mean beak to beak, butterfly split type thing. I'm sorry I've seen
the numbers and the F-22 is one mean turning machine.

If you butterfly split, for beak-to-beak, you never go BVR, hence you
never employ all your systems, never get any mutual support, never
exercise any defense against all-aspect, never worry about F-poles,
etc. You don't integrate with AWACs, don't play ECM and simply pull
on the pole. If you call that "train like you fight" you must be
operating in a different military.

As for "mean turning machine", it's an aerodynamic fact of life that
stealth and agility are often mutually exclusive. Any airplane is a
compromise and the Raptor is no exception.

Given an effective 9G sustained limit on human physiology, then a
corner of 350 to 400 defines the limits of agility. To become a better
air/air fighter you broaden the envelope of your weapons. So, don't
look for any 1-v-1 marked superiority until there is some great
breakthrough in basic physics.

As a matter of
fact I'm of the opinion that a good guy in a Hornet or big mouth 16
charlie will be able to do just fine against the typhoon. I'll send
you a hud tape to prove it if we ever get to exercise with these
guys...

You probably won't get any HUD video of Raptors in a Bug or Viper,
since full weapons system exercise will mort you before the merge.

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?

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