F15E's trounced by Eurofighters

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 15:05:44 +1100, John Cook
wrote:

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 21:30:34 -0600, "t_mark" wrote:

I love this aircraft. Look out world Typhoon is coming!"

This strikes me as very much like the people who love the sports teams who
beat the teams they dislike, even when having no affiliation with either. I
imagine we won't hear much of this a few years down the line when 22s are
'trouncing' the rest.


Hmmm.. is that the 22 x F-22's ;-), you know its changing from a
silver bullet force to a Golden BB force..

I would imaging you'll hear it quite often as the very very few F-22
won't have time to play games.

Whats the latest? is it sub 200 yet?.


Lowest "official" number I've heard is 276.



I imagine we won't hear much of this a few years down the line when
UCAV's are 'trouncing' the rest.

It will be a while before UCAVs are doing air to air.




Cheers

You need to know the ROE and the purpose of the
exercise before drawing too many conclusions.

Always the whining excuses.


Rod, that's crap. If you say, "I beat ten guys in a fight" and leave off the
part about them all being in their 80s and wheelchair bound, those are relevent
facts to determining what really happened. I don't doubt that a Eurojäger
could beat an Eagle, but wouldn't you at least like to hear about the
circumstances? That's not whining.

I don't doubt given a set of circumstances the Euro could win, but even if
that's the case it's mind-boggling to declare an end to US air superiority.

In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

Archive trolls are just a way to sandbag someone.

The thing is, "archive trolls" have to have actual material to "archive."

If it were *false* material, you'd be able to dig into Google and show
how they were wrong. But for some reason, you can't manage to do this...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

Ya know nobody's FORCING you to read these posts. I agree this
particular thread is going on and on so I'm going to end it. We'll
see if Tarver can let it lie.

Thanks, its much appreciated.

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 22:53:28 GMT, Scott Ferrin
wrote:

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 15:05:44 +1100, John Cook
wrote:

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 21:30:34 -0600, "t_mark" wrote:


Lowest "official" number I've heard is 276.



I imagine we won't hear much of this a few years down the line when
UCAV's are 'trouncing' the rest.

It will be a while before UCAVs are doing air to air.




Cheers

You know, that's always puzzled me-- I recall reading in the 1980's
that they thought Air to Air UCAV's might actually beat CAS versions,
due to the problems of picking targets out of the ground, IFF, etc.
On the other hand, Air to Air could be done by selecting a section of
air and declaring anything in it hostile, giving the UCAV's free
range.

What changed? I'm assuming that at least part of it is the fact
that unlike the 1980's we're not talking all out war, so it's very
likely that even "war" zones may have to worry about civilian air
traffic and nobody wants a repeat of the Iranian shoot down (although
that wasn't a UCAV).

In article ,
Charles Gray wrote:

You know, that's always puzzled me-- I recall reading in the 1980's
that they thought Air to Air UCAV's might actually beat CAS versions,
due to the problems of picking targets out of the ground, IFF, etc.
On the other hand, Air to Air could be done by selecting a section of
air and declaring anything in it hostile, giving the UCAV's free
range.

What changed?

A lot of people found out just how hard that particular job was. Target
acquisition and ID is hard enough for humans, and the challenge of doing
that *plus* flying an air combat mission is still a ways off.

Add in ECM (if the robots are supposed to kill anything in their "box"
they can't ID, the enemy just jams the IFF and they kill *everything*),
and it gets even harder.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

You know, that's always puzzled me-- I recall reading in the 1980's
that they thought Air to Air UCAV's might actually beat CAS versions,
due to the problems of picking targets out of the ground, IFF, etc.
On the other hand, Air to Air could be done by selecting a section of
air and declaring anything in it hostile, giving the UCAV's free
range.

What changed? I'm assuming that at least part of it is the fact
that unlike the 1980's we're not talking all out war, so it's very
likely that even "war" zones may have to worry about civilian air
traffic and nobody wants a repeat of the Iranian shoot down (although
that wasn't a UCAV).

I think it would depend on what kind of UCAV. I've still not heard
definitively whether they'd be controlled by a pilot on the ground or
if they'd be 100% autonomous or some combination. It would also
depend on the kind of air to air. Is it just medium to long range
shots or might it include dogfighting? I think the questions are can
it dogfight autonomously and can it be trusted not to down a friendly
aircraft. Also if remotely piloted would the guy on the ground be
able to see as well as a guy in the cockpit in a dogfight and will the
communicatons link stay up. Things like that.

"John Doe" wrote in message thlink.net...
"Mike Zaharis" wrote in message
...


John Cook wrote:

Hi all

Just saw this and it peaked my interest..

"The New Air Superiority Benchmark

Thursday the 19th of February 2004 will mark the day when the
undisputed king of air superiority had to surrender its thirty-year
crown to a newcomer. It happened over the skies of Windermere, in the
scenic English Lake District. Two Eurofighter Typhoon twin-seaters
were on the first RAF formation training flight from Warton Aerodrome
when they were bounced from the eight o'clock by a couple of F-15Es
belonging to the USAFE's 48th TFW, probably the most formidable and
experienced combat unit in the European theatre. The Typhoon crew did
not seem to be intimidated and with two rapid counters ended up on the
F-15 tail, comfortably gunning the trailing one, who was in full
afterburner, wings rocking and wondering what had happened.

It is fair to expect that the most surprised by this first encounter
result would be the F15 crew, used to dominate the skies since the
mid-seventies and with an exchange ratio record of 101 wins to zero
losses, and a bunch of die-hard Eurofighter critics without much
knowledge of the new fighter air combat capabilities. It is
understandable if the RAF rookies would also show their surprise at
the outcome, as one does not expect to win an air engagement on the
first training sortie with a brand new machine against one of the best
combat units in the world, riding what up to now has been the best
fighter in history.

But that is history now!

Those definitely not surprised by what the events over the Lake
District skies signify are the top echelon in the Air Combat Command,
the Chief of Staff and the RAND Corp. analysts and boffins. They have
been saying for years that the F-15 is no match to the new generation
of European fighters and even to the Su-35 Flanker. They know what
they say: their operational analyses studies and other simulated
evaluations-as indeed have ours, both at the industry and government
level-have shown that the F-15 is unable to gain air superiority
against Eurofighter Typhoon. Now they have the first real indication
that their worries were not unjustified and that the F/A-22 was the
right choice, if they want to maintain the air superiority also in the
future."


http://users.boardnation.com/~warpla...y;threadid=445

Cheers

Usually, F-15E's carry Conformal Fuel Tanks (CFTs). These are not often
removed, as it's
a hassle, and for Strike Eagle missions, the range/weapons carriage is
worth more than
the loss in maneuverability. These would have seriously compromised the
ACM capabilities
of the F-15Es in the incident discussed.

This is not to say that the Eurofighter does or does not have an advantage
over the F-15E
in ACM, just that this incident tells one very little, without knowing how
the aircraft
were outfitted.

Does anyone know if the F-15Es in this scenario were carrying CFTs?


Yes. ALL F-15Es from the 48th FW at Lakenheath carry CFTs. If they were in
the Lake District, then they also had external fuel tanks. Hardly a BFM/ACM
configuration.

Wake me when they do a planned training sortie with the C models from
Lakenheath.


The other problem is that they are comparing aircraft whose mechanical
technology is 20 years apart. Electronics may be equal(even if you
ignore the fact that the 'E' is configured/equipped for a strike role
rather than A2A) but the mechanical design has several generations of
difference.

"Charles Samardza" wrote
"John Doe" wrote

John Cook wrote:

Hi all

Just saw this and it peaked my interest..

"The New Air Superiority Benchmark
....

Wake me when they do a planned training sortie with the C models from
Lakenheath.


The other problem is that they are comparing aircraft whose mechanical
technology is 20 years apart. Electronics may be equal(even if you
ignore the fact that the 'E' is configured/equipped for a strike role
rather than A2A) but the mechanical design has several generations of
difference.

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.