F15E's trounced by Eurofighters

Evan Brennan wrote:

Guy Alcala wrote in message ...
I read it (well, as much as I could stand to, but grinding my teeth is
bad for me). Aside from the numerous minor errors, there are several real
howlers in it (snip)

Yet fewer than we got from Sharkey Ward. : )

Sharkey tends to let his prejudices run away with him when he's talking about subjects of which he has no personal knowledge
or experience, but such is not the case when he's talking about the A-A capabilities of the SHAR vs. the AAF: he was rather
conclusively proven right in 1982, to the tune of 22:0.

Sharkey Ward is an idiot.

The Marianas Turkey Shoot was more impressive, but similar in that
many of the victims were non or barely maneuvering targets. Until
1944, German fighters typically scored lopsided victories against
British fighters. While American and German pilots celebrated their
own skill and courage, they were also smart enough to recognize that
their enemies were saddled with some disavantages. That is where
Sharkey fails. It's a noticable character flaw. He was unable to grasp
that Argentine pilots had many more disadvantages than he, and that
Argentine pilots were more impressed with the AIM-9L than British
piloting skills.

On the contrary, he specifically goes through the threat reduction exercise his AWIs (and he) performed, listing the disadvantages
the AAF faced.

The Argentines had to fly hundreds of miles, had little or no fuel
reserve to dogfight and their jets were usually loaded for surface
attack, not air-to-air combat. Their flights were small because few
aerial tankers were available; no US Navy style Alpha Strikes for
them. Argentine AAMs were pure ****e, assuming they worked at all, and
most of the attack planes did not carry them. Ammo for cannons was
sometimes deleted to save weight. In that case their only defense was
to make a run for it.

Virtually every point of which, as well as several others, Sharkey's team brought up in their TRE, and which he specifically
describes in the book. Although all their AAMs weren't "pure ****e"; just the R.530 was. The others were rear-hemisphere only
unlike the AIM-9L, but in practice it made little difference. I am aware of no case where cannon ammo was left behind to save
weight, but will be happy to see a reputable cite from an Argentine pilot to that effect. I can certainly supply numerous cites
from Argentine pilots, or photo references, of Argentine a/c firing their guns during the war. Indeed, Sharkey was, AFAIK, the
sole English fast-jet pilot to be fired upon by Argentine a/c cannon during the war.

Less than a dozen Mirage jets were available for air defense, and it

appears that they usually stayed home in case the British tried to
bomb the mainland. Rest assured though that your standard, ten-megaton
explosion of geekspeak (mostly uncited) was noted and filed in the
proper place.

And rest assured that your usual Anglophobic bias was expected, and your lack of understanding of the technical issues involved
likewise. Ordinarily I don't bother replying to your diatribes, but in this case I felt that some other readers might benefit
from a more accurate description of the technical aspects, as the URLs you provided were notably sloppy, incomplete or inaccurate.

Re the point you attempt to make above, there were plenty of Daggers available after May 1st to be used for A/A escort if the AAF
had wished to do so, even assuming they chose not to use the Mirages for that job after May 1st. And the supposed reason for
holding the Mirages on the mainland for defense of the southern air bases (or even, in the wilder version, defense of Buenos
Aires), in the worry that the Brits might bomb Rio Gallegos etc. with a Vulcan is more than a little suspect, as the Mirages were
used to fly decoy missions over the islands later in the war. Clearly, if that was the real reason, then the decision was only
made after the results of the combats on May 1st had convinced the AAF that they were outclassed A/A. The AIM-9L played a part in
that, but British tactics and training was far more important to the exchange ratio.

Guy

Guy Alcala wrote in
:

Ordinarily I don't bother replying to your diatribes,

Don't start now on our account Guy! Brennan's undistilled Anglophobia
leads him round in ever decreasing circles, snapping at his own
arguments. I can only assume it's some kind of previously unknown penis-
envy of all things British! It was quite amusing to come back to this
forum after 17 weeks away training and realise he'd somehow climbed out
of my killfile like a particularly determined slug from the bucket of
beer. . . .

--
Regards
Drewe
"Better the pride that resides
In a citizen of the world
Than the pride that divides
When a colourful rag is unfurled"

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 03:44:07 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote:

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 23:33:39 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote:

snip

Gosh, I love it when you talk dirty.

Ed, I think jogging your memories of Thailand in 1972 for the book has kicked
your libido into overdrive. For the record, I do not resemble, in size, shape
or gender (although I've read that the last could be somewhat ambiguous), an
LBFM ;-)

You may be right. The strongest memories I've got of that tour do
relate to extra-aviation activities. But, now at my age, an LBFM has
come to mean a "Light Beer From Miller."

Next thing you know prospective
fighter pilots will get discouraged and overwhelmed by all of this
techno-babble.

snip

But I suspect the FWS/TopGun types, as certainly the missile engineers, will
feel right at home. Indeed, much of the description I gave was condensed
and/or paraphrased from Shaw.

I was pulling your chain regarding the high level of technical info
you acquire--you should get out more, maybe take up fishing or golf.

Seriously, it's fun to have the broad range of folks in this group who
really know something about stuff!



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

Ed Rasimus wrote:

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 03:44:07 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote:

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 23:33:39 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote:

snip

Gosh, I love it when you talk dirty.

Ed, I think jogging your memories of Thailand in 1972 for the book has kicked
your libido into overdrive. For the record, I do not resemble, in size, shape
or gender (although I've read that the last could be somewhat ambiguous), an
LBFM ;-)

You may be right. The strongest memories I've got of that tour do
relate to extra-aviation activities. But, now at my age, an LBFM has
come to mean a "Light Beer From Miller."

No doubt you tell your wife that's what it _always_ meant (does she believe it)?
;-)

Next thing you know prospective
fighter pilots will get discouraged and overwhelmed by all of this
techno-babble.

snip

But I suspect the FWS/TopGun types, as certainly the missile engineers, will
feel right at home. Indeed, much of the description I gave was condensed
and/or paraphrased from Shaw.

I was pulling your chain regarding the high level of technical info
you acquire--you should get out more, maybe take up fishing or golf.

And I wasn't pulling yours, above? ;-) Fishing? Naw. Did that when I was a kid
-- too boring, and I don't like eating them (and me part Portuguese!) so had to
have someone willing to do so if I caught them. Golf? Took lessons when I was a
kid, and played into my teens until I came to the conclusion that it was way too
expensive for the amount of enjoyment I got out of it. So I guess I'll have to
stick to my other recreational pursuits, like X-C skiing, hiking, swimming,
mountaineering (not much, anymore), biking etc. I can't do the high impact sports
any more owing to the accumulation of injuries over the years, which means I've had
to give up pretty much any sport that involves running (back), jumping (ditto; it's
the landings), hitting or throwing (shoulder). I can live without football,
baseball, or basketball okay, but man, do I miss playing doubles volleyball.

Seriously, it's fun to have the broad range of folks in this group who
really know something about stuff!

Yup, even makes it worthwhile having to put up with the loons, trolls, bigots etc.
Usually. On a good day.

Guy

Drewe Manton wrote:

Guy Alcala wrote in
:

Ordinarily I don't bother replying to your diatribes,

Don't start now on our account Guy! Brennan's undistilled Anglophobia
leads him round in ever decreasing circles, snapping at his own
arguments.

True, which is why I usually don't bother to read them or reply. But as
long as he is actually making claims that are more or less on topic, I may
choose to reply or rebut them, for whatever benefit others may get out of
that. Should it deteriorate to the usual level of childish insults with no
other content, then I'm sure I'll find something more interesting elsewhere.

I can only assume it's some kind of previously unknown penis-
envy of all things British! It was quite amusing to come back to this
forum after 17 weeks away training and realise he'd somehow climbed out
of my killfile like a particularly determined slug from the bucket of
beer. . . .

Time-limited killfile, maybe? Man, I shudder at the thought of my killfile
suddenly losing its memory and re-admitting all the loons and trolls I've
consigned to it over the years, even if many of them moved on once no one
was paying any attention to them. On the other hand, there's old Johnny
Wizard; I no longer bother trying to keep up with his numerous
re-incarnations. That boy's got stamina.

Guy

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 19:33:03 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote:

On the other hand, there's old Johnny
Wizard; I no longer bother trying to keep up with his numerous
re-incarnations. That boy's got stamina.

Too true, luckily I just set Agent not to download anything over 2000
lines and he magically disappears :-)

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - drink faster

Guy Alcala wrote:

Time-limited killfile, maybe? Man, I shudder at the thought of my killfile
suddenly losing its memory and re-admitting all the loons and trolls I've
consigned to it over the years, even if many of them moved on once no one
was paying any attention to them. On the other hand, there's old Johnny
Wizard; I no longer bother trying to keep up with his numerous
re-incarnations. That boy's got stamina.

Johnny Wiz is indeed a piece of work.

Funny how images of people pop up into your mind just from
regular reading, without actual visuals involved in shaping
the image.

I see Johnny Wiz as a hard working fellow at some convenience
store during the day, earning min wage and putting in 12 hours
to make ends meet. He's annoyed and some days downright ****ed
at "the system".

However he's a manifesto writer at heart, and unfortunately,
there just isn't much opportunity for employment for these
types in today's economy.

But there *are* newsgroups! *Lots* of newsgroups!

So the Wiz gets home from work, fires up his computer, or
perhaps more likely, shuffles off to the public library to
use theirs, and spends the night cranking out these 4000+
line beauties, taking the time to fully justify the lines
as he goes.

Justified lines are very important! Spelling, grammar,
thought organization and sentence structure are irrelevancies.

The post must be long, and it must be fully justified!!!

Hmmm. Speaking of long OT posts with no content...


SMH

Guy Alcala wrote in message ...
The Argentines had to fly hundreds of miles, had little or no fuel
reserve to dogfight and their jets were usually loaded for surface
attack, not air-to-air combat. Their flights were small because few
aerial tankers were available; no US Navy style Alpha Strikes for
them. Argentine AAMs were pure ****e, assuming they worked at all, and
most of the attack planes did not carry them. Ammo for cannons was
sometimes deleted to save weight. In that case their only defense was
to make a run for it.

Virtually every point of which, as well as several others, Sharkey's team
brought up in their TRE


Cite?

If true, he must have forgotten about it very quickly. All you have to
do is read the Epilogue and Sharkey's 'Layman's Guide to Fighter
Combat' which rolls the only highlights that were significant to
Sharkey. He droned on about ACM training (results according to him,
that is) which does not mention the lack of fuel that prevented
Argentine jets from doing much ACM. : )


all their AAMs weren't "pure ****e"; just the R.530 was.


The Sidewinder wasn't ****e -- but it wasn't used either. This issue
is largely irrelevant because very few Argentine sorties carried
missiles after 1st May 1982. Argentine Mirage and Dagger fighters
from 'Air War in the Falklands', Christopher Chant (2001):

" FAA, now fearing that Vulcan bombers could strike on strategic
targets, had decided to reserve the Mirage IIIEA fighters of Groupo 8
de Caza for defense of the mainland bases. So with the exception of a
few more sorties over the Falkland Islands, where they carefully
avoided any Sea Harrier fighters, the Mirage IIIEA force spent the
rest of the war at readiness on airfields that could have been
threatened "

" From this day forward the Dagger was employed as fighter-bomber
rather than a fighter, and for the rest of the war did not operate
over the Falklands with air-to-air missiles. Thus in the remaining six
weeks of the war British pilots were faced by many forms of danger,
but not missile-armed Argentine fighters "

Jeff Ethell's 'Air War South Atlantic' (1983) cites A-4 pilot Lt.
Rotolo: " We never mounted Sidewinders on our Skyhawks because our
mission was always one of attack, never air-to-air combat "



Less than a dozen Mirage jets were available for air defense, and it
appears that they usually stayed home in case the British tried
to
bomb the mainland. Rest assured though that your standard, ten-megaton
explosion of geekspeak (mostly uncited) was noted and filed in the
proper place.

And rest assured that your usual Anglophobic bias was expected


British and Argentine writers said the same thing about Mirage
fighters, so your accusations are as poorly aimed as the British bombs
falling on Stanley airfield. : )


and your lack of understanding of the technical issues involved
likewise. Ordinarily I don't bother replying to your diatribes,
but in this case I felt that some other readers might benefit from
a more accurate description of the technical aspects, as the URLs
you provided were notably sloppy, incomplete or inaccurate.


Guy, you can't even put your NON-technical appeals in credible form! I
don't see why anyone should believe your continuous stream of
technical minutae is entirely "accurate".



Re the point you attempt to make above, there were plenty of Daggers
available after May 1st to be used for A/A escort if the AAF
had wished to do so, even assuming they chose not to use the
Mirages for that job after May 1st. And the supposed reason for
holding the Mirages on the mainland for defense of the southern
air bases (or even, in the wilder version, defense of Buenos Aires),
in the worry that the Brits might bomb Rio Gallegos etc. with a Vulcan
is more than a little suspect, as the Mirages were used to fly decoy
missions over the islands later in the war. Clearly, if that was the real
reason, then the decision was only made after the results of the combats
on May 1st had convinced the AAF that they were outclassed A/A.


There's no sequence in your fantasy that follows logic. Every single
preposterous argument flows from another.


Argentine pilots were more impressed with the AIM-9L than British
piloting skills.

British tactics and training was far more important to the exchange ratio.


Argentine opinion of their low-level anti-shipping strikes vs. Sea
Harrier pilots and AIM-9L missile, 'History of the South Atlantic
Conflict', Ruben Moro (1989):

" Fuel restrictions prevented them from making zig-zag maneuvers to
evade would-be pursuers or re-runs, or selecting secondary
targets...once they penetrated San Carlos Bay, they had to proceed
posthaste to the first available target...one had to be careful
disturbing the Harriers, which having been alerted to their presence,
lay in wait for them as they returned to the mainland...These
interceptors were well aware that the intuders carried no air-to-air
missiles, and that in order to use their cannon, they had to to be rid
of their external stores which could sacrifice the mission...Add to
all this the handicap to these aircraft represented by the task force
Sidewinders, which turned the pilot's jobs into child's play, for they
knew that Argentine Mirage-IIIs, whether flying interception,
diversion, or escort, could not join the melee for lack of fuel "

Moro's opinion of British ground attack pilot training:

" It is quite probable that, in the wake of their experience in the
Falklands, the British may have beefed up their bombing crews' target
practice. Argentine pilots were to remark jokingly that their British
colleagues had been unable, throughout the whole of the conflict, to
"hit the broad side of a barn" said "barn" (the landing strip at
Puerto Argentino) having been 1,300 yards long and and 50 yards wide "

But, I'm sure that Argentine jet pilots would agree that international
training was another lynchpin for the British. Harrier pilots had
prewar ACM combats against Skyhawk and Mirage aircraft (and Dagger was
similar to Mirage) so they had time to consider tactics well in
advance. As far as I know, the Argentine squadrons did not have any
prewar ACM exercises vs. Harriers.

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 16:55:13 -0500, Stephen Harding
wrote:

I see Johnny Wiz as a hard working fellow at some convenience
store during the day, earning min wage and putting in 12 hours
to make ends meet. He's annoyed and some days downright ****ed
at "the system".

Well, after experiencing the legendary Serdar Argic and his cult of
personality, I came to the conclusion that all usenet contributors
were basically frustrated loons, and it was all just a question of
degree (although the needle was off the scale with Serdar). But then
I realised this also logically applied to me, so I discarded that
piece of demented insight with all despatch.

Gavin Bailey

--

Fochinell

"Ancient Scottish battle cry" painted on the side of a Spitfire Mk. XIV in 1944
- presumably without Air Ministry approval.

Drewe Manton wrote in message .4...
Guy Alcala wrote in
:

It was quite amusing to come back to this
forum after 17 weeks away training and realise he'd somehow climbed out
of my killfile like a particularly determined slug from the bucket of
beer. . . .


Guinness? ; )

No thread containing comments about the Falklands is ever complete
without some MantonRantin'. I predict that when the latest returns
come in for 'Sea Harrier Over the Falklands', we'll have pretty
conclusive proof that 10-year-olds are winning the intellectual
tug-of-war with their publishing executive counterparts.