F15E's trounced by Eurofighters

On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 23:04:24 -0000, "Ian" wrote:


"monkey" wrote in message
. com...
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.

I thought it was a light strike/attack plane, sort of like a larger
landbound A-4...

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

"rnf2" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 23:04:24 -0000, "Ian" wrote:


"monkey" wrote in message
. com...
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.

I thought it was a light strike/attack plane, sort of like a larger
landbound A-4...

Thats what it turned into because of budget cuts. The original (and can't
find the link now) Staff requirement was for an intermediate airrcraft
between the gnat and hunter (although I may have got those aircraft wrong

"Ian" wrote in message
...

"rnf2" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 23:04:24 -0000, "Ian" wrote:


"monkey" wrote in message
. com...
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.

I thought it was a light strike/attack plane, sort of like a larger
landbound A-4...

Thats what it turned into because of budget cuts. The original (and can't
find the link now) Staff requirement was for an intermediate airrcraft
between the gnat and hunter (although I may have got those aircraft wrong



IIRC the Jag was intended as a British advanced trainer yet the French had
other ideas; namely a carrier launched strike a/c. I don't know if this was
ever put into operational use, but there were certainly a number of carrier
based trials of the Jag by the French Navy. The undercarriage and tail hook
are designed for carrier operations, the former allowing the excellent
rough(ish) field capability the RAF employed in Norway. MoD budget cuts
forced through the change from advanced trainer to the strike/recon role.

Jim Doyle

It may be too long ago to be "relevant" to this discussion but the Fleet Air
Arm, flying Harrier FRS1 in the Falklands some 20 years ago apparently never
got into a "dog fight" after the first day of air-to-air combat. They found
that they were functioning in a classic interceptor role (using subsonic a/c
against M2 Mirages!) and achived a kill ratio of some 20 kills for no losses
to enemy aircraft. It is of note that the combat a/c available to the
Argentinians outnumbered the carrier based Harriers by over 10:1. (The AIM9L
was a great leveller of the playing field)
"Paul F Austin" wrote in message
. ..

"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?

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 21:20:02 +0200, "David Nicholls"
wrote:

It may be too long ago to be "relevant" to this discussion but the Fleet Air
Arm, flying Harrier FRS1 in the Falklands some 20 years ago apparently never
got into a "dog fight" after the first day of air-to-air combat. They found
that they were functioning in a classic interceptor role (using subsonic a/c
against M2 Mirages!) and achived a kill ratio of some 20 kills for no losses
to enemy aircraft. It is of note that the combat a/c available to the
Argentinians outnumbered the carrier based Harriers by over 10:1. (The AIM9L
was a great leveller of the playing field)

Your final parenthetical says it all. The all-aspect AIM-9L handles
the differential in performance that occurs if you allow the enemy
aircraft to get to the merge. Since the RAF had all-aspect and the
Argentinians did not, they were able to "face shoot" the incoming
fighters and never got to a "dog-fight."

Today, everyone has all-aspect and there's been 20 years of tactics
development. It's the crux of my regular rants regarding the
non-applicability of 1-v-1 dogfighting. Detect early, BVR shoot with
longest missile, counter opposing shot at the point you are detected
(detectable), then face shoot with shorter range weapon, then blow
through for high-angle guns. Separate to comfortable distance, lather,
rinse, repeat.


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

"David Nicholls" wrote in news:40535ee4.0
@news1.mweb.co.za:

(The AIM9L
was a great leveller of the playing field)


I've never totally bought this, a look at most of the comments by pilots
involved in the shootdowns indicates that by far the largest majority of
them (if not all) were classic stern-chase shootdowns. The SHARs claimed
many victims, but rarely ever actually stopped the aircraft reaching
their targets - mostly chasing them down afterwords. Blame that on the
lack of effective AEW cover, not the SHAR. We'll never know if the
results would have differed using the AIM-9G/H that they were equipped
with, the AIM-9L may have helped as a more effective missile overall, but
it's all aspect capability wasn't really tested as far as I'm aware.
Please note extensive use of "IIRC" and "As far as I'm aware" in this
post, I welcome any corrections!

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

In message , David Nicholls
writes
(The AIM9L
was a great leveller of the playing field)

Don't think so, from what I've seen, heard and read. Virtually all the
shots taken were rear-aspect from well within the traditional IRAAM
envelope: AIM-9G should have been good, though -9L definitely better if
only for reliability.

I don't recall any of the Argentine strike aircraft jettisoning ordnance
under attack, let alone turning to engage (could easily be wrong, of
course) and they didn't have any fighter cover after the first day or
so.

Key issue seems to have been unescorted strike packages at low level and
fuel limited, without mutual support: hard to write a better scenario
for a Harrier CAP apart from the lack of AEW.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Drewe Manton wrote:

"David Nicholls" wrote in news:40535ee4.0
@news1.mweb.co.za:

(The AIM9L
was a great leveller of the playing field)


I've never totally bought this, a look at most of the comments by pilots
involved in the shootdowns indicates that by far the largest majority of
them (if not all) were classic stern-chase shootdowns. The SHARs claimed
many victims, but rarely ever actually stopped the aircraft reaching
their targets - mostly chasing them down afterwords. Blame that on the
lack of effective AEW cover, not the SHAR. We'll never know if the
results would have differed using the AIM-9G/H that they were equipped
with, the AIM-9L may have helped as a more effective missile overall, but
it's all aspect capability wasn't really tested as far as I'm aware.
Please note extensive use of "IIRC" and "As far as I'm aware" in this
post, I welcome any corrections!

You are correct, there wasn't a single in the face AIM-9L shot, let alone a
kill. All were from the beam aft, most being from the tail against
non-maneuvering targets. There was at least one attempt to take a head-on
shot, but the missile wouldn't lock (this was on 1 May, at medium/high
altitude). The Daggers concerned had almost certainly gone to idle before
the merge, to deny such a shot.

But, in addition to its improved maneuverability/fusing/warhead over the
AIM-9G, the AIM-9L's perceived head-on _capability_ certainly had an effect
on the Argentine Air Force's tactics and morale. The only FQ-capable missile
the AAF had was the R.530, not exactly renowned for its combat record. I've
wargamed this situation, and barring a surprise bounce (unlikely at altitude,
with both sides having good GCI) about the only reasonable approach for the
Mirages is to build up energy beforehand, go idle, hope to get a radar lock
head-on (with a radar that's probably less powerful and certainly less
reliable than the SHAR's) before reaching min. range, shoot an R.530, blow
through while staying high and keep on going until reaching E-pole, then turn
around and head for the mainland while hoping that the SHARs had to bingo to
the carriers in the meantime, and aren't waiting for you to return. The only
advantage the Mirages have is their speed, and they don't have the fuel at
that radius to make a series of slashing attacks. On both occasions on May
1st when Mirages or Daggers went to the merge with the Brits having tallies,
they lost a/c post merge while turning around.

They did try to make a surprise bounce on 1 May, but the British controllers
were on it, and the SHARS were trying to suck them into range:

"'Leader, I have possible trade for you.' It was Glamorgan [control ship]
again. Things were getting busy. 'Three contacts bearing 190 deg. at about
40 miles. They are very high, estimating 38,000 feet [the SHARs were
patrolling at about 12,000 feet, over a cloud deck], and fast. Heading
straight towards you.'

"'Roger.' I thought fast and remembered E-J's [another squadron pilot]
shadow-boxing. 'Steady on North, Soapy [his wingman]. We'll spoof them into
attacking us. Call the ranges, "D" [the RN designation for a controller],
and we'll turn into them late.' I was going to let the Mirages think that
they hadn't been detected and that they had a clear shot at my six o'clock.

"The Glamorgan's 'D' continued to read out the range of the bogeys astern of
us. '30 miles. 28 miles. They are now supersonic. 23 miles. Coming down
the hill [i.e. diving and picking up smash]. 18 miles. 15 miles.'

"'Counter port, Soapy!' Our two SHARs turned hard to the left through 180
deg. Half way through the turn my radar lost its stabilisation.
Maneuvering against the earlier threat [T-34s at low-level] had probably
upset the reference platform. I steadied, nose high, and my eyes searched
hard against the pale blue of the sky to try to pick up the enemy fighters.

"'8 miles.'

"'Tally ho!' This was it. I didn't have blood in my vains any more, just
pure adrenalin. 'Three trails, 12 o'clock high. I'm going for the left-hand
man. You take the right, then well sort out the middle one later.' The
trails were smoke trails coming directly towards us in a steep descent. Were
the Mirages passing through a condensation layer? I couldn't work it out.
My sidewinder cross was already on my chosen target but I could get no
acquisition tone [This is not the failure to achieve lock I mention above, as
will become apparent]. Then I started to make out the target -- it wasn't an
aircraft, it was white, with fins . . . Must be a head-on missile. 'They're
missiles, Soapy! Keep your eyes peeled for aircraft.'

"My excitement subsided as the 'missiles' ran out of steam and plunged
towards the sea below before reaching us. I craned my neck up and around to
try and spot the enemy, but there was just empty blue sky. Not even Soapy
was to be seen. I felt suddenly vulnerable on my own without the cross-cover
from my Number Two.

"'I've lost visual, Soapy. Better head for the clouds [undercast].'

"'I'm already there, Boss.' Soapy was obviously no fool. I felt all the
tension go and laughed -- at least Soapy had had the sense to run for cover
when he lost the picture. We joined up with the help of Glamorgan and
returned to the deck."

From "Sea Harrier over the Falklands" by Commander (ret.) Nigel 'Sharkey'
Ward. It's pretty clear that Argentine GCI detected the SHAR course reversal
and the Mirages buggered off. Note that according to the Argentine pilots no
missiles were fired in this action, so the 'missiles' Sharkey saw may have
been jettisoned drop tanks. There apparently was at least one R.530 fired
during the course of 1 May at a SHAR, but (at least at the time of writing of
"Falklands: The Air War" in the mid-80s] it's unclear just when it happened
or who fired it.

Guy

It may be too long ago to be "relevant" to this discussion but the Fleet Air
Arm, flying Harrier FRS1 in the Falklands some 20 years ago apparently never
got into a "dog fight" after the first day of air-to-air combat. They found
that they were functioning in a classic interceptor role (using subsonic a/c
against M2 Mirages!) and achived a kill ratio of some 20 kills for no losses
to enemy aircraft. It is of note that the combat a/c available to the
Argentinians outnumbered the carrier based Harriers by over 10:1. (The AIM9L
was a great leveller of the playing field)

Your final parenthetical says it all. The all-aspect AIM-9L handles
the differential in performance that occurs if you allow the enemy
aircraft to get to the merge. Since the RAF had all-aspect and the
Argentinians did not, they were able to "face shoot" the incoming
fighters and never got to a "dog-fight."

Today, everyone has all-aspect and there's been 20 years of tactics
development. It's the crux of my regular rants regarding the
non-applicability of 1-v-1 dogfighting. Detect early, BVR shoot with
longest missile, counter opposing shot at the point you are detected
(detectable), then face shoot with shorter range weapon, then blow
through for high-angle guns. Separate to comfortable distance, lather,
rinse, repeat.


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

Just to clarify a few things- When I was talking about a neutral bfm
setup, it was a theoretical case to start some discussion about
individual a/c performances (e.g. equal capability pilots, etc),
because with what I've been told about the Raptor's handling
characteristics I just don't buy the fact that it is in any way
inferior to the Typhoon. I don't think that anyone in the fighter
community will dispute the fact that with todays technology (datalink,
bvr weapons, etc),no formation ever intends to come even close to a
merge with an adversary. However, with that said it is still important
in my opinion to have an aircraft with some sort of turn performance (
Maybe until hi off boresight wpns & HMS become more
predominant)because even in todays days of AWACS and d/l often during
LFEs things degenerate into the short range pickup situation where at
leat a bit of mx is required. It seems no matter what technology is
out there, one leaker always manages to get through in these
exercises. With that said BFM is definitely evolving - I don't know
what other air forces are into but we are definitely favouring the
aggressive heavy pressure gameplan , really emphasing quick TTK, then
getting out of there before soaking up an unseen radar missile.

Guy Alcala wrote in
:

You are correct, there wasn't a single in the face AIM-9L shot, let
alone a kill.

Thanks for the clarification Guy, nice to know I can be right from time
to time! But in fairness to the nine-Lima I hadn't really considered the
likely effect just knowing it was being employed would've had on the
Argentinian pilot's tactics and morale, so perhaps it's use played a
bigger role than I'd given it credit for just in terms of mental
attitudes on the part of all concerned. . .

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