PDA

View Full Version : British Aviation Part 1: Better than the U.S.?


Chuck Johnson
September 16th 03, 03:55 AM
Man o man. When I read a few British aviation mags, they always make
their product out to be so superior--what's up with that?! It cannot be
so! It's almost as it you *the reader* should be stunned into amazement
that the friggin' thing actually ...flies!

The Brits enjoy trumping up every minor wiedo attribute of their strange
birds. And, they do have some very odd ducks flying about defending
their country (Island?)... Good thing Goerring wasn't around today,
he'd have an easy time picking them off--even with 109s and 262s...

FYI: I won't mention the Harrier or the Eurofighter at this time, we can
have much more fun with those at a later date.
So, without further delay, lets discuss some of Britains modern combat
aviation products:

The Panavia (British Designed) Tornado F.3? ("...the F-14 was
considered, but it was not up to the job... ...inferior radar..." I
love that one--Hardee har-har! Inferior indeed! Lets talk about the
development time for the Foxhunter radar).

How about the Electric Lightning F.6? ("Pioneered supercruise!" ...
sure; "better than an F-15" uh-huh, bear in mind F.6 did not have a
gun--just two short range and very ineffective missiles.
Although no longer in service, it's frequently brought up as a high
water mark of British aircraft engineering. Even among the Brits it had
a notorious reputation for being short ranged and almost impossible to
maintain.

Lastly, who can forget the beautiful Blackburn Buccaneer? ("Faster than
an F-16 or F-15 with a full load of armament..." OK... ****'s getting
deep.)
I'm not trying to belittle the Brits, but this aircraft is still in
front line service (Although I'm sure that point will be disputed).
What they don't say is that the Buccaneer can only achieve this by
flying at the lowest of levels-which due to the density of the air, does
create high drag on the F-16 and F-15. But it also penalizes the
Buccaneers own range. At moderate altitudes where a typical aircraft
would fly the bulk of the journey before descending to attack (have you
ever seen a tanker at lo-lo level--other than landing?), both F-16 and
F-15 have superior range and speed-even with a full bag of ordinance.
The Buccaneer, assuming it had refueled several times to reach the
attack point, would promptly be shot out of the sky upon the initiation
of an attack. Why, you ask? She would make a wonderful target: Her
obsolete tail pipes would be glowing red hot, or better yet, the
opposition would have an excellent heat lock due to the boundary layer
control system (engine bleed gases exiting the wing leading edge) used
to enhance lift.

Jeez. I love the Brits.

-Chuck

M. J. Powell
September 16th 03, 11:32 AM
In message 1>, Chuck
Johnson > writes

>Jeez. I love the Brits.

We like you, too.

Mike
--
M.J.Powell

Pechs1
September 16th 03, 02:48 PM
c Johnson-<< The Panavia (British Designed) Tornado F.3? ("...the F-14 was
considered, but it was not up to the job... ...inferior radar..." I
love that one--Hardee har-har! Inferior indeed! Lets talk about the
development time for the Foxhunter radar). >><BR><BR>

You have obviously not flown the F-14 and seen the radar perform in real world
scenarios. And just as obvious, you believe everything that the Hughes/Grumman
propaganda machines have printed.

C Jonson-<< I'm not trying to belittle the Brits, but this aircraft is still in

front line service >><BR><BR>

As was the A-6 and F-4, not too long ago. I would be happier in a Buc. than an
F-16 in deep, dark night interdiction...

C Johnson-<< The Buccaneer, assuming it had refueled several times to reach the

attack point, >><BR><BR>

Geeezzz, this A/C is 40 years old...

I wouldn't believe all you read about the F-14/15/16/18 either.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

Ogden Johnson III
September 16th 03, 05:05 PM
Chuck Johnson > wrote:

[Troll snipped, and troller plonked.]

OJ III

Walt BJ
September 18th 03, 04:26 AM
WTF, over. I can't think of an outstanding Brit aircraft that you
couldn't match with a US aircraft at least it's equal - except for the
Harrier. And who makes the AV8B? The Buccaneer can't do anything the
F111 couldn't beat. The Tornado? Which one? Air to ground or air
defense? What can either one do that can't be done equally well with
an F15C or F15E? As for the Lightning - it could climb like hell but
in 40 minutes you better be on the ground. The F106 was a much more
capable interceptor with a much better radar/IR system and all kinds
of cute ECCM mods. For that matter, the F4 was a better interceptor,
too.
The F8 Crusader was a mean one also. And in 1967 I got to fly the
Dash19 engined F104A - how does 90 seconds from brake release to 45000
compare to the Lightning, considering I still had an hour's fuel left,
and could have gone on out to M2.0 and only used 1000 pounds doing it
while covering 27 miles over the ground?
Walt BJ

Ogden Johnson III
September 18th 03, 12:08 PM
(Walt BJ) wrote:

>WTF, over.

While not denying your points, IMO the OP's tone was such that it
seemed obvious to me that his only intent was to get a flame-fest
started. That, to me, constitutes a troll, and I treated as him as I
treat anyone I consider a troll.

Obviously, YMMV, but that's what keeps bookies in business.

OJ III

BUFF
September 19th 03, 05:52 PM
"Chuck Johnson" > wrote in message
65.241...
> Man o man. When I read a few British aviation mags, they always make
> their product out to be so superior--what's up with that?! It cannot be
> so! It's almost as it you *the reader* should be stunned into amazement
> that the friggin' thing actually ...flies!
>
> The Brits enjoy trumping up every minor wiedo attribute of their strange
> birds. And, they do have some very odd ducks flying about defending
> their country (Island?)... Good thing Goerring wasn't around today,
> he'd have an easy time picking them off--even with 109s and 262s...
>
> FYI: I won't mention the Harrier or the Eurofighter at this time, we can
> have much more fun with those at a later date.
> So, without further delay, lets discuss some of Britains modern combat
> aviation products:
>
> The Panavia (British Designed) Tornado F.3? ("...the F-14 was
> considered, but it was not up to the job... ...inferior radar..." I
> love that one--Hardee har-har! Inferior indeed! Lets talk about the
> development time for the Foxhunter radar).
>
> How about the Electric Lightning F.6? ("Pioneered supercruise!" ...
> sure; "better than an F-15" uh-huh, bear in mind F.6 did not have a
> gun--just two short range and very ineffective missiles.
> Although no longer in service, it's frequently brought up as a high
> water mark of British aircraft engineering. Even among the Brits it had
> a notorious reputation for being short ranged and almost impossible to
> maintain.
>
> Lastly, who can forget the beautiful Blackburn Buccaneer? ("Faster than
> an F-16 or F-15 with a full load of armament..." OK... ****'s getting
> deep.)
> I'm not trying to belittle the Brits, but this aircraft is still in
> front line service (Although I'm sure that point will be disputed).
> What they don't say is that the Buccaneer can only achieve this by
> flying at the lowest of levels-which due to the density of the air, does
> create high drag on the F-16 and F-15. But it also penalizes the
> Buccaneers own range. At moderate altitudes where a typical aircraft
> would fly the bulk of the journey before descending to attack (have you
> ever seen a tanker at lo-lo level--other than landing?), both F-16 and
> F-15 have superior range and speed-even with a full bag of ordinance.
> The Buccaneer, assuming it had refueled several times to reach the
> attack point, would promptly be shot out of the sky upon the initiation
> of an attack. Why, you ask? She would make a wonderful target: Her
> obsolete tail pipes would be glowing red hot, or better yet, the
> opposition would have an excellent heat lock due to the boundary layer
> control system (engine bleed gases exiting the wing leading edge) used
> to enhance lift.
>
> Jeez. I love the Brits.
>
> -Chuck
>
>

Now you know how we sometimes feel - but we still love you, too.

Btw , the Buccaneers went out of frontline service for for disposal in
1994......

Chuck Johnson
September 22nd 03, 03:08 AM
(Walt BJ) wrote in
om:

> WTF, over. I can't think of an outstanding Brit aircraft that you
> couldn't match with a US aircraft at least it's equal - except for the
> Harrier. And who makes the AV8B? The Buccaneer can't do anything the
> F111 couldn't beat. The Tornado? Which one? Air to ground or air
> defense? What can either one do that can't be done equally well with
> an F15C or F15E? As for the Lightning - it could climb like hell but
> in 40 minutes you better be on the ground. The F106 was a much more
> capable interceptor with a much better radar/IR system and all kinds
> of cute ECCM mods. For that matter, the F4 was a better interceptor,
> too.
> The F8 Crusader was a mean one also. And in 1967 I got to fly the
> Dash19 engined F104A - how does 90 seconds from brake release to 45000
> compare to the Lightning, considering I still had an hour's fuel left,
> and could have gone on out to M2.0 and only used 1000 pounds doing it
> while covering 27 miles over the ground?
> Walt BJ

Right on Walt.

Admittedly, I did indeed intend to inflame. I have to admit how much
fun it was to read the follow up postings... England (UK) is a nice
little place, and they designed unusual aircraft that certainly were
unique in their day.

Pick up any English based book, magazine or web site (official or
commercial), and you will find that their description and comparison of
our aircraft is laughable, yet it is written with absolute seriousness.
Worse still are the endless scenarios written comparing 'theirs' against
'ours.' Jesus, I thought we were on the same team.

Case in point: The Panavia Tornado IDS.

To compare a Tornado IDS against an F-15C defies belief.
There is no comparison. I'd rather place my bet on an F-16C (yes, an F-
16) or an F/A-18.
The truth of the matter is, the Tornado is woefully inadequate--except
for the excellent Texas Instruments radar set. It is the product of
design by committee. Akin to having too many cooks in the kitchen: great
recipe, great ingredients--but the wrong 'pan' was used. AAAHH!

In doubt? Please dispute the following:
==>It is under-powered.
==>It is overweight.
==>It is under-winged (too little wing area). By the way, don't give the
counter argument "...that the wing confers low gust response, improving
crew comfort and minimizing fatigue..."
==>It maneuvers like a pig.

Combat record: Dismal. Gulf War I. Losses incurred attacking third
world air base defended by aging Soviet Air Defense systems.

Well, at least you got on board with the JSF.
Cheers! Your Pal,
Chuck

Rob van Riel
September 22nd 03, 09:38 AM
Chuck Johnson > wrote in message 41>...
> << tornado bashing snipped >>
> Combat record: Dismal. Gulf War I. Losses incurred attacking third
> world air base defended by aging Soviet Air Defense systems.

Precisely. Losses incurred while flying missions that the usually very
confident US F-15E pilots went on record admitting would be virtual
suicide in their super jets, and that they would be scared ****less to
fly if ordered to do so, but which were none the less deemed
necessary. An impossible job for most aircraft, but only a highly
dangerous one in the tornado.

I can't directly counter you other arguments for lack of references to
back me up, but I doubt you'd be interested anyway.

Rob

Jim
September 22nd 03, 07:27 PM
"Rob van Riel" > wrote in message
om...
> Chuck Johnson > wrote in message
41>...
> > << tornado bashing snipped >>
> > Combat record: Dismal. Gulf War I. Losses incurred attacking third
> > world air base defended by aging Soviet Air Defense systems.
>
> Precisely. Losses incurred while flying missions that the usually very
> confident US F-15E pilots went on record admitting would be virtual
> suicide in their super jets, and that they would be scared ****less to
> fly if ordered to do so, but which were none the less deemed
> necessary. An impossible job for most aircraft, but only a highly
> dangerous one in the tornado.
>
> I can't directly counter you other arguments for lack of references to
> back me up, but I doubt you'd be interested anyway.
>
> Rob

Actually for reading what the commander of the air war in the Gulf war said,
they were lost because the Brits stuck to flying at Low Alt penitration
when
everyone else had climed upstairs . From what I read it was a failure in
tactics when the brits climed upstairs the losses stoped.

Chuck Johnson
September 23rd 03, 01:48 AM
"Jim" > wrote in :

> "Rob van Riel" > wrote in message
> om...
>> Chuck Johnson > wrote in message
> 41>...
>> > << tornado bashing snipped >>
>> > Combat record: Dismal. Gulf War I. Losses incurred attacking
>> > third world air base defended by aging Soviet Air Defense systems.
>>
>> Precisely. Losses incurred while flying missions that the usually
>> very confident US F-15E pilots went on record admitting would be
>> virtual suicide in their super jets, and that they would be scared
>> ****less to fly if ordered to do so, but which were none the less
>> deemed necessary. An impossible job for most aircraft, but only a
>> highly dangerous one in the tornado.
>>
>> I can't directly counter you other arguments for lack of references
>> to back me up, but I doubt you'd be interested anyway.
>>
>> Rob
>
> Actually for reading what the commander of the air war in the Gulf war
> said, they were lost because the Brits stuck to flying at Low Alt
> penitration when
> everyone else had climed upstairs . From what I read it was a
> failure in tactics when the brits climed upstairs the losses stoped.
>
>
>
>
I don't dispute the courage, professionalism or the training of the RAF; I
don't think anyone would.

My point of contention is that the brass of RAF ('High Command'--high
indeed!) is arrogant to a fault. 'They' are at fault for the mission
failure of the Tornado IDS during Gulf War I.
Let's face it: the Tornado was hopelessly inadequate to deal with the known
mission dangers. But then again, not many aircraft are.
Why on earth would you attempt to attack a well defended target at ultra-
low level-especially during daylight? Because you were brave? Or perhaps
foolish?
The RAF brass were hell bent at throwing perfectly good pilots at a
pointless (read: deadly to pilot) target to prove a point. A point to who?
I would guess (I'm sure you'll find this hard to believe) that they were
trying to out macho the Americans.

Yes, the American pilots thought it awful brave to attack so dangerous a
target. In fact they thought it foolish. In the end, the British
capitulated to the American strategy and altered their tactics by choosing
to attack from a safe altitude. Ultimately effective, but at a tremendous
cost. A terrible waste excellent pilots.
That, my friends, is what really ****es me off. I hope they 'yank' (Ha!
there's a funny one!) the cojones off of the general who authorized the
missions and strategy.
Instead, knowing England all too well, I'm sure they knighted him and
bestowed him with an OBE.

Elmshoot
September 23rd 03, 05:50 AM
>> > Combat record: Dismal. Gulf War I. Losses incurred attacking third
>> > world air base defended by aging Soviet Air Defense systems.
>>
>> Precisely. Losses incurred while flying missions that the usually very
>> confident US F-15E pilots went on record admitting would be virtual
>> suicide in their super jets, and that they would be scared ****less to
>> fly if ordered to do so, but which were none the less deemed
>> necessary. An impossible job for most aircraft, but only a highly
>> dangerous one in the tornado.
>>
>> I can't directly counter you other arguments for lack of references to
>> back me up, but I doubt you'd be interested anyway.
>>
>> Rob
>
>Actually for reading what the commander of the air war in the Gulf war said,
>they were lost because the Brits stuck to flying at Low Alt penitration
>when
>everyone else had climed upstairs . From what I read it was a failure in
>tactics when the brits climed upstairs the losses stoped.


From what I understand they were using the runway interdiction weapon which is
only capable of being used at low altitude.
I don't care what you say about the mission anyone who flew it would be scared
****less.

Don't forget that we lost 2 A-6's the second night of the war on a low altitude
attack. I personally saw part of the debrief words like "walls of fire" were
used to describe the fierce AAA they encountered. I was busy escorting the
Brits doing the low altitude runway denile thing. You can't believe the shear
joy and excitement in my cockpit when they all checked in off target with all
chicks accounted for.

I do not think they did any of the low altitude stuff in the daylight like one
post suggests.

Sparky

David S. Bacon
October 20th 03, 03:32 AM
Seems to me that a similar argument started with Patton and Montgomery.

Magnificent *******s!

Google