Eurofighter grounded!

[Erik Pfeister]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,5-853318,00.html

[Steve Davies]

According to the Times article, France is still buying the jet (but there's
no mention of Spain!). Can this be true? Shoddy work, surely?!

--
Steve Davies
"F-15 Eagle & Strike Eagle. Combat Legends" ISBN 1840 373 776
"F-15E Strike Eagle; The Inside Story" ISBN 1840 373 784
www.f-15e.net



"Erik Pfeister" > wrote in message
...
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,5-853318,00.html
>
>

[Scott Ferrin]

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 07:28:30 +0100, "Steve Davies"
> wrote:

>According to the Times article, France is still buying the jet (but there's
>no mention of Spain!). Can this be true? Shoddy work, surely?!


Uh. . .*France* buying Eurofighter?

[NEMO ME IMPUNE]

That again a journalistic bug. They just made a confusion between France and
Italy....
"Scott Ferrin" > a écrit dans le message de news:
...
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 07:28:30 +0100, "Steve Davies"
> > wrote:
>
> >According to the Times article, France is still buying the jet (but
there's
> >no mention of Spain!). Can this be true? Shoddy work, surely?!
>
>
> Uh. . .*France* buying Eurofighter?

[Kevin Brooks]

"Steve Davies" > wrote in message >...
> According to the Times article, France is still buying the jet (but there's
> no mention of Spain!). Can this be true? Shoddy work, surely?!

Shoddy work? You mean shoddy as to the article, or the airplane...? :)

It is rather surprising that the paper decided to have France
participate in the program and procure the aircraft so many years
after it bailed when it became apparent that the Rafale-route was not
going to be chosen path of the consortium, especially as France has
experienced significant difficulty in funding the still rather paltry
procurement of Rafale to date!

Brooks

>
> --
> Steve Davies
<snip>

[phil hunt]

On 14 Oct 2003 05:38:48 -0700, Kevin Brooks > wrote:
>"Steve Davies" > wrote in message >...
>> According to the Times article, France is still buying the jet (but there's
>> no mention of Spain!). Can this be true? Shoddy work, surely?!
>
>Shoddy work? You mean shoddy as to the article, or the airplane...? :)

The article. The journalist is totally misinformed if he thinks
France is buying it.


--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be > if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).

[Kevin Brooks]

"Mike" > wrote in message >...
> Certainly for this last point,but because of money,and never because of
> technics.
> This program (Rafale),has never had any of the numerous problems of the
> typhoon,still going on...
> So maybe we can think we were right not to gor for it....

If it is so much better than Typhoon, why, despite repeated attempts,
has it not yet received an export order, even losing out to Typhoon in
a couple of competitive selections IIRC? One major reason that France
has difficulty affording rafale is the distinct lack of export success
(exports would drop the unit cost of the aircraft the French want to
buy for themselves). It appears that the Singapore competition is the
rafale's last major opportunity to redress this problem (especially as
the Brazilian F-X program is now more or less moribund); I'd imagine
the various competitors are keeping a close eye on that situation in
light of the rather dubious marketing ploys Dassault attempted during
the ROKAF competition that was eventually lost to the F-15K.

Brooks


>
>
>
> "Kevin Brooks" > a écrit dans le message de news:
> ...
> > "Steve Davies" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > According to the Times article, France is still buying the jet (but
> there's
> > > no mention of Spain!). Can this be true? Shoddy work, surely?!
> >
> > Shoddy work? You mean shoddy as to the article, or the airplane...? :)
> >
> > It is rather surprising that the paper decided to have France
> > participate in the program and procure the aircraft so many years
> > after it bailed when it became apparent that the Rafale-route was not
> > going to be chosen path of the consortium, especially as France has
> > experienced significant difficulty in funding the still rather paltry
> > procurement of Rafale to date!
> >
> > Brooks
> >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Steve Davies
> > <snip>

[Russell Waterson]

I still recon Australia should have the Typhoon not going after F 35
"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
om...
> "Mike" > wrote in message
>...
> > Certainly for this last point,but because of money,and never because of
> > technics.
> > This program (Rafale),has never had any of the numerous problems of the
> > typhoon,still going on...
> > So maybe we can think we were right not to gor for it....
>
> If it is so much better than Typhoon, why, despite repeated attempts,
> has it not yet received an export order, even losing out to Typhoon in
> a couple of competitive selections IIRC? One major reason that France
> has difficulty affording rafale is the distinct lack of export success
> (exports would drop the unit cost of the aircraft the French want to
> buy for themselves). It appears that the Singapore competition is the
> rafale's last major opportunity to redress this problem (especially as
> the Brazilian F-X program is now more or less moribund); I'd imagine
> the various competitors are keeping a close eye on that situation in
> light of the rather dubious marketing ploys Dassault attempted during
> the ROKAF competition that was eventually lost to the F-15K.
>
> Brooks
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > "Kevin Brooks" > a écrit dans le message de news:
> > ...
> > > "Steve Davies" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > According to the Times article, France is still buying the jet (but
> > there's
> > > > no mention of Spain!). Can this be true? Shoddy work, surely?!
> > >
> > > Shoddy work? You mean shoddy as to the article, or the airplane...? :)
> > >
> > > It is rather surprising that the paper decided to have France
> > > participate in the program and procure the aircraft so many years
> > > after it bailed when it became apparent that the Rafale-route was not
> > > going to be chosen path of the consortium, especially as France has
> > > experienced significant difficulty in funding the still rather paltry
> > > procurement of Rafale to date!
> > >
> > > Brooks
> > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Steve Davies
> > > <snip>

[Keith Willshaw]

"Mike" > wrote in message
...
>
> Another point are the missions;Rafale is very versatile,
> Typhoon is an interceptor.
> I don't know what you or the partners of Typhoon think about it,
> but at the moment,and for now 15 years,it may be more useful to have a
good
> multi-purpose aircraft,than an interceptor.


This is nonsense.

Typhoon has been designed from the beginning as a multi-role
aircraft. For air-to-surface missions, the Eurofighter can carry
Brimstone and DWS 37 anti-armor weapons-three under
each wing and one under the center fuselage, as well as
laser-guided and GPS guided weapons.

Keith

[phil hunt]

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 11:39:54 +0200, Mike > wrote:
>
>Both are late,Typhoon because of technics,Rafale because of money.

I think Typhoon has had money problems too -- Germany threatens to
pull out every few years.

>I don't know what you or the partners of Typhoon think about it,
>but at the moment,and for now 15 years,it may be more useful to have a good
>multi-purpose aircraft,than an interceptor.

Maybe. I disagree -- the bombing role can best be done by unpiloted
aircraft.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be > if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).

[phil hunt]

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 11:30:54 +0100, Keith Willshaw > wrote:
>
>"Mike" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Another point are the missions;Rafale is very versatile,
>> Typhoon is an interceptor.
>> I don't know what you or the partners of Typhoon think about it,
>> but at the moment,and for now 15 years,it may be more useful to have a
>> good
>> multi-purpose aircraft,than an interceptor.
>
>
>This is nonsense.
>
>Typhoon has been designed from the beginning as a multi-role
>aircraft.

Yes, but it is optimised for being a fighter. An optimised bomber
would look like an A-10 or Tornado.


--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be > if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).

[Keith Willshaw]

"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 11:30:54 +0100, Keith Willshaw
> wrote:
> >
> >"Mike" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> Another point are the missions;Rafale is very versatile,
> >> Typhoon is an interceptor.
> >> I don't know what you or the partners of Typhoon think about it,
> >> but at the moment,and for now 15 years,it may be more useful to have a
> >> good
> >> multi-purpose aircraft,than an interceptor.
> >
> >
> >This is nonsense.
> >
> >Typhoon has been designed from the beginning as a multi-role
> >aircraft.
>
> Yes, but it is optimised for being a fighter. An optimised bomber
> would look like an A-10 or Tornado.
>

The A-10 is a CAS aircraft not a bomber and Rafale is optimised as
a fighter too.

Keith

[Kevin Brooks]

"Mike" > wrote in message >...
> "Kevin Brooks" > a écrit dans le message de news:
> ...
> > "Mike" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > Certainly for this last point,but because of money,and never because of
> > > technics.
> > > This program (Rafale),has never had any of the numerous problems of the
> > > typhoon,still going on...
> > > So maybe we can think we were right not to gor for it....
> >
> > If it is so much better than Typhoon,
>
> Did I say it was better than Typhoon?
> These are two quite good aircrafts,differents,Rafale is better for this,and
> Typhoon for that.
> I did not say it was better,but that Typhoon has had really many technical
> difficulties,what is
> absolutely not true for the Rafale program.

None whatsoever? That would be a first...let's see:

+ Original flights had to be conducted with alternate engines (GE
F404-400's) because the SNECMA M88's were behind schedule.

+ "In the case of Rafale, the justification of the qualification of
this flight is the French government's guarantee, but we have to know
that Dassault is still developing the air-to-ground function for the
Rafale and they are not ready to deliver to customers for some years,"
he said. "French newspapers, including Le Parisien, also raised some
engine problems with the proposed Rafale fighters."
www.clw.org/atop/newswire/nw083101.html

Sometimes it is easy to say there are "no problems" when you in fact
are talking about an aircraft that does not even *exist* yet, as
is/was the case with a true "multi-role" Rafale.

> The only difficulties we've had with it are financial.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Your financial problems can
be linked to lack of success in the export market (ironic, since one
of the reasons that France bailed *out* of the joint Eurofighter
program early on in favor of pursuing Rafale was that it wanted a more
marketable aircraft--only to see Typhoon beat it out in export sales
to date), and the lack of export sales is a reflection of the fact
that customers are (a) not impressed with being offered a multi-role
product that has yet to prove multi-role capability, and (b) see
problems that you claim don't exist.

As Defense Systems Daily phrased it back in July 2001:

"Now, there tends to be a rule of thumb: if there are that many
changes in a programme, then wait until the home customer has taken
delivery of the system and has discovered all the bugs. This could
mean that potential clients wait until well after 2005 before looking
at Rafale."


> Both are late,Typhoon because of technics,Rafale because of money.
> So we can think we may have been right,but that can be discussed,i
> agree.Another point are the missions;Rafale is very versatile,
> Typhoon is an interceptor.

Whoah there. Typhoon is every bit as multi-role as is Rafale. Both are
really in the "unproven" category as far as multi-role is concerned.

> I don't know what you or the partners of Typhoon think about it,
> but at the moment,and for now 15 years,it may be more useful to have a good
> multi-purpose aircraft,than an interceptor.

Which is why Typhoon *is* a multi-role platform.

> Finally,having difficulties in exporting an aircraft does absolutely not
> mean it's a bad one.Look at what happened in Korea for an example.

OK, let's do that. The ROKAF turned down an offer of a Rafale that as
of then was completely unproven as a true multi-role platform in favor
of an advanced derivitive of an already proven multi-role platform
that, oh-by-the-way, happened to also offer greater commonality with
its most important military ally, and at least one ROK insider
commented about concerns over the Rafale engines (hey, that seems to
be a growing factor--ISTR Dassault has laso now offered an uprated
powerplant option to Singapore after they also expressed some concern
over Rafale power availability). Does this mean that Rafale is "bad"?
No. But it sure does not support the idea that it is supposedly any
*better* than other offerings that are available, either.

Brooks

>
> why, despite repeated attempts,
> > has it not yet received an export order, even losing out to Typhoon in
> > a couple of competitive selections IIRC? One major reason that France
> > has difficulty affording rafale is the distinct lack of export success
> > (exports would drop the unit cost of the aircraft the French want to
> > buy for themselves). It appears that the Singapore competition is the
> > rafale's last major opportunity to redress this problem (especially as
> > the Brazilian F-X program is now more or less moribund); I'd imagine
> > the various competitors are keeping a close eye on that situation in
> > light of the rather dubious marketing ploys Dassault attempted during
> > the ROKAF competition that was eventually lost to the F-15K.
> >
> > Brooks
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Kevin Brooks" > a écrit dans le message de news:
> > > ...
> > > > "Steve Davies" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > > > According to the Times article, France is still buying the jet (but
> there's
> > > > > no mention of Spain!). Can this be true? Shoddy work, surely?!
> > > >
> > > > Shoddy work? You mean shoddy as to the article, or the airplane...? :)
> > > >
> > > > It is rather surprising that the paper decided to have France
> > > > participate in the program and procure the aircraft so many years
> > > > after it bailed when it became apparent that the Rafale-route was not
> > > > going to be chosen path of the consortium, especially as France has
> > > > experienced significant difficulty in funding the still rather paltry
> > > > procurement of Rafale to date!
> > > >
> > > > Brooks
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Steve Davies
> > > > <snip>

[Kevin Brooks]

(phil hunt) wrote in message >...
> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 11:30:54 +0100, Keith Willshaw > wrote:
> >
> >"Mike" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> Another point are the missions;Rafale is very versatile,
> >> Typhoon is an interceptor.
> >> I don't know what you or the partners of Typhoon think about it,
> >> but at the moment,and for now 15 years,it may be more useful to have a
> >> good
> >> multi-purpose aircraft,than an interceptor.
> >
> >
> >This is nonsense.
> >
> >Typhoon has been designed from the beginning as a multi-role
> >aircraft.
>
> Yes, but it is optimised for being a fighter. An optimised bomber
> would look like an A-10 or Tornado.

"Would look like" seems to be rather shaky criteria to me. The F-15E
is most decidedly a muti-role aircraft with a decided strike
orientation--does it "look like a bomber"? Did the F-4? Or the
proabable King of Multi-Role, the F-16? And BTW, that example of
"Tornado" that allegedly epitomizes what a "bomber" should look like?
It too is multi-role--witness the ADF and ECM versions.

Brooks

[phil hunt]

On 17 Oct 2003 11:37:20 -0700, Kevin Brooks > wrote:
(phil hunt) wrote in message >...
>> >Typhoon has been designed from the beginning as a multi-role
>> >aircraft.
>>
>> Yes, but it is optimised for being a fighter. An optimised bomber
>> would look like an A-10 or Tornado.
>
>"Would look like" seems to be rather shaky criteria to me. The F-15E
>is most decidedly a muti-role aircraft with a decided strike
>orientation--does it "look like a bomber"? Did the F-4? Or the
>proabable King of Multi-Role, the F-16? And BTW, that example of
>"Tornado" that allegedly epitomizes what a "bomber" should look like?
>It too is multi-role--witness the ADF and ECM versions.

It is not a dogfighter. Tornado is optimised for fuel efficiency and
the ability to carry large amounts of munitions a long way.

A-10 is optimised for survivability, carrying a large bombload, and
direct cannon fire at a target.

F-16 is optimised for air-superiority. It has a high-performance
engine, is highly maneouvrable, and has a big radar to track other
aircraft. It can do other stuff, but that's not its primary role.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be > if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).

[Kevin Brooks]

(phil hunt) wrote in message >...
> On 17 Oct 2003 11:37:20 -0700, Kevin Brooks > wrote:
> (phil hunt) wrote in message >...
> >> >Typhoon has been designed from the beginning as a multi-role
> >> >aircraft.
> >>
> >> Yes, but it is optimised for being a fighter. An optimised bomber
> >> would look like an A-10 or Tornado.
> >
> >"Would look like" seems to be rather shaky criteria to me. The F-15E
> >is most decidedly a muti-role aircraft with a decided strike
> >orientation--does it "look like a bomber"? Did the F-4? Or the
> >proabable King of Multi-Role, the F-16? And BTW, that example of
> >"Tornado" that allegedly epitomizes what a "bomber" should look like?
> >It too is multi-role--witness the ADF and ECM versions.
>
> It is not a dogfighter. Tornado is optimised for fuel efficiency and
> the ability to carry large amounts of munitions a long way.

Whoah. That "optimized for fuel efficiency" Tornado has legs just a
bit shorter than that F-15E I mentioned. And no, it was designed from
the outset as a multi-role aircraft--there was a reason it had the
nomenclature MRCA when it was originally developed.

>
> A-10 is optimised for survivability, carrying a large bombload, and
> direct cannon fire at a target.

That makes it primarily a CAS platform. Now why would you expect other
strike platforms to "look like" the A-10? Does the F-111? Or maybe the
A-7? How does a B-58 meet you "looks like" criteria, versus the old
BUFF?

>
> F-16 is optimised for air-superiority. It has a high-performance
> engine, is highly maneouvrable, and has a big radar to track other
> aircraft. It can do other stuff, but that's not its primary role.

Care to guess what the "primary role" of the F-16 is, and always has
been, within the USAF (with the sole exception of the ADF variant)?
Yep, that's right, it spends (much, much) more of its time concerned
with BAI/CAS/SEAD than it ever has the air superiority role. At the
very beginning of the development program it was envisioned as
primarily being a lightweight air superiority product, but that
changed while it was still in early development and before it ever
entered into US service--it went multi-role rather early in its
gestation.

Brooks

[phil hunt]

On 17 Oct 2003 19:53:12 -0700, Kevin Brooks > wrote:
(phil hunt) wrote in message >...
>>
>> F-16 is optimised for air-superiority. It has a high-performance
>> engine, is highly maneouvrable, and has a big radar to track other
>> aircraft. It can do other stuff, but that's not its primary role.
>
>Care to guess what the "primary role" of the F-16 is, and always has
>been, within the USAF

It was designed as a low-cost airv superiority fighter to counteract
the USSR's large fleet of fighters and fighter bombers.

> (with the sole exception of the ADF variant)?
>Yep, that's right, it spends (much, much) more of its time concerned
>with BAI/CAS/SEAD than it ever has the air superiority role.

That's because the USSR doesn't exist any more, and the USA has
tended to fight enemies with less capable air forces.

>At the
>very beginning of the development program it was envisioned as
>primarily being a lightweight air superiority product, but that
>changed while it was still in early development and before it ever
>entered into US service--it went multi-role rather early in its
>gestation.

Multi-role, but with an emphasis on air superiority. Just as the
A-10 has multi-role capability: you can shoot down other aircraft
with it, but no-one would say it's designed as a fighter.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be > if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).

[Daryl Hunt]

"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Multi-role, but with an emphasis on air superiority. Just as the
> A-10 has multi-role capability: you can shoot down other aircraft
> with it, but no-one would say it's designed as a fighter.

Ever play a game called, "Air Wars"? You should give it a try. It's out of
print these days. I would kill for a copy of it and the qualified people to
play it. Play that game using an A-10 and you will change your story. I am
afraid that a simulation is about the only way you will find out where you
are incorrect. The A-10 is a dead duck against other AC outside of L-5.

[phil hunt]

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 00:28:03 -0600, Daryl Hunt > wrote:
>
>"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
>>
>> Multi-role, but with an emphasis on air superiority. Just as the
>> A-10 has multi-role capability: you can shoot down other aircraft
>> with it, but no-one would say it's designed as a fighter.
>
>Ever play a game called, "Air Wars"? You should give it a try. It's out of
>print these days. I would kill for a copy of it and the qualified people to
>play it. Play that game using an A-10 and you will change your story. I am
>afraid that a simulation is about the only way you will find out where you
>are incorrect. The A-10 is a dead duck against other AC outside of L-5.

Er, my whole point was that the A-10 isn't particularly good at
shooting down other auircraft. (But IIRC an A-10 once shot down a
helicopter).

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(My real email address would be > if you added 275
to it and reversed the last two letters).

[Kevin Brooks]

(phil hunt) wrote in message >...
> On 17 Oct 2003 19:53:12 -0700, Kevin Brooks > wrote:
> (phil hunt) wrote in message >...
> >>
> >> F-16 is optimised for air-superiority. It has a high-performance
> >> engine, is highly maneouvrable, and has a big radar to track other
> >> aircraft. It can do other stuff, but that's not its primary role.
> >
> >Care to guess what the "primary role" of the F-16 is, and always has
> >been, within the USAF
>
> It was designed as a low-cost airv superiority fighter to counteract
> the USSR's large fleet of fighters and fighter bombers.

That was only during its very early stages of design; it was developed
for multi-role use before it ever entered into operational service.
The USAF was smart enough to realize that the usefulness of an
aircraft restricted to day light air superiority use was rather
limited, and design changes were implemented during the prototype/EMD
stages to rectify the situation and make it a multi-role platform.

>
> > (with the sole exception of the ADF variant)?
> >Yep, that's right, it spends (much, much) more of its time concerned
> >with BAI/CAS/SEAD than it ever has the air superiority role.
>
> That's because the USSR doesn't exist any more, and the USA has
> tended to fight enemies with less capable air forces.

Nope. The F-16 was spending more of its training time in the mud
moving role from the day it entered into active service, while the
USSR was still a going concern. Stop trying to revise history to suit
your less than accurate analysis. The F-16 entered operational use in
1980, but:

""...The General Dynamics YF-16 being declared the winner in January
1975 [of the LWF competition], but even at that early stage customers
were asking for more capability. As a result, a Westinghouse APG-66
multi-mode radar was added, as well as carrying capacity for
air-to-surface weapons, while wing and tail area were increased, and
the fin made taller and the fuselage longer...by the 1980's what had
started as a lightweight fighter had become a multi-role
middleweight." (Modern American Weapons, ed. David Miller, 2002)

>
> >At the
> >very beginning of the development program it was envisioned as
> >primarily being a lightweight air superiority product, but that
> >changed while it was still in early development and before it ever
> >entered into US service--it went multi-role rather early in its
> >gestation.
>
> Multi-role, but with an emphasis on air superiority. Just as the
> A-10 has multi-role capability: you can shoot down other aircraft
> with it, but no-one would say it's designed as a fighter.

No, it has never, since the days when the LWF morphed into the
multi-role F-16 which entered into service, had an emphasis on "air
superiority" (other than the handful of A model ADF variants mentioned
earlier). Both US and European users placed more emphasis on its use
in the strike role, and its first major combat use, by the Israelis,
saw more strike missions than air superiority use (you do recall what
kind of aircraft toted the bombs to Osirak in 82?).

Your "look like" criteria just does not cut the mustard.

Brooks

[Alan Minyard]

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 00:28:03 -0600, "Daryl Hunt" >
wrote:

>
>"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
>>
>> Multi-role, but with an emphasis on air superiority. Just as the
>> A-10 has multi-role capability: you can shoot down other aircraft
>> with it, but no-one would say it's designed as a fighter.
>
>Ever play a game called, "Air Wars"? You should give it a try. It's out of
>print these days. I would kill for a copy of it and the qualified people to
>play it. Play that game using an A-10 and you will change your story. I am
>afraid that a simulation is about the only way you will find out where you
>are incorrect. The A-10 is a dead duck against other AC outside of L-5.
>
>
Playing games is a long, long way from combat. People who play games
need to realize that they are "playing a game" that does not reflect
reality.

Al Minyard

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(phil hunt) wrote:

> Er, my whole point was that the A-10 isn't particularly good at
> shooting down other auircraft. (But IIRC an A-10 once shot down a
> helicopter).

On the other hand, in some exercises a couple of decades back, A-10s did
very well versus F-15s as long as they kept things down near the ground.
Hiding in the weeds kept the long-range missiles out of the equation,
and once they got into gun range, they broke even.

It's nice to have a gun that can kill the other guy from a couple of
miles out...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[Guy Alcala]

Kevin Brooks wrote:

> (phil hunt) wrote in message >...

<snip>

> No, it has never, since the days when the LWF morphed into the
> multi-role F-16 which entered into service, had an emphasis on "air
> superiority" (other than the handful of A model ADF variants mentioned
> earlier). Both US and European users placed more emphasis on its use
> in the strike role, and its first major combat use, by the Israelis,
> saw more strike missions than air superiority use (you do recall what
> kind of aircraft toted the bombs to Osirak in 82?).

I'll have to disagree. The Europeans used the F-16 primarily as an interceptor/air superiority a/c in the early days
while they still had squadrons of other types available for A/G work, with a secondary A/G role (there were individual
variations between different nations as to emphasis; some had F-16s in dedicated A/A squadrons, some used them for
both missions, some had squadrons for each), and other countries have also used it as their primary air superiority
a/c if they couldn't afford F-15s (which is to say, almost every customer). And while the Israelis used F-16s to bomb
Osirak (in 1981, not 1982), it was because the a/c had the range to get there and back unrefueled, along with
sufficient accuracy with dumb bombs; they'd previously planned to use F-4s with smart bombs and buddy-tank them at
low-level over SA/Iraq, not an idea that anyone could get very enthusiastic about. In 1982 over the Bekaa, along with
F-15s the F-16s were the primary air superiority a/c (and scored more kills than the F-15s did), while A-4s, F-4s and
Kfirs handled most of the strike missions. The Israelis have always wanted multi-role fighter a/c (they were the
first to use the F-15 for A/G); for instance, the main reason they took the A-4 was to get their foot in the door with
the U.S., hoping to get F-4s later. Only afterwards did they discover that the a/c suited their needs very well, and
they ordered a lot more.

F-16s were forced into the swing-fighter role by the USAF, so as not to compete directly with the F-15 in the air
superiority business. The USAF was afraid that Congress would stop production of the F-15 (a better place to start if
you want multi-role) in favor of the F-16 for cost reasons if the two a/c went head-to-head in A/A, so they eliminated
the A/G part of the F-15 training syllabus as well as stopped A/G weapons compatibility testing in 1975 or 1976
(problems of a/c availability owing to F100 engine problems and shortages in the early days was also a factor in
eliminating the A/G syllabus, as pilot shortages were occurring owing to an inability to generate enough training
sorties), and made the F-15 a dedicated A/A-only bird while the F-16 was shunted off to be the F-4 replacement and was
not, repeat NOT, to be considered a direct competitor to the F-15. The F-16 has done an excellent job in that role,
and its capabilities in that area have received more and more emphasis over the years, its A/A performance naturally
decreasing as a result. The F-15 is clearly better suited as a multi-role platform owing to its size, but that's kind
of irrelevant if most potential customers can't afford to buy, maintain or operate them.

Guy

[Guy Alcala]

Alan Minyard wrote:

> On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 00:28:03 -0600, "Daryl Hunt" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"phil hunt" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >>
> >> Multi-role, but with an emphasis on air superiority. Just as the
> >> A-10 has multi-role capability: you can shoot down other aircraft
> >> with it, but no-one would say it's designed as a fighter.
> >
> >Ever play a game called, "Air Wars"? You should give it a try. It's out of
> >print these days. I would kill for a copy of it and the qualified people to
> >play it. Play that game using an A-10 and you will change your story. I am
> >afraid that a simulation is about the only way you will find out where you
> >are incorrect. The A-10 is a dead duck against other AC outside of L-5.
> >
> >
> Playing games is a long, long way from combat. People who play games
> need to realize that they are "playing a game" that does not reflect
> reality.

Especially if they're playing SPI's old "Air War," which in many ways turned
physical reality on its head. See the mighty Buff outturn the F-104 at 480 KTAS
plus! David Isby's knowledge of physics was, shall we say, unusual.

Guy

[L'acrobat]

"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 11:30:54 +0100, Keith Willshaw
> wrote:

> An optimised bomber would look like an A-10 or Tornado.

ADV or IDS...

[Kevin Brooks]

Alan Minyard > wrote in message >...
> On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 00:28:03 -0600, "Daryl Hunt" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"phil hunt" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >>
> >> Multi-role, but with an emphasis on air superiority. Just as the
> >> A-10 has multi-role capability: you can shoot down other aircraft
> >> with it, but no-one would say it's designed as a fighter.
> >
> >Ever play a game called, "Air Wars"? You should give it a try. It's out of
> >print these days. I would kill for a copy of it and the qualified people to
> >play it. Play that game using an A-10 and you will change your story. I am
> >afraid that a simulation is about the only way you will find out where you
> >are incorrect. The A-10 is a dead duck against other AC outside of L-5.
> >
> >
> Playing games is a long, long way from combat. People who play games
> need to realize that they are "playing a game" that does not reflect
> reality.

Amen. Even some of the "professional" games (such as the Corps Battle
Simulation package used by the Army during division and corps level
Warfighter exercises, and the brigade-and-below sim package as well)
sometimes are wildly inaccurate, especially if you start trying to
apply it to specific tactical results.

Brooks

>
> Al Minyard

[Kevin Brooks]

Guy Alcala > wrote in message >...
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
>
> > (phil hunt) wrote in message >...
>
> <snip>
>
> > No, it has never, since the days when the LWF morphed into the
> > multi-role F-16 which entered into service, had an emphasis on "air
> > superiority" (other than the handful of A model ADF variants mentioned
> > earlier). Both US and European users placed more emphasis on its use
> > in the strike role, and its first major combat use, by the Israelis,
> > saw more strike missions than air superiority use (you do recall what
> > kind of aircraft toted the bombs to Osirak in 82?).
>
> I'll have to disagree. The Europeans used the F-16 primarily as an interceptor/air superiority a/c in the early days
> while they still had squadrons of other types available for A/G work, with a secondary A/G role (there were individual
> variations between different nations as to emphasis; some had F-16s in dedicated A/A squadrons, some used them for
> both missions, some had squadrons for each), and other countries have also used it as their primary air superiority
> a/c if they couldn't afford F-15s (which is to say, almost every customer).

From what I have read, the european partners were also asking for the
multi-role capability from the get-go. I can buy into some of them
focusing a bit more on the air-to-air role than the USAF did, but only
so far, as I don't recall any of them pressing for a BVR capability as
would have been available with even the USAF's early ADF versions.

And while the Israelis used F-16s to bomb
> Osirak (in 1981, not 1982), it was because the a/c had the range to get there and back unrefueled, along with
> sufficient accuracy with dumb bombs; they'd previously planned to use F-4s with smart bombs and buddy-tank them at
> low-level over SA/Iraq, not an idea that anyone could get very enthusiastic about. In 1982 over the Bekaa, along with
> F-15s the F-16s were the primary air superiority a/c (and scored more kills than the F-15s did), while A-4s, F-4s and
> Kfirs handled most of the strike missions. The Israelis have always wanted multi-role fighter a/c (they were the
> first to use the F-15 for A/G); for instance, the main reason they took the A-4 was to get their foot in the door with
> the U.S., hoping to get F-4s later. Only afterwards did they discover that the a/c suited their needs very well, and
> they ordered a lot more.

Which goes to the point that the F-16 was a multi-role platform.

>
> F-16s were forced into the swing-fighter role by the USAF, so as not to compete directly with the F-15 in the air
> superiority business. The USAF was afraid that Congress would stop production of the F-15 (a better place to start if
> you want multi-role) in favor of the F-16 for cost reasons if the two a/c went head-to-head in A/A, so they eliminated
> the A/G part of the F-15 training syllabus as well as stopped A/G weapons compatibility testing in 1975 or 1976
> (problems of a/c availability owing to F100 engine problems and shortages in the early days was also a factor in
> eliminating the A/G syllabus, as pilot shortages were occurring owing to an inability to generate enough training
> sorties), and made the F-15 a dedicated A/A-only bird while the F-16 was shunted off to be the F-4 replacement and was
> not, repeat NOT, to be considered a direct competitor to the F-15. The F-16 has done an excellent job in that role,
> and its capabilities in that area have received more and more emphasis over the years, its A/A performance naturally
> decreasing as a result. The F-15 is clearly better suited as a multi-role platform owing to its size, but that's kind
> of irrelevant if most potential customers can't afford to buy, maintain or operate them.

I can see the point about the internal politics of the decision, but
not exclusive of all other factors. If this had really been simply and
only a matter of protecting the F-15, then why has the A/G function
never been significantly redressed in the past few years, when it was
no longer a factor? The Navy did so with the F-14 (witness the
Bombcat). I'd imagine that more went into these decisions than just
budget-fights; the F-15 is without a doubt the better of the two in
the air superiority role when you include the BVR capability, greater
AAM load, and better radar (IIRC, though there may not be much
difference today between the latest F-16 blocks and the F-15C in this
regard).

To summarize, you seem to disagree with the bit about mud moving being
more important to *all* of the initial users from the beginning of
operational use--OK, I can grant that some of the Euro users placed a
higher degree of importance on the AA role than the USAF did. But in
toto, all of the users wanted a multi-role aircraft (strangely, this
is not true today, as we have seen the Italians lease thier older ADF
variants exclusively for the AA role), and that was the major point of
my argument.

Brooks

>
> Guy

[Guy Alcala]

Kevin Brooks wrote:

> Guy Alcala > wrote in message >...
> > Kevin Brooks wrote:
> >
> > > (phil hunt) wrote in message >...
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > No, it has never, since the days when the LWF morphed into the
> > > multi-role F-16 which entered into service, had an emphasis on "air
> > > superiority" (other than the handful of A model ADF variants mentioned
> > > earlier). Both US and European users placed more emphasis on its use
> > > in the strike role, and its first major combat use, by the Israelis,
> > > saw more strike missions than air superiority use (you do recall what
> > > kind of aircraft toted the bombs to Osirak in 82?).
> >
> > I'll have to disagree. The Europeans used the F-16 primarily as an interceptor/air superiority a/c in the early days
> > while they still had squadrons of other types available for A/G work, with a secondary A/G role (there were individual
> > variations between different nations as to emphasis; some had F-16s in dedicated A/A squadrons, some used them for
> > both missions, some had squadrons for each), and other countries have also used it as their primary air superiority
> > a/c if they couldn't afford F-15s (which is to say, almost every customer).
>
> From what I have read, the european partners were also asking for the
> multi-role capability from the get-go. I can buy into some of them
> focusing a bit more on the air-to-air role than the USAF did, but only
> so far, as I don't recall any of them pressing for a BVR capability as
> would have been available with even the USAF's early ADF versions.

The ADF wasn't available at the time (AIM-120 was supposed to enter service in the mid-80s, and there seems to have been
some hope that later European F-16s might be equipped with it during production), and besides, there was still considerable
doubt about the utility of BVR in NW European airspace if the Pact had started to move. None of the EPG nations had A/A BVR
capability prior to the F-16; they all used the F-104G as their "all-weather" interceptor, armed with AIM-9s. The F-16s
took over that job first, while the F-104s (and F-5s and Mirages) went pure strike/attack. And at the time the F-16 was
ordered by the EPG, the Luftwaffe had yet to receive their first F-4Fs, specifically ordered without BVR capability. Those
were used to replace F-104Gs, which had been tasked the same as the F-4Fs came to be: two Geschwader of dedicated fighters,
two Geschwader of Jabos.

> And while the Israelis used F-16s to bomb
> > Osirak (in 1981, not 1982), it was because the a/c had the range to get there and back unrefueled, along with
> > sufficient accuracy with dumb bombs; they'd previously planned to use F-4s with smart bombs and buddy-tank them at
> > low-level over SA/Iraq, not an idea that anyone could get very enthusiastic about. In 1982 over the Bekaa, along with
> > F-15s the F-16s were the primary air superiority a/c (and scored more kills than the F-15s did), while A-4s, F-4s and
> > Kfirs handled most of the strike missions. The Israelis have always wanted multi-role fighter a/c (they were the
> > first to use the F-15 for A/G); for instance, the main reason they took the A-4 was to get their foot in the door with
> > the U.S., hoping to get F-4s later. Only afterwards did they discover that the a/c suited their needs very well, and
> > they ordered a lot more.
>
> Which goes to the point that the F-16 was a multi-role platform.

As was the F-15, in Israeli service. But the F-16 wasn't designed to be one from the start, (the F-15, while always slanted
towards the A/A mission, included A/G capability from the beginning. The "Not a pound for air to ground" nonsense didn't
start until the LWF program appeared, and the F-15 had the CCIP/CCRP capability from the start, while the F-16 added it
during the transition from YF to F).

> > F-16s were forced into the swing-fighter role by the USAF, so as not to compete directly with the F-15 in the air
> > superiority business. The USAF was afraid that Congress would stop production of the F-15 (a better place to start if
> > you want multi-role) in favor of the F-16 for cost reasons if the two a/c went head-to-head in A/A, so they eliminated
> > the A/G part of the F-15 training syllabus as well as stopped A/G weapons compatibility testing in 1975 or 1976
> > (problems of a/c availability owing to F100 engine problems and shortages in the early days was also a factor in
> > eliminating the A/G syllabus, as pilot shortages were occurring owing to an inability to generate enough training
> > sorties), and made the F-15 a dedicated A/A-only bird while the F-16 was shunted off to be the F-4 replacement and was
> > not, repeat NOT, to be considered a direct competitor to the F-15. The F-16 has done an excellent job in that role,
> > and its capabilities in that area have received more and more emphasis over the years, its A/A performance naturally
> > decreasing as a result. The F-15 is clearly better suited as a multi-role platform owing to its size, but that's kind
> > of irrelevant if most potential customers can't afford to buy, maintain or operate them.
>
> I can see the point about the internal politics of the decision, but
> not exclusive of all other factors. If this had really been simply and
> only a matter of protecting the F-15, then why has the A/G function
> never been significantly redressed in the past few years, when it was
> no longer a factor? The Navy did so with the F-14 (witness the
> Bombcat).

I imagine the F-15E and the gaping maw of the F-22 (and latterly the F-35) have absorbed any funds that might otherwise have
gone into F-15A/C upgrades. Horner was complaining about the inability of the US F-15Cs to bomb during DS after the A/A
threat had diminished to zero, owing to lack of training and equipment (he claimed that Saudi F-15s did bomb), so it's not
as if it's a new problem.

I suspect that the difference also has much to do with the navy's greater need for extra strike capacity; they have far less
space available on the carriers so couldn't afford to not use the F-14 multi-role given the reduced threat to the CVBG,
especially when their primary long-range strike asset (the A-6E) was going away, and the air groups were also being
considerably decreased in size.

The Air Force usually has ramp space for F-15Es, F-117s and F-16s in addition to the F-15Cs (if needed), and given the
reduced A/A threats we've been going up against since DS it's probably not that big a deal. We could probably leave the
F-15Cs home without any significant extra risk, and use F-15Es or F-16Cs for the job. To a considerable extent that's what
we've been doing.


> I'd imagine that more went into these decisions than just
> budget-fights; the F-15 is without a doubt the better of the two in
> the air superiority role when you include the BVR capability, greater
> AAM load, and better radar (IIRC, though there may not be much
> difference today between the latest F-16 blocks and the F-15C in this
> regard).

The F-15 will always have a better radar range than the F-16 against the same target (given similar-technology radars) owing
to its larger antenna size. Of course, there's a question of when is enough, enough. The AESA radar for the F-16 was
stated to have achieved a detection range between 80 and 90nm (the exact figure was classified) on a 1 sq.m target; using
the same technology, the larger radar in the F-15 was achieving 105nm against the same target. If the AIM-120 has an
effective max. range of 40nm or so, how much is the extra 15-25nm really worth? Oof course, you could be using part of the
larger array for jamming or comms in the F-15, while achieving the same radar range as the F-16.

But, so much of the targeting info is coming from offboard sensors now, that may no longer be all that significant a
factor. At any given time, which has the better data links may be more important. The Dutch F-16MLUs that scored the BVR
AIM-120 kill(s) over Yugoslavia, had the target info data-linked to them by the other F-16 section, which had detected the
MiGs. There's likely to be more and more of this sort of thing, where an AWACS or other sensor detects, locates and
classifies the target with the shooter staying radar-silent and firing on data generated offboard, never going active
themselves. In that scenario the F-16's smaller RCS may well be of more value (to prevent detection by an opposing radar)
than the F-15's more powerful onboard radar.

As for missile loads, it's 8 vs. 4 (typically) or 6 (air defense). You can buy and operate roughly 1.5 to 1.8 F-16s for the
cost of one F-15, so there's not a lot in it either way.

> To summarize, you seem to disagree with the bit about mud moving being
> more important to *all* of the initial users from the beginning of
> operational use--OK, I can grant that some of the Euro users placed a
> higher degree of importance on the AA role than the USAF did.

Not just the Europeans; many of the Asian countries also use the F-16 as their primary air superiority a/c. I think the
Venezuelans do as well, not that they had any need for the a/c's capability.

> But in
> toto, all of the users wanted a multi-role aircraft (strangely, this
> is not true today, as we have seen the Italians lease thier older ADF
> variants exclusively for the AA role), and that was the major point of
> my argument.

The Italians had a dedicated air superiority/interceptor force equipped with the F-104S (AIM-7/Aspide RHMs), which is what
the F-16ADFs are replacing until Typhoon enters service.

Guy

[Kevin Brooks]

Guy Alcala > wrote in message >...
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
>
> > Guy Alcala > wrote in message >...
> > > Kevin Brooks wrote:
> > >
> > > > (phil hunt) wrote in message >...
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > > No, it has never, since the days when the LWF morphed into the
> > > > multi-role F-16 which entered into service, had an emphasis on "air
> > > > superiority" (other than the handful of A model ADF variants mentioned
> > > > earlier). Both US and European users placed more emphasis on its use
> > > > in the strike role, and its first major combat use, by the Israelis,
> > > > saw more strike missions than air superiority use (you do recall what
> > > > kind of aircraft toted the bombs to Osirak in 82?).
> > >
> > > I'll have to disagree. The Europeans used the F-16 primarily as an interceptor/air superiority a/c in the early days
> > > while they still had squadrons of other types available for A/G work, with a secondary A/G role (there were individual
> > > variations between different nations as to emphasis; some had F-16s in dedicated A/A squadrons, some used them for
> > > both missions, some had squadrons for each), and other countries have also used it as their primary air superiority
> > > a/c if they couldn't afford F-15s (which is to say, almost every customer).
> >
> > From what I have read, the european partners were also asking for the
> > multi-role capability from the get-go. I can buy into some of them
> > focusing a bit more on the air-to-air role than the USAF did, but only
> > so far, as I don't recall any of them pressing for a BVR capability as
> > would have been available with even the USAF's early ADF versions.
>
> The ADF wasn't available at the time (AIM-120 was supposed to enter service in the mid-80s, and there seems to have been
> some hope that later European F-16s might be equipped with it during production), and besides, there was still considerable
> doubt about the utility of BVR in NW European airspace if the Pact had started to move. None of the EPG nations had A/A BVR
> capability prior to the F-16; they all used the F-104G as their "all-weather" interceptor, armed with AIM-9s. The F-16s
> took over that job first, while the F-104s (and F-5s and Mirages) went pure strike/attack. And at the time the F-16 was
> ordered by the EPG, the Luftwaffe had yet to receive their first F-4Fs, specifically ordered without BVR capability. Those
> were used to replace F-104Gs, which had been tasked the same as the F-4Fs came to be: two Geschwader of dedicated fighters,
> two Geschwader of Jabos.

True or false, the nations that bought the darned thing wanted a
multi-role platform? From the outset? In fact demanded it, being one
of the major factors leading to various design changes that went into
the aircraft between prototype and production? The one source I have
handy says "true".

>
> > And while the Israelis used F-16s to bomb
> > > Osirak (in 1981, not 1982), it was because the a/c had the range to get there and back unrefueled, along with
> > > sufficient accuracy with dumb bombs; they'd previously planned to use F-4s with smart bombs and buddy-tank them at
> > > low-level over SA/Iraq, not an idea that anyone could get very enthusiastic about. In 1982 over the Bekaa, along with
> > > F-15s the F-16s were the primary air superiority a/c (and scored more kills than the F-15s did), while A-4s, F-4s and
> > > Kfirs handled most of the strike missions. The Israelis have always wanted multi-role fighter a/c (they were the
> > > first to use the F-15 for A/G); for instance, the main reason they took the A-4 was to get their foot in the door with
> > > the U.S., hoping to get F-4s later. Only afterwards did they discover that the a/c suited their needs very well, and
> > > they ordered a lot more.
> >
> > Which goes to the point that the F-16 was a multi-role platform.
>
> As was the F-15, in Israeli service. But the F-16 wasn't designed to be one from the start, (the F-15, while always slanted
> towards the A/A mission, included A/G capability from the beginning. The "Not a pound for air to ground" nonsense didn't
> start until the LWF program appeared, and the F-15 had the CCIP/CCRP capability from the start, while the F-16 added it
> during the transition from YF to F).

That really depends upon where you label "at the start". Yes, the LWF
program was originally aimed at producing a hot-rod dogfighter on the
cheap. But by the time it entered into opwerational service the
aircraft had already undergone design changes aimed at making it a
multi-role platform--vert and hor tail surfaces revisions, wing
revisions, and a multi-mode radar were all largely products of that
effort.

>
> > > F-16s were forced into the swing-fighter role by the USAF, so as not to compete directly with the F-15 in the air
> > > superiority business. The USAF was afraid that Congress would stop production of the F-15 (a better place to start if
> > > you want multi-role) in favor of the F-16 for cost reasons if the two a/c went head-to-head in A/A, so they eliminated
> > > the A/G part of the F-15 training syllabus as well as stopped A/G weapons compatibility testing in 1975 or 1976
> > > (problems of a/c availability owing to F100 engine problems and shortages in the early days was also a factor in
> > > eliminating the A/G syllabus, as pilot shortages were occurring owing to an inability to generate enough training
> > > sorties), and made the F-15 a dedicated A/A-only bird while the F-16 was shunted off to be the F-4 replacement and was
> > > not, repeat NOT, to be considered a direct competitor to the F-15. The F-16 has done an excellent job in that role,
> > > and its capabilities in that area have received more and more emphasis over the years, its A/A performance naturally
> > > decreasing as a result. The F-15 is clearly better suited as a multi-role platform owing to its size, but that's kind
> > > of irrelevant if most potential customers can't afford to buy, maintain or operate them.
> >
> > I can see the point about the internal politics of the decision, but
> > not exclusive of all other factors. If this had really been simply and
> > only a matter of protecting the F-15, then why has the A/G function
> > never been significantly redressed in the past few years, when it was
> > no longer a factor? The Navy did so with the F-14 (witness the
> > Bombcat).
>
> I imagine the F-15E and the gaping maw of the F-22 (and latterly the F-35) have absorbed any funds that might otherwise have
> gone into F-15A/C upgrades. Horner was complaining about the inability of the US F-15Cs to bomb during DS after the A/A
> threat had diminished to zero, owing to lack of training and equipment (he claimed that Saudi F-15s did bomb), so it's not
> as if it's a new problem.
>
> I suspect that the difference also has much to do with the navy's greater need for extra strike capacity; they have far less
> space available on the carriers so couldn't afford to not use the F-14 multi-role given the reduced threat to the CVBG,

LOL, where were you during that recent thread where some guy adamantly
claimed the threat to the CVBG today was the same if not greater than
it was previously? :)

> especially when their primary long-range strike asset (the A-6E) was going away, and the air groups were also being
> considerably decreased in size.
>
> The Air Force usually has ramp space for F-15Es, F-117s and F-16s in addition to the F-15Cs (if needed), and given the
> reduced A/A threats we've been going up against since DS it's probably not that big a deal. We could probably leave the
> F-15Cs home without any significant extra risk, and use F-15Es or F-16Cs for the job. To a considerable extent that's what
> we've been doing.

Remember the (severe) ramp space crunch at Aviano during the Kosovo
operation?

>
>
> > I'd imagine that more went into these decisions than just
> > budget-fights; the F-15 is without a doubt the better of the two in
> > the air superiority role when you include the BVR capability, greater
> > AAM load, and better radar (IIRC, though there may not be much
> > difference today between the latest F-16 blocks and the F-15C in this
> > regard).
>
> The F-15 will always have a better radar range than the F-16 against the same target (given similar-technology radars) owing
> to its larger antenna size. Of course, there's a question of when is enough, enough. The AESA radar for the F-16 was
> stated to have achieved a detection range between 80 and 90nm (the exact figure was classified) on a 1 sq.m target; using
> the same technology, the larger radar in the F-15 was achieving 105nm against the same target. If the AIM-120 has an
> effective max. range of 40nm or so, how much is the extra 15-25nm really worth? Oof course, you could be using part of the
> larger array for jamming or comms in the F-15, while achieving the same radar range as the F-16.

The ability to see the other guy first is always going to be of
tremendous advantage; having a radar that *detects* only at the max
effective weapons range effectively limits that weapon range even more
(have to decide if it is a threat, decide on engagement plan, and
engage).

>
> But, so much of the targeting info is coming from offboard sensors now, that may no longer be all that significant a
> factor. At any given time, which has the better data links may be more important. The Dutch F-16MLUs that scored the BVR
> AIM-120 kill(s) over Yugoslavia, had the target info data-linked to them by the other F-16 section, which had detected the
> MiGs. There's likely to be more and more of this sort of thing, where an AWACS or other sensor detects, locates and
> classifies the target with the shooter staying radar-silent and firing on data generated offboard, never going active
> themselves. In that scenario the F-16's smaller RCS may well be of more value (to prevent detection by an opposing radar)
> than the F-15's more powerful onboard radar.

The RCS advantage is a factor, but how much I don't know. Given that
the F-15 can also take advantage of other sensors and remain under
EMCON, then it may also boil down to its greater weapons load and
operating range--I doubt there is any engraved-in-stone answer to this
dilemma, to be honest.

>
> As for missile loads, it's 8 vs. 4 (typically) or 6 (air defense). You can buy and operate roughly 1.5 to 1.8 F-16s for the
> cost of one F-15, so there's not a lot in it either way.

Buy, yes; not sure about the greater disparity in operating costs.
They should be pretty much even except for those costs related to the
second engine.

>
> > To summarize, you seem to disagree with the bit about mud moving being
> > more important to *all* of the initial users from the beginning of
> > operational use--OK, I can grant that some of the Euro users placed a
> > higher degree of importance on the AA role than the USAF did.
>
> Not just the Europeans; many of the Asian countries also use the F-16 as their primary air superiority a/c. I think the
> Venezuelans do as well, not that they had any need for the a/c's capability.

But all of them seem to have wanted a multi-role capable platform;
none of them are operating the ADF version with its greater limitation
on air-to-ground capability. The *only* nation I know of that is truly
using it in a air-to-air pure role, and wanted it in that form, is
Italy; I believe even the Portugese are modifying their older ADF
versions to allow multi-role use.

>
> > But in
> > toto, all of the users wanted a multi-role aircraft (strangely, this
> > is not true today, as we have seen the Italians lease thier older ADF
> > variants exclusively for the AA role), and that was the major point of
> > my argument.
>
> The Italians had a dedicated air superiority/interceptor force equipped with the F-104S (AIM-7/Aspide RHMs), which is what
> the F-16ADFs are replacing until Typhoon enters service.

Yep.

Brooks

>
> Guy

[Harry Andreas]

In article >,
wrote:

> On 17 Oct 2003 11:37:20 -0700, Kevin Brooks > wrote:
> (phil hunt) wrote in message
>...
> >> >Typhoon has been designed from the beginning as a multi-role
> >> >aircraft.
> >>
> >> Yes, but it is optimised for being a fighter. An optimised bomber
> >> would look like an A-10 or Tornado.
> >
> >"Would look like" seems to be rather shaky criteria to me. The F-15E
> >is most decidedly a muti-role aircraft with a decided strike
> >orientation--does it "look like a bomber"? Did the F-4? Or the
> >proabable King of Multi-Role, the F-16? And BTW, that example of
> >"Tornado" that allegedly epitomizes what a "bomber" should look like?
> >It too is multi-role--witness the ADF and ECM versions.
>
> It is not a dogfighter. Tornado is optimised for fuel efficiency and
> the ability to carry large amounts of munitions a long way.
>
> A-10 is optimised for survivability, carrying a large bombload, and
> direct cannon fire at a target.
>
> F-16 is optimised for air-superiority. It has a high-performance
> engine, is highly maneouvrable, and has a big radar to track other
> aircraft. It can do other stuff, but that's not its primary role.

You're right and wrong. The F-16 was designed as an air-superiority
fighter. The "low" side of the "high/low" mix, with the F-15 of
course being the high side. But the F-16 proved so poor at the mission
that it was re-designated as a CAS/A-G/AI/EW/kitchen sink fighter
and the F-15C does primarily all A-A.

Being intimately familiar with the radars on both a/c, one of the reasons
this is so is because the F-16's radar is TOO SMALL and too low performance
to do good A-A (at least on the models I'm familiar with).

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[Harry Andreas]

In article >, Chad Irby
> wrote:

> In article >,
> (phil hunt) wrote:
>
> > Er, my whole point was that the A-10 isn't particularly good at
> > shooting down other auircraft. (But IIRC an A-10 once shot down a
> > helicopter).
>
> On the other hand, in some exercises a couple of decades back, A-10s did
> very well versus F-15s as long as they kept things down near the ground.
> Hiding in the weeds kept the long-range missiles out of the equation,
> and once they got into gun range, they broke even.

I wouldn't try that with the more modern radars currently on the F-15.
Fast mort.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[Harry Andreas]

In article >,
(Kevin Brooks) wrote:

> I can see the point about the internal politics of the decision, but
> not exclusive of all other factors. If this had really been simply and
> only a matter of protecting the F-15, then why has the A/G function
> never been significantly redressed in the past few years, when it was
> no longer a factor? The Navy did so with the F-14 (witness the
> Bombcat). I'd imagine that more went into these decisions than just
> budget-fights; the F-15 is without a doubt the better of the two in
> the air superiority role when you include the BVR capability, greater
> AAM load, and better radar (IIRC, though there may not be much
> difference today between the latest F-16 blocks and the F-15C in this
> regard).

FYI, there's a huge difference. Ask an operator.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur