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

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

In message 41, Chuck
Johnson writes

Jeez. I love the Brits.

We like you, too.

Mike
--
M.J.Powell

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). BRBR

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 BRBR

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, BRBR

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

Chuck Johnson wrote:

[Troll snipped, and troller plonked.]

OJ III

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

(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

"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......

(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

Chuck Johnson wrote in message .165.241...
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

"Rob van Riel" wrote in message
om...
Chuck Johnson wrote in message
.165.241...
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.