F15E's trounced by Eurofighters

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 08:56:09 +0000, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:

In message , Krztalizer
writes
Reminds me of the "shocking" 'loss' between the USN and the IAF that was
reported here a year or so back.

Or Jeff Ethell reporting how the Chilean Air Force beat a US Navy
carrier group 56-20. You need to know the ROE and the purpose of the
exercise before drawing too many conclusions.


I've emailed the 48th TFW for an answer..

as below:-

"Could you please help me with some information in regard to an
incident on Thursday the 19th of February 2004 over the skies of
Windermere, it is reported that Two Eurofighter Typhoon twin-seaters
were bounced from the eight o'clock by a couple of F-15Es appaerently
belonging to the USAFE's 48th TFW.


Could you please give me some background information on this incident.


Firstly Did this happen?, and If so
1. Was it an preplanned exercise?.
2. Which aircraft from the 48th were involved.
3. What was their loadout, eg Conformal fuel tanks, weapons.
4. what happend?.

Many thanks"


now its wait n see

cheers

"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

In message , Krztalizer
writes
Reminds me of the "shocking" 'loss' between the USN and the IAF that was
reported here a year or so back.

Or Jeff Ethell reporting how the Chilean Air Force beat a US Navy
carrier group 56-20. You need to know the ROE and the purpose of the
exercise before drawing too many conclusions.

Always the whining excuses.

Rod

You need to know the ROE and the purpose of the
exercise before drawing too many conclusions.

Always the whining excuses.


Rod, that's crap. If you say, "I beat ten guys in a fight" and leave off the
part about them all being in their 80s and wheelchair bound, those are relevent
facts to determining what really happened. I don't doubt that a Eurojäger
could beat an Eagle, but wouldn't you at least like to hear about the
circumstances? That's not whining.

Or Jeff Ethell reporting how the Chilean Air Force beat a US Navy
carrier group 56-20. You need to know the ROE and the purpose of the
exercise before drawing too many conclusions.


The Chileans F-16s are very formidable fighters, especially in a knifefight.

Well depending on how recent that was, the Chileans might have had their F-16C,
helmet mounted sight, Python4 AAM, and it makes it prettty frustrating at the
merge, when all the Chilean pilot has to do it look at you, and you can
consider yourself "morted"


Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)

"Ron" wrote in message
...
Or Jeff Ethell reporting how the Chilean Air Force beat a US Navy
carrier group 56-20. You need to know the ROE and the purpose of the
exercise before drawing too many conclusions.


The Chileans F-16s are very formidable fighters, especially in a
knifefight.

Well depending on how recent that was, the Chileans might have had their
F-16C,
helmet mounted sight, Python4 AAM, and it makes it prettty frustrating at
the
merge, when all the Chilean pilot has to do it look at you, and you can
consider yourself "morted"

The Chilean Air Force has no F-16's as of yet. They have ordered some, but
do not as yet have any in their inventory.

Brooks



Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 21:36:33 +1100, John Cook
wrote:

Hi all


Just saw this and it peaked my interest..

You mean "piqued", but I digress.

"The New Air Superiority Benchmark

Thursday the 19th of February 2004 will mark the day when the
undisputed king of air superiority had to surrender its thirty-year
crown to a newcomer. It happened over the skies of Windermere, in the
scenic English Lake District. Two Eurofighter Typhoon twin-seaters
were on the first RAF formation training flight from Warton Aerodrome
when they were bounced from the eight o'clock by a couple of F-15Es
belonging to the USAFE's 48th TFW, probably the most formidable and
experienced combat unit in the European theatre. The Typhoon crew did
not seem to be intimidated and with two rapid counters ended up on the
F-15 tail, comfortably gunning the trailing one, who was in full
afterburner, wings rocking and wondering what had happened.

---rest of drivel snipped---

First, lets examine the reported incident. Two Eurofighters on a
"first RAF formation training flight"--so they are cruising around
learning how to fly their airplane. Are "bounced" by a pair of Mud
Hens (not the air superiority variant of the F-15, although arguably
quite capable.) The two RAF aircraft break off their training and
engage in an unbriefed, unauthorized hassle with the Eagles, and
"ended up on the F-15 tail, comfortably gunning the trailing one...."

You've described a violation of training and safety regulations.

Violation on whose part?

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 21:04:47 -0000, "Ian" wrote:


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
.. .

First, lets examine the reported incident. Two Eurofighters on a
"first RAF formation training flight"--so they are cruising around
learning how to fly their airplane. Are "bounced" by a pair of Mud
Hens (not the air superiority variant of the F-15, although arguably
quite capable.) The two RAF aircraft break off their training and
engage in an unbriefed, unauthorized hassle with the Eagles, and
"ended up on the F-15 tail, comfortably gunning the trailing one...."

You've described a violation of training and safety regulations.

Violation on whose part?


I can't speak for the RAF, but their regs are remarkably similar to
USAF's. It would be a violation to conduct an unbriefed DACT
engagement. Spontanous "bouncing" goes on, but it isn't condoned.

There's no point in doing it. It doesn't meet any training objectives,
it isn't controlled, it is downright dangerous and without pre-briefed
ROE proves nothing.



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

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 14:28:40 -0700, Ed Rasimus
wrote:

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 21:04:47 -0000, "Ian" wrote:


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
. ..

First, lets examine the reported incident. Two Eurofighters on a
"first RAF formation training flight"--so they are cruising around
learning how to fly their airplane. Are "bounced" by a pair of Mud
Hens (not the air superiority variant of the F-15, although arguably
quite capable.) The two RAF aircraft break off their training and
engage in an unbriefed, unauthorized hassle with the Eagles, and
"ended up on the F-15 tail, comfortably gunning the trailing one...."

You've described a violation of training and safety regulations.

Violation on whose part?


I can't speak for the RAF, but their regs are remarkably similar to
USAF's. It would be a violation to conduct an unbriefed DACT
engagement. Spontanous "bouncing" goes on, but it isn't condoned.

There's no point in doing it. It doesn't meet any training objectives,
it isn't controlled, it is downright dangerous and without pre-briefed
ROE proves nothing.



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


Not to mention if you bust something while doing it you might be in
hot water? :-)

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 21:53:39 GMT, Scott Ferrin
wrote:

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 14:28:40 -0700, Ed Rasimus

There's no point in doing it. It doesn't meet any training objectives,
it isn't controlled, it is downright dangerous and without pre-briefed
ROE proves nothing.


Not to mention if you bust something while doing it you might be in
hot water? :-)

Actually, for most operating area around Great Britain, it would be
COLD water--very cold water.


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

Not to mention if you bust something while doing it you might be in
hot water? :-)


I think "hot water" is an understatement.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"