F15E's trounced by Eurofighters

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

In article ,
Ed Rasimus writes:
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.

And, IIRC, they can take it out of your pay, as well.
Let;s see... A Captain makes - munble-froz and a Beagle costs
unguzza-wuuzza carry the 3... That gives you an ETS date of
something like 3006.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

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"

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
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.

Not that I'm trying to condone it, but it did occur in one of the low flying
areas, where such bouncing happens all the time. The rumour round work was
that the F15s (and we were told by the Typhoon pilot they were e's) had been
following on previous sorties, and and made a bit of radio contact, leading
to the 'incident' in question.