F15E's trounced by Eurofighters

On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 21:55:56 -0500, "Paul F Austin"
wrote:

Apparentley the time taken from the bounce until the Typhoons had
achieved a clear shot on the F15E's rear l was 9 seconds.

Not Too Shabby!!!


Wake me when they do a planned training sortie with the C models from
Lakenheath.


The other problem is that they are comparing aircraft whose mechanical
technology is 20 years apart. Electronics may be equal(even if you
ignore the fact that the 'E' is configured/equipped for a strike role
rather than A2A) but the mechanical design has several generations of
difference.

Actually,_one_generation apart although that generation is about 30 years
long. Typhoon benefits from better propulsion technology, controls
technology and somewhat better structural technology so it would be strange
if a Typhoon wasn't substantially better than a F-15C. In fact if it turns
out not to be, a passel of British aero- and -propulsion engineers should be
looking for jobs.

Actually,_one_generation apart although that generation is about 30 years
long. Typhoon benefits from better propulsion technology, controls
technology and somewhat better structural technology so it would be
strange
if a Typhoon wasn't substantially better than a F-15C. In fact if it turns
out not to be, a passel of British aero- and -propulsion engineers should
be
looking for jobs.

Now the story is they were C models?

On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 16:03:07 +1100, John Cook
wrote:

On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 21:55:56 -0500, "Paul F Austin"
wrote:

Apparentley the time taken from the bounce until the Typhoons had
achieved a clear shot on the F15E's rear l was 9 seconds.

Not Too Shabby!!!


Let's take an objective look at another absurd claim. The setup was
that the Mud Hens attacked from 8 o'clock. That would be 135 degrees
off the nose of the Typhoons. And, the "clear shot on the F-15Es rear
would necessitate either a turn into the attack, forcing an
over-shoot, followed by a reversal and turn back to the egress by the
Eagles. Minimum heading change required---90 degrees of turn to
negate, then back 135 degrees to the Eagle's course, assuming the
Eagle doesn't turn at all!

So, with 225 degrees of turn to accomplish and your statement of 9
seconds, 25 degrees/second sustained. If the Eagles turned to respond
to the defensive first move of the Typhoons, then the angles to be
handled increase and the turn rate must as well. Since a 9G turn at
corner velocity of modern fighters generates around 14-16 degrees per
second, one must assume that these incredible Typhoons either have
increased G available to something around 16G or reduced corner
velocity to around 150 kts.--one is impossible, the other absurd.

And, throughout, it continues the idea of the Mud Hens attacking in
welded wing, which simply isn't the practice.

Dare I say, once again--bovine excrement!



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

John Cook wrote in message . ..
On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 21:55:56 -0500, "Paul F Austin"
wrote:

Apparentley the time taken from the bounce until the Typhoons had
achieved a clear shot on the F15E's rear l was 9 seconds.

Not Too Shabby!!!

Hmm...strike-configured Beagles coming from 8 o'clock, probably one
pass and one turn, and the oh-so-advanced Typhoons (and I *like* these
airframes) on a training flight (so probably not loaded with much of
anything but internal gas) took 9 seconds to convert? Is it just me,
or does that not sound all that impressive?

I think he was simply making a comment, not revising the facts. If
ANYONE is surprised that cft-laden Mudhens got beaten by clean Eurofighters,
well, I guess they don't know a lot about airplanes. Same goes for
the -15C. Of course there the biggest difference wouldn't so much be the
plane (the Viper would be the best test in the USAF), but the a-a focused
(and skilled) pilots. Frankly, I don't see the fuss in saying a new fighter
was able to beat a design that's about 30 years old! It ought to! Eagles
have dominated the a-a arena because of their BVR capabilities and their
superior tactics, not because of their supreme WVR performance (where they
are at least partially inferior to several planes already).
To add even more fuel to this garbage fire is the testimony from our own
military pilots that such reckless behavior could get the -15E pilots in
seriously big trouble. Why would some of the best pilots (likely senior in
rank) risk such penalties (not to mention safety!) to start a fight when
they would be at a disadvantage? Machismo trumps good judgment? Not
likely. This is about as big a yawner as they get. Cheers,

Tony

Now the story is they were C models?

"t_mark" wrote ...
Actually,_one_generation apart although that generation is about 30
years
long. Typhoon benefits from better propulsion technology, controls
technology and somewhat better structural technology so it would be
strange
if a Typhoon wasn't substantially better than a F-15C. In fact if it
turns
out not to be, a passel of British aero- and -propulsion engineers
should
be
looking for jobs.

Now the story is they were C models?

No, my statement is that a Typhoon had better be superior to an ATA
configured Eagle (an F-15C), never mind a Mud Hen. There's no "story" there
and there's no stupid chauvinism either. In case you haven't noticed, the
main operator of Typhoons is Great Britain, who is on_our_side.

It makes no difference in the size of_my_weenie whether a thirty year old
McAir design is superior to a ten year old BAE design in a dog fight.

On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 20:40:27 -0500, "Paul F Austin"
wrote:

No, my statement is that a Typhoon had better be superior to an ATA
configured Eagle (an F-15C), never mind a Mud Hen. There's no "story" there
and there's no stupid chauvinism either. In case you haven't noticed, the
main operator of Typhoons is Great Britain, who is on_our_side.

It makes no difference in the size of_my_weenie whether a thirty year old
McAir design is superior to a ten year old BAE design in a dog fight.


I've never been into the "size" thing either--I've simply gone with
customer satisfaction. Eagles have satisfied the customer for a long
time, so there's something to be said for them.

What's at issue here is the (re-)education of the masses, which in a
democratic political structure, influence the direction of defense
spending. If they are told repeatedly that some low cost (dare I say
"free lunch") solution is effective, they will opt for it rather than
a more technologically and tactically superior one at higher cost.
(I'm not arguing that high cost per se is definitive.)

Over simplification, to the point that the GUM understand a very
technical situation such as twenty-first century air-superiority, is
dangerous. The idea that this spontaneous encounter between two
un-briefed and un-prepared adversaries in a decidedly WVR, tail-aspect
situation is somehow definitive of a paradigm shift in air/air is
ludicrous.

When the voters of Liverpool and Birmingham are writing their MP who
used to be the candle-stick maker in Nottinghamshire regarding the
superiority of Typhoons over Raptors and urging the investment of
precious defense pounds sterling, they have to understand the total
came, not simply they caused an overshoot and gunned the Eagle's
brains out, ergo the Eagle is dead, long live the Typhoon.


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

"Ed Rasimus" wrote
"Paul F Austin" wrote:

No, my statement is that a Typhoon had better be superior to an ATA
configured Eagle (an F-15C), never mind a Mud Hen. There's no "story"
there
and there's no stupid chauvinism either. In case you haven't noticed, the
main operator of Typhoons is Great Britain, who is on_our_side.

It makes no difference in the size of_my_weenie whether a thirty year old
McAir design is superior to a ten year old BAE design in a dog fight.


I've never been into the "size" thing either--I've simply gone with
customer satisfaction. Eagles have satisfied the customer for a long
time, so there's something to be said for them.

What's at issue here is the (re-)education of the masses, which in a
democratic political structure, influence the direction of defense
spending. If they are told repeatedly that some low cost (dare I say
"free lunch") solution is effective, they will opt for it rather than
a more technologically and tactically superior one at higher cost.
(I'm not arguing that high cost per se is definitive.)

Over simplification, to the point that the GUM understand a very
technical situation such as twenty-first century air-superiority, is
dangerous. The idea that this spontaneous encounter between two
un-briefed and un-prepared adversaries in a decidedly WVR, tail-aspect
situation is somehow definitive of a paradigm shift in air/air is
ludicrous.

When the voters of Liverpool and Birmingham are writing their MP who
used to be the candle-stick maker in Nottinghamshire regarding the
superiority of Typhoons over Raptors and urging the investment of
precious defense pounds sterling, they have to understand the total
came, not simply they caused an overshoot and gunned the Eagle's
brains out, ergo the Eagle is dead, long live the Typhoon.

Eagle is a fine airplane and under some circumstances (the -15C with AESA,
in BVR engagements) is still competitive with anything in the air. It's
interesting that the Typhoon operators have suddenly found more urgency in
air to mud software and systems (as has the USAF for Raptor of course).

Right now, most of the potential Disturbers of the World's Peace have second
and third rate air forces. I wonder how long it will be before someone with
a first rate air force pops up on the RADAR and ATA becomes a key mission
again. Probably 20 years and probably China.

"Paul F Austin" wrote in message ...
"Ed Rasimus" wrote
"Paul F Austin" wrote:

No, my statement is that a Typhoon had better be superior to an ATA
configured Eagle (an F-15C), never mind a Mud Hen. There's no "story"
there
and there's no stupid chauvinism either. In case you haven't noticed, the
main operator of Typhoons is Great Britain, who is on_our_side.

It makes no difference in the size of_my_weenie whether a thirty year old
McAir design is superior to a ten year old BAE design in a dog fight.


I've never been into the "size" thing either--I've simply gone with
customer satisfaction. Eagles have satisfied the customer for a long
time, so there's something to be said for them.

What's at issue here is the (re-)education of the masses, which in a
democratic political structure, influence the direction of defense
spending. If they are told repeatedly that some low cost (dare I say
"free lunch") solution is effective, they will opt for it rather than
a more technologically and tactically superior one at higher cost.
(I'm not arguing that high cost per se is definitive.)

Over simplification, to the point that the GUM understand a very
technical situation such as twenty-first century air-superiority, is
dangerous. The idea that this spontaneous encounter between two
un-briefed and un-prepared adversaries in a decidedly WVR, tail-aspect
situation is somehow definitive of a paradigm shift in air/air is
ludicrous.

When the voters of Liverpool and Birmingham are writing their MP who
used to be the candle-stick maker in Nottinghamshire regarding the
superiority of Typhoons over Raptors and urging the investment of
precious defense pounds sterling, they have to understand the total
came, not simply they caused an overshoot and gunned the Eagle's
brains out, ergo the Eagle is dead, long live the Typhoon.

Eagle is a fine airplane and under some circumstances (the -15C with AESA,
in BVR engagements) is still competitive with anything in the air. It's
interesting that the Typhoon operators have suddenly found more urgency in
air to mud software and systems (as has the USAF for Raptor of course).

Right now, most of the potential Disturbers of the World's Peace have second
and third rate air forces. I wonder how long it will be before someone with
a first rate air force pops up on the RADAR and ATA becomes a key mission
again. Probably 20 years and probably China.

You know what, I've flown british jets and with british pilots, and
they both suck. i would take a us made jet anytime over the
eurofighter (i remember when it was called the eurofighter 90 lol) oh
yeah, i'm not american either. give me a us made jet anytime. i'll eat
my own crap when a typhoon wins over an f-22 in a neutral setup bfm
engagement.

"monkey" wrote in message
om...
"Paul F Austin" wrote in message
...
"Ed Rasimus" wrote
"Paul F Austin" wrote:

No, my statement is that a Typhoon had better be superior to an ATA
configured Eagle (an F-15C), never mind a Mud Hen. There's no "story"
there
and there's no stupid chauvinism either. In case you haven't noticed,
the
main operator of Typhoons is Great Britain, who is on_our_side.

It makes no difference in the size of_my_weenie whether a thirty year
old
McAir design is superior to a ten year old BAE design in a dog fight.


I've never been into the "size" thing either--I've simply gone with
customer satisfaction. Eagles have satisfied the customer for a long
time, so there's something to be said for them.

What's at issue here is the (re-)education of the masses, which in a
democratic political structure, influence the direction of defense
spending. If they are told repeatedly that some low cost (dare I say
"free lunch") solution is effective, they will opt for it rather than
a more technologically and tactically superior one at higher cost.
(I'm not arguing that high cost per se is definitive.)

Over simplification, to the point that the GUM understand a very
technical situation such as twenty-first century air-superiority, is
dangerous. The idea that this spontaneous encounter between two
un-briefed and un-prepared adversaries in a decidedly WVR, tail-aspect
situation is somehow definitive of a paradigm shift in air/air is
ludicrous.

When the voters of Liverpool and Birmingham are writing their MP who
used to be the candle-stick maker in Nottinghamshire regarding the
superiority of Typhoons over Raptors and urging the investment of
precious defense pounds sterling, they have to understand the total
came, not simply they caused an overshoot and gunned the Eagle's
brains out, ergo the Eagle is dead, long live the Typhoon.

Eagle is a fine airplane and under some circumstances (the -15C with
AESA,
in BVR engagements) is still competitive with anything in the air. It's
interesting that the Typhoon operators have suddenly found more urgency
in
air to mud software and systems (as has the USAF for Raptor of course).

Right now, most of the potential Disturbers of the World's Peace have
second
and third rate air forces. I wonder how long it will be before someone
with
a first rate air force pops up on the RADAR and ATA becomes a key
mission
again. Probably 20 years and probably China.

You know what, I've flown british jets and with british pilots, and
they both suck. i would take a us made jet anytime over the
eurofighter (i remember when it was called the eurofighter 90 lol) oh
yeah, i'm not american either. give me a us made jet anytime. i'll eat
my own crap when a typhoon wins over an f-22 in a neutral setup bfm
engagement.

When was it ever called Eurofighter 90? The technology demonstrator only
flew for the first time on 8th Aug 86 (and incidently displayed at the
Farnborough Airshow a fortnight later). So to turn round a tech dem into a
full production aircraft in 4 years is pushing it - for any country/company
in the world!