Eurofighter Typhoon question
Guest
Posts: n/a
I'd like to chime in on this important thread.
A few have mentioned cost, but frankly trying to sort out reliable costs (fly away? non-recurring? unit?) can be a nightmare. What the F-22 and the EF have in common, sadly, is that they are BOTH breaking their owners' banks. F-22 because it's basically the last of the gold plated 'performance rules' aircraft, built to a hugely ambitious spec and concept that is straining the abilities of Lockheed and Boeing to build it at all. Try the GAO website at www.gao.gov to view recent cost reports. The US are claiming that they are going to reduce the costs by over $64m PER AIRCRAFT, which at more than an entire F-16 shows how much the damn thing costs.
EF costs have been inflated by international collaboration and I believe over emphasis on performance at the expense of cost. The long time taken to get it to where it is today has undoubtedly left it further behind the 'stealth' curve than anyone in the Uk would like. The other problem is that in the real world of UK defence budgets, spending this amount on an aircraft that is a superb AD aircraft but a very average strike platform just does not make enough sense.
The key message I picked up from the JSF symposium was that it is designed for 'whole life' affordability, and that means the leanest possible deployment crews, using commercial ideas for support and working in some just gopping (I've been there and seen the stuff) production technology to get costs down. Stir in avionics that are around 10 years on from F-22 and the Yanks have a winner if they keep their nerve.
My bottom line: EF is a great aircraft a little late, but we can't afford to buy enough of them. We CERTAINLY can't afford Raptor
A few have mentioned cost, but frankly trying to sort out reliable costs (fly away? non-recurring? unit?) can be a nightmare. What the F-22 and the EF have in common, sadly, is that they are BOTH breaking their owners' banks. F-22 because it's basically the last of the gold plated 'performance rules' aircraft, built to a hugely ambitious spec and concept that is straining the abilities of Lockheed and Boeing to build it at all. Try the GAO website at www.gao.gov to view recent cost reports. The US are claiming that they are going to reduce the costs by over $64m PER AIRCRAFT, which at more than an entire F-16 shows how much the damn thing costs.
EF costs have been inflated by international collaboration and I believe over emphasis on performance at the expense of cost. The long time taken to get it to where it is today has undoubtedly left it further behind the 'stealth' curve than anyone in the Uk would like. The other problem is that in the real world of UK defence budgets, spending this amount on an aircraft that is a superb AD aircraft but a very average strike platform just does not make enough sense.
The key message I picked up from the JSF symposium was that it is designed for 'whole life' affordability, and that means the leanest possible deployment crews, using commercial ideas for support and working in some just gopping (I've been there and seen the stuff) production technology to get costs down. Stir in avionics that are around 10 years on from F-22 and the Yanks have a winner if they keep their nerve.
My bottom line: EF is a great aircraft a little late, but we can't afford to buy enough of them. We CERTAINLY can't afford Raptor
Guest
Posts: n/a
S Potter
I don't know why I am bothering really, your arguments don't seem to be based on much reality.
The UAE chose F-16s for very specific reasons which I could elaborate on, but won't. Wish I could.
Greece chose EF because it best suited their needs. As far as I am aware they still think it is best for their needs, and the only reason Rafale is in with a shout is because Dassault are competing with EADS to buy into the Greek aerospace industry. F-16 was chosen to cover a perceived gap, and they could be bought cheaply.
The 90% 'tests' concerned air defence, and were conducted by people in this country, who might very loosely be described as the 'customer'. One thing is for sure, they know an awful lot more about air defence than you (or I!).
Like I said before, I don't work for BAE. Sounds like you did....once!!!
I don't know why I am bothering really, your arguments don't seem to be based on much reality.
The UAE chose F-16s for very specific reasons which I could elaborate on, but won't. Wish I could.
Greece chose EF because it best suited their needs. As far as I am aware they still think it is best for their needs, and the only reason Rafale is in with a shout is because Dassault are competing with EADS to buy into the Greek aerospace industry. F-16 was chosen to cover a perceived gap, and they could be bought cheaply.
The 90% 'tests' concerned air defence, and were conducted by people in this country, who might very loosely be described as the 'customer'. One thing is for sure, they know an awful lot more about air defence than you (or I!).
Like I said before, I don't work for BAE. Sounds like you did....once!!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Red,
Well said. Was going to add that a UAE one-star told me that the UAE's choice was very much to do with a timescale need which EF couldn't meet, leverage that Britain couldn't apply, and a bottom line unit cost that even the might LMTC have had problems meeting. Add to that commonality and common infrastructure with the UAE's existing fighter fleet, plus F-16-trained pilots etc. and it was always going to be F-16. Examination of all other options was never more than a well-played bluff.
Well said. Was going to add that a UAE one-star told me that the UAE's choice was very much to do with a timescale need which EF couldn't meet, leverage that Britain couldn't apply, and a bottom line unit cost that even the might LMTC have had problems meeting. Add to that commonality and common infrastructure with the UAE's existing fighter fleet, plus F-16-trained pilots etc. and it was always going to be F-16. Examination of all other options was never more than a well-played bluff.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Red Snow,
The outcome of the tests was dependant on the software and capabilities you thought you might get from a full up super spec machine against an enemy of what programmed ability and performance.
If you put s**t in you get s**t out.
I do hope you are right though, time will tell.
The outcome of the tests was dependant on the software and capabilities you thought you might get from a full up super spec machine against an enemy of what programmed ability and performance.
If you put s**t in you get s**t out.
I do hope you are right though, time will tell.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Not strictly true. Joust simulations ran EF with original EJ200 and intake and assumed AMRAAM as BVR weapon of choice. Radar performance assumed was 'as demonstrated'.
Main baseline opponent was Su-27 with same radar performance (unlikely) and equal missile performance, with acceleration, performance, RCS all increased to assume 15 years constant development and improvement.
Main baseline opponent was Su-27 with same radar performance (unlikely) and equal missile performance, with acceleration, performance, RCS all increased to assume 15 years constant development and improvement.
Guest
Posts: n/a
My only real worry with EF is that we'll end up with an epic F3 replacement, with BVR and close-in capabilities, just at the time that those capabilities are becoming so irrelevant that the F3 is being criticised for not pulling its weight on deployments, and when they're desparate to widen the role, with ALARM, TIALD, whatever.
But at the same time, this perfect F3 replacement may not be much of a Jag/GR7/GR4 replacement, for some few years to come. Refurb the Jags, anyone?
But at the same time, this perfect F3 replacement may not be much of a Jag/GR7/GR4 replacement, for some few years to come. Refurb the Jags, anyone?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Grodge,
For a moment I thought you were talking about the UK's Raptor project. Now that is a capability.
-----
ALARM for the F3 - With a good ELS, could be a good solution. Sounds like a viable role to me.
TIALD - not so sure, they'd be bombers then (!) Could their fighter pilot instincts ever cope? Also they'd have to go ever so much closer to the nasty people who fire things at us.
For a moment I thought you were talking about the UK's Raptor project. Now that is a capability.
-----
ALARM for the F3 - With a good ELS, could be a good solution. Sounds like a viable role to me.
TIALD - not so sure, they'd be bombers then (!) Could their fighter pilot instincts ever cope? Also they'd have to go ever so much closer to the nasty people who fire things at us.
Guest
Posts: n/a
On the point of the F-117 being downed by Slobbo, it really is nothing more than an spurious statistic.
Operational and Intelligence factors were, most probably, the main causes for its loss, not a failing of stealth technology itself. It hardly represents a 'flaw' in the -117 that the Serbs, in a pre-planned move, heavily modified 2 emitters and managed to down an aircraft when they knew where, at what time, in what direction and at what height it would pass over them.
As has already been pointed out, stealth is optimised to work against certain emitters, from certain altitudes and aspect angles just as ECM and EW is designed to defeat a specific range of threats. Probably also worth pointing out is that nobody has mentioned any of the other properties of stealth in this conversation yet (IR, Visual & Acoustic). I'd bet that the F-22 has a far lower IR signature than the the EF, which could be vital when confronted with dual seeker BVR missiles or the latest R-77 missiles. The Yanks are known to have developed technology allowing colour change whilst in flight of an aircrafts skin, so they'd probably have the upper hand in the visual arena too.
TVC will be important, I am quite certain. In an ideal world, you'll take your BVR shot, extend and bug out. But we know that it isn't an ideal world and the chances are that these aircraft will be used in contained and controlled conflicts of limited scope - not all out 'shoot anything that moves' wars. Despite all of the wacky technology allowing sensor fusion, LPI radar snapshots et al, somebody (probably sitting in an E-3) has to have 100% confidence that the contact is not an airliner or a civilian or a friendly and allow the shot to be taken. Even with the advent and maturing of NDI and NCTR systems, fighter pilots will, surely, still be required to EID AND VID contacts before they shoot. History shows that ROE haven't changed that much in this respect since the F-4 was denied the ability to make full use of the AIM-7 in Vietnam (despite the fact it never worked). Therefore high angle off boresight capability will be important factor when one finds oneself, inevitably, WVR & VID'ing. Fighting the likes of the TVC SU-27 variants or the TVC R-77/HMS combo I'd want every possible advantage I could get my hands on. Snapshot ability with Guns will also be important if it came to it, but clearly the EF pilot will have taken his ballast and gone home by this point; therefore failing in his role to dominate the skies.
Operational and Intelligence factors were, most probably, the main causes for its loss, not a failing of stealth technology itself. It hardly represents a 'flaw' in the -117 that the Serbs, in a pre-planned move, heavily modified 2 emitters and managed to down an aircraft when they knew where, at what time, in what direction and at what height it would pass over them.
As has already been pointed out, stealth is optimised to work against certain emitters, from certain altitudes and aspect angles just as ECM and EW is designed to defeat a specific range of threats. Probably also worth pointing out is that nobody has mentioned any of the other properties of stealth in this conversation yet (IR, Visual & Acoustic). I'd bet that the F-22 has a far lower IR signature than the the EF, which could be vital when confronted with dual seeker BVR missiles or the latest R-77 missiles. The Yanks are known to have developed technology allowing colour change whilst in flight of an aircrafts skin, so they'd probably have the upper hand in the visual arena too.
TVC will be important, I am quite certain. In an ideal world, you'll take your BVR shot, extend and bug out. But we know that it isn't an ideal world and the chances are that these aircraft will be used in contained and controlled conflicts of limited scope - not all out 'shoot anything that moves' wars. Despite all of the wacky technology allowing sensor fusion, LPI radar snapshots et al, somebody (probably sitting in an E-3) has to have 100% confidence that the contact is not an airliner or a civilian or a friendly and allow the shot to be taken. Even with the advent and maturing of NDI and NCTR systems, fighter pilots will, surely, still be required to EID AND VID contacts before they shoot. History shows that ROE haven't changed that much in this respect since the F-4 was denied the ability to make full use of the AIM-7 in Vietnam (despite the fact it never worked). Therefore high angle off boresight capability will be important factor when one finds oneself, inevitably, WVR & VID'ing. Fighting the likes of the TVC SU-27 variants or the TVC R-77/HMS combo I'd want every possible advantage I could get my hands on. Snapshot ability with Guns will also be important if it came to it, but clearly the EF pilot will have taken his ballast and gone home by this point; therefore failing in his role to dominate the skies.
Guest
Posts: n/a
And where, exactly, are all these TVC 'Flankers'? Tech dems at Sukhoi, unlikely to enter service anywhere, for the foreseeable. And until Elbit, or someone, does an upgrade, the MiG-29 anmd the Su-27 will remain desparately effective airshow performers, and a good reason to avoid the glamorous but inherently unpredictable Top Gun world of the close-in fight.
With the F-22 unable to sort its avionics even enough to get funding to progress beyond the test/development stage, and with a bare handful of prototypes (five) limping around the sky, your faith in the invincibility of US technology is touching.
I personally believe that it will all come right in the end. But it may not. This is the land of the self-jamming bomber (B-1B), the remarkable F-111, the AWG-9 and AIM-54 Phoenix, and the F-14/TF-30 combination. All systems which looked great on paper, and which have been hyped to the nth degree, but which remain deeply flawed in service.
BAE Systems are not the only company in the world who sometimes have problems turning dreams into reality.
With the F-22 unable to sort its avionics even enough to get funding to progress beyond the test/development stage, and with a bare handful of prototypes (five) limping around the sky, your faith in the invincibility of US technology is touching.
I personally believe that it will all come right in the end. But it may not. This is the land of the self-jamming bomber (B-1B), the remarkable F-111, the AWG-9 and AIM-54 Phoenix, and the F-14/TF-30 combination. All systems which looked great on paper, and which have been hyped to the nth degree, but which remain deeply flawed in service.
BAE Systems are not the only company in the world who sometimes have problems turning dreams into reality.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The thing all the techies and fighter pukes constantly fail to focus on, his WHO HAS THE THREAT CAPABILITY ??
Serbia ? China ? India ? Where is this high risk multi threat environment they're all talking about. The upgraded F-4 can still peform 90% of all fast jet tasks for 95% of all the worlds AF's.
EFA Buffoon is most likely to see operational service over IRAQ ( AGAIN??) or some horrible little jungle, dropping bombs in the CAS role (BTW The Apached will not fulfil this role because we cant ver risk loosing one to enemy fire!!)to try and save B COY 2 PARA as they fight to the death surrounded by 1100 angry locals armed with AK's who are immune to information warfare and AIR POWER COERCION.-
Serbia ? China ? India ? Where is this high risk multi threat environment they're all talking about. The upgraded F-4 can still peform 90% of all fast jet tasks for 95% of all the worlds AF's.
EFA Buffoon is most likely to see operational service over IRAQ ( AGAIN??) or some horrible little jungle, dropping bombs in the CAS role (BTW The Apached will not fulfil this role because we cant ver risk loosing one to enemy fire!!)to try and save B COY 2 PARA as they fight to the death surrounded by 1100 angry locals armed with AK's who are immune to information warfare and AIR POWER COERCION.-
Guest
Posts: n/a
I'm not really sure why you think that I hold the belief that US technology is invincible, but I'm glad that you're touched all the same.
The basis of your argument is flawed Jackoniko, because irrespective of whether the TVC Flanker is in service or now, tomorrow, the next day or in 3 years time, a fighter pilot can NEVER have too much manouverability, capability or advantage over his adversaries, present AND future. Have you ever heard one complain that 'the fight's unfair' because his opponent is not on an equal footing?
The fact remains that when EF comes into service it will have to last a very long time and be as 'future proofed' as possible. You may not be worried that TVC variants of the Flanker, or other highly manouverable designs are not in service today, but IMHO that's a near sighted view point which does little to represent the best interests of tomorrows fighter jock - precisely the people who are going to be flying the F-22 and EF for many years to come. My point really revolved around the fact that I believe that true, unrestricted, 'shoot when you're ready' BVR environment is pretty rare in the conflicts we face now and those we may face in the future. I am surprised that a journo could fail to learn the lessons that history so clearly lays at his feet (have you forgotten why Top Gun was formed in the first place?) - you might like to relax and say that the SU-27 and MiG-29 are merely air show performers, but the reality is that given the closing speeds of modern fighters in a hot intercept and the need to VID in many scenarios, a merge is extremely likely - Top Gun furballs may not be avoidable. I know that there were kills in the Balkans which were BVR and several during DS, but it cannot be relied upon, especially when the political climate dictates that there simply cannot be another Iranian Airbus shootdown or another Blackhawk shootdown (which in itself was a mistaken VID incident!)
I'm not quite sure what you allude to with regards to the F-111. In it's most advanced version (F) it was superior in the mud-moving role to anything we (the Brits) had, and in its EW capacity it was superior to - oh, I don't need to say that because we never had anything in the same league. Perhaps you are referring to the initial problems with its WTB, in which case you should know better, as this was a teething problem manifesting itself as a result of the type being pushed into service before it was ready and without enough testing - surely this rings a bell? Your self jamming bomber comment is well deserved and I concede too your point on the TF 30 equipped F-14 (although the TF-30 P100 was the monster which powered the F-111 to 900 KIAS+ at 'low level'). My understanding of the AWG-9/AIM-54 suite was always that it was a pretty good system - perhaps you could enlighten?
Oh, and I'm a Brit and proud of our Defence industry too (on the whole, a least)
The basis of your argument is flawed Jackoniko, because irrespective of whether the TVC Flanker is in service or now, tomorrow, the next day or in 3 years time, a fighter pilot can NEVER have too much manouverability, capability or advantage over his adversaries, present AND future. Have you ever heard one complain that 'the fight's unfair' because his opponent is not on an equal footing?
The fact remains that when EF comes into service it will have to last a very long time and be as 'future proofed' as possible. You may not be worried that TVC variants of the Flanker, or other highly manouverable designs are not in service today, but IMHO that's a near sighted view point which does little to represent the best interests of tomorrows fighter jock - precisely the people who are going to be flying the F-22 and EF for many years to come. My point really revolved around the fact that I believe that true, unrestricted, 'shoot when you're ready' BVR environment is pretty rare in the conflicts we face now and those we may face in the future. I am surprised that a journo could fail to learn the lessons that history so clearly lays at his feet (have you forgotten why Top Gun was formed in the first place?) - you might like to relax and say that the SU-27 and MiG-29 are merely air show performers, but the reality is that given the closing speeds of modern fighters in a hot intercept and the need to VID in many scenarios, a merge is extremely likely - Top Gun furballs may not be avoidable. I know that there were kills in the Balkans which were BVR and several during DS, but it cannot be relied upon, especially when the political climate dictates that there simply cannot be another Iranian Airbus shootdown or another Blackhawk shootdown (which in itself was a mistaken VID incident!)
I'm not quite sure what you allude to with regards to the F-111. In it's most advanced version (F) it was superior in the mud-moving role to anything we (the Brits) had, and in its EW capacity it was superior to - oh, I don't need to say that because we never had anything in the same league. Perhaps you are referring to the initial problems with its WTB, in which case you should know better, as this was a teething problem manifesting itself as a result of the type being pushed into service before it was ready and without enough testing - surely this rings a bell? Your self jamming bomber comment is well deserved and I concede too your point on the TF 30 equipped F-14 (although the TF-30 P100 was the monster which powered the F-111 to 900 KIAS+ at 'low level'). My understanding of the AWG-9/AIM-54 suite was always that it was a pretty good system - perhaps you could enlighten?
Oh, and I'm a Brit and proud of our Defence industry too (on the whole, a least)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Ewan, don't worry about JN,if he ever said anything critical about BAE Cisterns (formerly British Wasteofspace) or the RAF they'd stop giving him press releases to re-hash as 'investigative journalism'.
IIRC, both China and India are receiving, or are about to recieve, TVC Flanker variants (with PA radar). ISTR that, like most Russian fighters, they will also have a very effective IRST system. Doubtless further sales will follow. You're quite right, by 2020 or so EF will be looking pretty dated.
Can't quite see what JN's problem with the F111 is either, AIUI the RAF was very keen on buying the 'Vark at one time but eventually couldn't afford it.
And of course there are literally hundreds of EF's flying right now, all with fully-tested, full-spec systems. Or maybe not.
------------------
S. Potter, Esq
"Gentlemen! You can't fight in here! This is the WAR ROOM!"
IIRC, both China and India are receiving, or are about to recieve, TVC Flanker variants (with PA radar). ISTR that, like most Russian fighters, they will also have a very effective IRST system. Doubtless further sales will follow. You're quite right, by 2020 or so EF will be looking pretty dated.
Can't quite see what JN's problem with the F111 is either, AIUI the RAF was very keen on buying the 'Vark at one time but eventually couldn't afford it.
And of course there are literally hundreds of EF's flying right now, all with fully-tested, full-spec systems. Or maybe not.
------------------
S. Potter, Esq
"Gentlemen! You can't fight in here! This is the WAR ROOM!"
Guest
Posts: n/a
My criticism of the RAF and BAE is near-constant, and has long been annoying to both organisations. However, I do happen to think that EF might (if it works as advertised) be a bloody good F3 replacement). And that's it.
The F-111 was completely useless until the E and F Models, and required an unfeasibly huge amount of money to be thrown at it to become so.
The AIM-54 has yet to be successfully fired in combat (despite several attempts) and the much hyped test firings were rigged more comprehensively than a Tony Blair press call.
When was the last close-in turning fight?
When was the last close-in turning fight involving an aircraft that had any other option?
Even with the need for VID (reducing almost daily with long range TISEO-type video sensors, offboard sensors, datalinks, JTIDS, IDM, etc.) most fighter pilots would choose to avoid a turning close-in fight. Eurofighter gives them the tool required to win, not to impress at an airshow - though incidentally, anyone who saw the HAVV roll at Farnborough might well wonder whether EF is all that much of a slouch in the close-in arena. With HMS and ASRAAM, I'd keep my money in my pocket, but if you want to bet on the outcome of an Su-27/EF visual rules close in fight, you're most welcome.
The F-111 was completely useless until the E and F Models, and required an unfeasibly huge amount of money to be thrown at it to become so.
The AIM-54 has yet to be successfully fired in combat (despite several attempts) and the much hyped test firings were rigged more comprehensively than a Tony Blair press call.
When was the last close-in turning fight?
When was the last close-in turning fight involving an aircraft that had any other option?
Even with the need for VID (reducing almost daily with long range TISEO-type video sensors, offboard sensors, datalinks, JTIDS, IDM, etc.) most fighter pilots would choose to avoid a turning close-in fight. Eurofighter gives them the tool required to win, not to impress at an airshow - though incidentally, anyone who saw the HAVV roll at Farnborough might well wonder whether EF is all that much of a slouch in the close-in arena. With HMS and ASRAAM, I'd keep my money in my pocket, but if you want to bet on the outcome of an Su-27/EF visual rules close in fight, you're most welcome.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Anyone who thinks there is no need to design for and plan for a knife fight in a telephone box (close in combat, in other words) is fooling himself. Missiles (a) miss, (cynics would say "Hence the name!") (b) can be defeated. You might think that today's smart seekers cannot be decoyed, but it is only a matter of time before some cleverdick finds the solution. Ultimately some poor schmuck is going to find himself in a turning burning fight with no speed, no ideas and no close-in weapons system, being nibbled to death by someone with an ac that can turn tighter and who has a gun to send our hero's LPB to perdition. You can fight the best BVR battle ever (that's assuming your ROE would allow it), followed by the best pre-merge fight ever, but you are certain to get some leakers. Why, for the sake of a few hundred pounds per ac in weight and a very few million pounds sterling, would you hamstring your pilots?
And what about strafe? You see a column of trucks? It may be that you have a cluster munition on board, but they have a relatively small footprint. A cannon is a cheap and cheerful option here.
Let's just ask ourselves why the F4 was retro-fitted with a cannon, sometimes internally, but often externally, taking up an otherwise useful pylon? It couldn't have been that the much-vaunted missiles weren't cutting it, could it? Naah! The pilots just liked the noise.....
[This message has been edited by R O Tiree (edited 25 October 2000).]
And what about strafe? You see a column of trucks? It may be that you have a cluster munition on board, but they have a relatively small footprint. A cannon is a cheap and cheerful option here.
Let's just ask ourselves why the F4 was retro-fitted with a cannon, sometimes internally, but often externally, taking up an otherwise useful pylon? It couldn't have been that the much-vaunted missiles weren't cutting it, could it? Naah! The pilots just liked the noise.....
[This message has been edited by R O Tiree (edited 25 October 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Tactical considerations aside trying to sell a fighter without a gun is a PR nightmare.
Fighter pilots the world over know that EFA hasn't got a gun.
Who will have major imputs into fighter replacements within those countries. Fighter pilots.
What do they say when its name comes up in conversation. "EFA, isn't that the jet without a gun?!?!"
No matter how good the arguments to buy it are the EFA will always start on the back foot.
Whether the reasons are rational like:
1.you can't jam or flare off a bullet
2.it has no min range and is truly all aspect
Or totally irrational like:
1. Nostalgia
2. the phallic sybolism of big guns
3. Comments like "No gun, thats why all those Phantoms got shot down in 'Nam"
4. the saying that "there is no kill like a guns kill"
5. being able to strafe a line of enemy trucks once the air war is sewn up, without having to haul bombs around for a living.
6. being able to ask the bograts round the crewroom "See that Bloggs thats an F-15 Eagle. Do you know why they make 'em that big?"
"No sir, why?"
" So even a guy like you can get a guns kill!"
7. The simple fact that rolling round the sky trying to gun someone is a lot better fun, in peacetime, than working the ID and then shooting BVR.
EFA will be pretty neat, but, try and convince an Army General to buy an assault rifle without a bayonet fitting.
Fighter pilots the world over know that EFA hasn't got a gun.
Who will have major imputs into fighter replacements within those countries. Fighter pilots.
What do they say when its name comes up in conversation. "EFA, isn't that the jet without a gun?!?!"
No matter how good the arguments to buy it are the EFA will always start on the back foot.
Whether the reasons are rational like:
1.you can't jam or flare off a bullet
2.it has no min range and is truly all aspect
Or totally irrational like:
1. Nostalgia
2. the phallic sybolism of big guns
3. Comments like "No gun, thats why all those Phantoms got shot down in 'Nam"
4. the saying that "there is no kill like a guns kill"
5. being able to strafe a line of enemy trucks once the air war is sewn up, without having to haul bombs around for a living.
6. being able to ask the bograts round the crewroom "See that Bloggs thats an F-15 Eagle. Do you know why they make 'em that big?"
"No sir, why?"
" So even a guy like you can get a guns kill!"
7. The simple fact that rolling round the sky trying to gun someone is a lot better fun, in peacetime, than working the ID and then shooting BVR.
EFA will be pretty neat, but, try and convince an Army General to buy an assault rifle without a bayonet fitting.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The Gulf war saw a number of instances where furballs were a very likely option were it not for the incompetence of all but a few Iraqi fighter pilots/GCI operators - F-15E drivers running in on target and OVERTAKING MiG-29's and MiG-23's, unable/unwilling to engage and bugging out. Albino (F-15C) drivers loosing track of targets BVR and only reacquiring WVR, Albino drivers providing inefficient HVA CAP and allowing an Iraqi MiG-29 to get within IR missile range of the HVA (KC-135)! F/A-18's ingressing on an OCA mission and downing MiG-21's at less than 3 miles with >1000 KIAS closure. And let's not forget the losses: there is strong evidence to suggest that F/A-18 pilot Scott Speicher was downed by a MiG-25 having briefly merged and then disengaged due to poor SA. An F-111 was lost having manouvered into terrain avoiding a rear quarter IR missile shot from a Mirage F-1. I don't have my reference materials handy at the moment but i'll bet that a lot of the kills during DS came from the AIM-9 and required ACM for favourable shoot conditions, i'd also bet that many of the AIM-7 kills came WVR and failure of those missiles to achieve a kill would have resulted in a merge and subsequent furball. With the exception of the F-111 all of the a/c carried BVR weapons and had the capability to employ them.
I'm not sure about Balkans kills, but looking away from the US for a moment, a good percentage of Israeli kills over the past 30 years have been post-merge and they've certainly not decided to dump ACM/BFM skills in the vague hope that one day they'll all be able to do it with missiles in time to pop home for tea and medals. Interestingly, the US recently held excercises with the IAF during the course of which the US was comprehensively arse whipped. One F-16 driver i know said that the US DoD was so unhappy about it that it had told all participants to keep their gob's shut and to decline comment to any press. He said to me that one of the main reasons they were so convincingly beaten was that the US have significantly decreasd the amount of time it spends teaching it's pilots ACM and most importantly, keeping them current at it - the disbandment of the vast majority of agressor squadrons is a significant hinderence here. Conversely the IAF pilots spend all day dogfighting week in week out. You can draw your own conclusions from this...
I'm not sure about Balkans kills, but looking away from the US for a moment, a good percentage of Israeli kills over the past 30 years have been post-merge and they've certainly not decided to dump ACM/BFM skills in the vague hope that one day they'll all be able to do it with missiles in time to pop home for tea and medals. Interestingly, the US recently held excercises with the IAF during the course of which the US was comprehensively arse whipped. One F-16 driver i know said that the US DoD was so unhappy about it that it had told all participants to keep their gob's shut and to decline comment to any press. He said to me that one of the main reasons they were so convincingly beaten was that the US have significantly decreasd the amount of time it spends teaching it's pilots ACM and most importantly, keeping them current at it - the disbandment of the vast majority of agressor squadrons is a significant hinderence here. Conversely the IAF pilots spend all day dogfighting week in week out. You can draw your own conclusions from this...
Guest
Posts: n/a
OH GOD!! We can tell the FAST JET aircrew input from the stuff about ACM and BVR et al.
Here’s the facts girls. Air combat is not won by ACM. It’s won by trashing the other guys airfields or a combination of factors such as GCI, SIGINT, being up in force and Maintenance. If you are actually out to settle things in a dog fighting engagement, you’ve screwed up. WHO TAUGHT US THIS.. The RAF, in the BoB, FAA in the South Atlantic and The Israelis.
Why is manoeuvring a factor in VID? It was done in Vietnam with no manoeuvring. You just had your wingman blow through and call the shot.
And BTW manoeuvring has never been an absolute factor in air combat victories. Look at WW1. Look at WW2,. Korea, India-Pakistan. Vietnam. Arab-Israeli and even the Falklands ( no accounts of Viffing please. I till can’t find anyone who has done it in combat. ) And there where no manoeuvring kills in the Gulf. AT ALL.
In fact the 3:1 trashing of Hunters by F-86s (India-Pakistan) is the only example I have ever found of consistent victory going to the more manoeuvrable aircraft.
One of the reasons the MOD gave for getting rid of the Cannon on Buffoon was because the “Days of Dog fighting are long gone.”
IMO, just more evidence that EFA was designed by input from Macho fighter types, and that is never good.
Why is anyone worried about EFA dog fighting?? It’s ability to do CAS is vastly more important.
[This message has been edited by Low and Slow (edited 25 October 2000).]
Here’s the facts girls. Air combat is not won by ACM. It’s won by trashing the other guys airfields or a combination of factors such as GCI, SIGINT, being up in force and Maintenance. If you are actually out to settle things in a dog fighting engagement, you’ve screwed up. WHO TAUGHT US THIS.. The RAF, in the BoB, FAA in the South Atlantic and The Israelis.
Why is manoeuvring a factor in VID? It was done in Vietnam with no manoeuvring. You just had your wingman blow through and call the shot.
And BTW manoeuvring has never been an absolute factor in air combat victories. Look at WW1. Look at WW2,. Korea, India-Pakistan. Vietnam. Arab-Israeli and even the Falklands ( no accounts of Viffing please. I till can’t find anyone who has done it in combat. ) And there where no manoeuvring kills in the Gulf. AT ALL.
In fact the 3:1 trashing of Hunters by F-86s (India-Pakistan) is the only example I have ever found of consistent victory going to the more manoeuvrable aircraft.
One of the reasons the MOD gave for getting rid of the Cannon on Buffoon was because the “Days of Dog fighting are long gone.”
IMO, just more evidence that EFA was designed by input from Macho fighter types, and that is never good.
Why is anyone worried about EFA dog fighting?? It’s ability to do CAS is vastly more important.
[This message has been edited by Low and Slow (edited 25 October 2000).]