PDA

View Full Version : OT RAF Typhoons vs IAF Su 30 MKIs



mynameisroland
08-08-2007, 09:30 AM
There was an excerise between the RAF and the Indian Airforce about a week ago. Does anyone have any info on the outcome?

Apart from the usual PR rubbish that both sides were not flying to win ect

With all the BS over the USAAF vs IAF in 2004 if the Indians had any success in the recent excercise vs the Typhoon Im sure it would be sprawled across the Internet.

From excercises in India last year I read that the Tornado F.3 kicked the Su 30 MKI in the balls in the BVR scenario. Obviously the Tornado got humped WVR but the Tornado gets humped WVR by anything. I guess the RAF had to close to WVR as part of the excercise so the IAF pr machine could go on about how unbeatable their gear is. Now, the Typhoon is the best BVR platform currently flying and the best WVR platform also - so Im dying to read the stories of the recent exercise.

From my observations in a real shooting war both the RAF/Britian and USAAF/USA would wipe the floor against the IAF/India force. Whenever the IAF perform well in these scenarios it is when you stack the deck against the more technologically advanced airforce.

mynameisroland
08-08-2007, 09:30 AM
There was an excerise between the RAF and the Indian Airforce about a week ago. Does anyone have any info on the outcome?

Apart from the usual PR rubbish that both sides were not flying to win ect

With all the BS over the USAAF vs IAF in 2004 if the Indians had any success in the recent excercise vs the Typhoon Im sure it would be sprawled across the Internet.

From excercises in India last year I read that the Tornado F.3 kicked the Su 30 MKI in the balls in the BVR scenario. Obviously the Tornado got humped WVR but the Tornado gets humped WVR by anything. I guess the RAF had to close to WVR as part of the excercise so the IAF pr machine could go on about how unbeatable their gear is. Now, the Typhoon is the best BVR platform currently flying and the best WVR platform also - so Im dying to read the stories of the recent exercise.

From my observations in a real shooting war both the RAF/Britian and USAAF/USA would wipe the floor against the IAF/India force. Whenever the IAF perform well in these scenarios it is when you stack the deck against the more technologically advanced airforce.

HuninMunin
08-08-2007, 09:36 AM
No infos here either - but pilot training alone in connection with the points you allready raised makes any Typhoon vs IAF scenarios a turkey shoot.

ploughman
08-08-2007, 11:19 AM
This (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/typhoon-vs-su-30mki-the-2007-indra-dhanush-exercise-03470/) seems to be about the most informative thing I've read and it's not giving much away.

Other info seems to indicate the IAF learned a lot about airborne command, they were also impressed by the hospitality, which reflected the banging spread they put on for the RAF last year.

Jaws2002
08-08-2007, 11:43 AM
When the Indians did good they were bragging all over the net, so..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Taylortony
08-08-2007, 12:51 PM
They did not do a direct comparison due to equipment and software issues, there was also issues as to giving to much away on both Aircraft Capabilities on both sides, so they never went one to one so to speak against each other.

mynameisroland
08-08-2007, 01:12 PM
Taylortony I know that they didnt do a direct fly off between the two but they did do 1vs1 up to 6vs6 according to reports.

My thoughts are that even with the CAPTOR radar and AMRAAM missiles (since CAESAR and Meteor are years off yet) the Typhoon owns the Su 30 MKI BVR with or without the help of Awacs support.

WVR is a moot point anyway, both types have lethal short ranged missiles and almost 360 deg targeting and firing equipment however the Typhoon has reportedly superior sustained manuvering ability while the Su 30 MKI apparantly has superior instantaneous turn ability ie the Cobra http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Airmail109
08-08-2007, 01:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Taylortony I know that they didnt do a direct fly off between the two but they did do 1vs1 up to 6vs6 according to reports.

My thoughts are that even with the CAPTOR radar and AMRAAM missiles (since CAESAR and Meteor are years off yet) the Typhoon owns the Su 30 MKI BVR with or without the help of Awacs support.

WVR is a moot point anyway, both types have lethal short ranged missiles and almost 360 deg targeting and firing equipment however the Typhoon has reportedly superior sustained manuvering ability while the Su 30 MKI apparantly has superior instantaneous turn ability ie the Cobra http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Typhoon will be getting thrust vectoring in the near future + AESA radar as well

HuninMunin
08-08-2007, 01:52 PM
I don't think that the Su-30MKI can hold it's own in a turning combat at all ( against a Typhoon that is).
For two reasons:

a) The Su-30MKI is capable of very high AoAs instantaneously, but is 10 tons heavier.
I'm not shure about the exact numbers ( dozens of different sources) but it's turn radius should be larger then that of the Typhoon going after the WL alone.

b) The EF will always be in the better E situation thanks to it's T/W and climb.
Following that logic it seems obvious that the Typhoon will be able to always fight at corner and would rather have to worry about getting to fast then to slow.
And it flys infinate 6 Gs at 400 km\h ( to hint at it's flight characteristics).

Add the men/machine interface or rather the difference between the two machines in this point and the Su-30MKI will come second - even if the pilots were equal trained and talented.

edit
Instand AoAs do not mean instand turn, anyway.

ploughman
08-08-2007, 02:11 PM
Roland, from the link I posted.

"Exercise Indra Dhanush 2007 came to an end on July 12/07, reaching its crescendo with a 6 vs. 6 aerial combat involving 4 Indian Su-30 MKIs, 4 British F3 Tornado air defence variants, 2 British Typhoons, and 2 of the Royal Navy's GR9 Harriers. An Indian IL-78 MKI aerial tanker and a British E-3D Sentry AWACS aircraft were also in the air. No details were released regarding the results, but we're sure they made for very interesting debriefs."

As you can see, the mix of aircraft means it wasn't a Tiffie v 30MKI gangfest. Having said that, some bloke somewhere reported talking to an Indian pilot at Farnborough who said he 'got' a Tiffie in guns on dogfighting, but that the Tiffie's acceleration was such that it could turn a dogfight in a moment. The Sukhois have thrust vectoring so they're no slouch in ACM.

MEGILE
08-08-2007, 02:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:


Typhoon will be getting thrust vectoring in the near future </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Source please.

HuninMunin
08-08-2007, 02:23 PM
Google is your friend.

MEGILE
08-08-2007, 02:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
Google is your friend. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
that's your way of saying you aint got one, I presume

Airmail109
08-08-2007, 02:29 PM
http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/Eurofighter/engines.html

MEGILE
08-08-2007, 02:30 PM
danke

Airmail109
08-08-2007, 02:32 PM
Ohhohhooo itll get a 30 percent thrust increase as well.

And theyre strengthening the airframe, will make an even sweeter STOL fighter than it already is.

Me thinks it would make a nice carrier fighter as well.

If only they could redesign the airframe and make it a bit more stealthy, would be up there with the f-22

HuninMunin
08-08-2007, 02:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
Google is your friend. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
that's your way of saying you aint got one, I presume </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

EDIT
Do you drive your car like that aswell Aimail? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

About the stealth thing; They did the best they could to blend stealth and aerodynamics.
If you want more stealth, you'd have to cut on the other half.

Jaws2002
08-08-2007, 02:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:

If only they could redesign the airframe and make it a bit more stealthy, would be up there with the f-22 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Never.
F-22 was designed and built as a stealth aircraft.

Airmail109
08-08-2007, 02:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
Google is your friend. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
that's your way of saying you aint got one, I presume </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

EDIT
Do you drive your car like that aswell Aimail? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

About the stealth thing; They did the best they could to blend stealth and aerodynamics.
If you want more stealth, you'd have to cut on the other half. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is about my ability to drive a car

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npTRXr4Sgxg

Im a bike and train using hippy

HuninMunin
08-08-2007, 02:56 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Ok.
I change it to:
Do you push into the sub like this?

.....as I'm no old women I probably just have to be quit about it...... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Airmail109
08-08-2007, 02:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Ok.
I change it to:
Do you push into the sub like this?

.....as I'm no old women I probably just have to be quit about it...... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oi im 19 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

HuninMunin
08-08-2007, 03:05 PM
So another mate who grew up on IL-2? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif

leitmotiv
08-08-2007, 03:11 PM
A friend of mine, a USAF-salaried historian at the time, used to gloat because in certain tactical tests in which F-15s and F-14s were not allowed to use their long-range radar/missiles against Harriers they were stomped. Well, that's like doing a tactical exercise where a Bf 109F squares off against a I-153 and both start at the same altitude, the 109 is not allowed to climb, can't use more than 3/4 power, and can't use its cannon. The species has a very long history of "conclusively demonstrating" "facts" for general publication which are utterly worthless.

HuninMunin
08-08-2007, 03:18 PM
You are only inches away of beeing called a nihilist by me http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/inlove.gif

leitmotiv
08-08-2007, 04:52 PM
I've had many friends in the U.S. armed forces and the examples they have told me of jiggering tactical demonstrations are legion. A classic example from Japanese history was the Kriegspiel before Midway where the Combined Fleet side lost its carriers to a U.S. surprise attack. The admiral who was the judge disliked the outcome and "salvaged" all the carriers. I believe there was a similar "fudging" of the results in a Kriegspiel conducted by the German army prior to Barbarossa. Recently we saw how everybody (including me, I'll freely admit) missed the evidence of what was brewing in Iraq right after the "victory" in 2003 (huge arms caches all over the country, the significance of the "Saddam Mujahideen" paramilitaries, etc.). The species, lamentably, tends to see what it wants to see. If my accepting this unfortunate fact makes me a "nihilist" (rather than a "pragmatist"), so be it!

HuninMunin
08-08-2007, 05:09 PM
I comletely agree with you ( nihilistic traits here aswell), really nothing I'd like to add.

PS
A pragmatist would not comment on this at all because he'd know it is to absolutely no avail.

leitmotiv
08-08-2007, 05:36 PM
I've been accused of nihilism since college, and I cheerfully agreed. As an older gent, I try to appear less disreputable, but to no avail! Truth will out. One of my intellectual history professors commented on my apparent nihilism in horror believing I believed in nada, but he was wrong. My flip side is an early 19th century German Romantic ready to Sturm und Drang at will. I am a revolting sentimentalist. I am a Wagnerian slave to the idea and fact of woman. So, nihilism is one bit of the picture!

VW-IceFire
08-08-2007, 06:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
If only they could redesign the airframe and make it a bit more stealthy, would be up there with the f-22 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
True the Typhoon isn't a "stealth" aircraft in the full sense that the F-22 is but the Typhoon is no slouch either. Its RCS is decently low and its somewhat smaller than the F-22 if I'm remembering correctly. I think the RAF in particular is banking on the Typhoons other systems and the fact that its plenty cheaper than the F-22.

With all of the hubub in Australia right now about the F-35 and wanting the F-22 and the expense and all of that sort of thing...I wonder why they don't have a more serious look at the Typhoon.

Vuco1
08-09-2007, 12:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
With all of the hubub in Australia right now about the F-35 and wanting the F-22 and the expense and all of that sort of thing...I wonder why they don't have a more serious look at the Typhoon. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here you go:

Demon or Lemon (http://www.ausairpower.net/typhoon.html)

csThor
08-09-2007, 12:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Vuco1:
Here you go:

Demon or Lemon (http://www.ausairpower.net/typhoon.html) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd call that article a serious case of reading tea leaves. The author extrapolates simulated data from the nineties with some stuff from today as well as guesses on both the Typhoon as well as F-22. And the comment on stealth at the end gives it the sour taste of a tendential writing.

To me the Typhoon has still not reached maturity (Tranche 3 rings a bell?) and has yet to overcome some teething troubles. I'd reserve judgment on its capabilities and shortcomings until it has the chance to prove it. Right now it's more prototype testing than anything else.
As of today the real value of a modern combat aircraft lies just not within its combat potential but even more in the money tied to it(read = unit cost, maintenance costs etc). it makes no sense to develop the ultimate fighter which will walk over any other aircraft and yet find no buyer because it costs more money than some countries dispense in a year and makes maintenance a nightmare.

Skoshi Tiger
08-09-2007, 12:52 AM
In an all-out conflict the Beyond Visual Range capabliites of the aircraft are paramount but , as shown by the RAAF in the conflict in Afganistan and Iraq (even though it was against ground targets), in a more localised conflict and with the media pressure to get things right and never make a mistake our pilots were hobbled by the rules of enguagement.

Our F/A-18 pilots were forced to visually identify each target before using their stand off weapons!!!!!

At one stage with the pressure to reduce colateral damage the RAAF pilots were taking out Iraqi tanks with concrete training bombs fitted with the laser guidance kits!!!

Local conditions will always influence the choice of equipment purchaced by a military force.

Australia learnt the hard way during WWII what it was like to be isolated and dependant on other countries for its military equipment. Since WWII Australia has maintained the capablity to locally manufacturing it's Fighter aircraft. That won't change in a hurry and any supply contracts need to take that into account.

Also (For Australia) the range of the planes is one of it's most important features. (That's why we're still operating F111's I think the rational of buying them was that they could fly from the Austalian mainland to Jakata and back! ) Australia's a big country and our defence stategy is to fight as far away from us as possible.

ploughman
08-09-2007, 03:53 AM
To be sure Skoshi your planes need range (i thought the F/A-18 had short legs) but I would say your defence strategy is to embed yourself as deeply as you can with bilateral and multilateral mutual defence treaties so that you get all the help you need in the event of a scrap, your defence procurement strategies are designed to underpin these relationships as well as provide solutions to your defence requirements. It makes sense on lots of levels for Australia to buy American.

ake109
08-09-2007, 04:24 AM
Bah! The result of that old F-15 vs Su-30MKI exercise was all designed to get the USAAF more funding for the F-22.

"Look here Congress! Even the Indians with their export russian planes are a threat to our front line stuff. We need more $$$ for the latest planes yadda yadda"

HuninMunin
08-09-2007, 05:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
If only they could redesign the airframe and make it a bit more stealthy, would be up there with the f-22 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
True the Typhoon isn't a "stealth" aircraft in the full sense that the F-22 is but the Typhoon is no slouch either. Its RCS is decently low and its somewhat smaller than the F-22 if I'm remembering correctly. I think the RAF in particular is banking on the Typhoons other systems and the fact that its plenty cheaper than the F-22.

With all of the hubub in Australia right now about the F-35 and wanting the F-22 and the expense and all of that sort of thing...I wonder why they don't have a more serious look at the Typhoon. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This question circled in my mind for months - especialy as they allready operate lots of european equipment ( Tiger, NH 90 f.e.).
Guess it's just too large a step - they have payd hard money for the development of the Lighting II.

HamishUK
08-09-2007, 05:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/Eurofighter/engines.html </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually (as yet) there has been no treasury funding released for Tranche 3 thrust vectoring.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">At this stage there are no definite plans to fit the nozzle to any production Eurofighter. However Eurofighter, EuroJet and a number of consortium nations and other companies have indicated a desire to include the nozzle (if possible) in Tranche-3 aircraft (due from 2010). This would fit with the stated desire of the four consortium nations to incorporate new technologies in sucessive Eurofighter production runs. The current Eurofighter struture has already been strengthened in anticipation of increased loads created by TVC as well as higher output EJ2x0 series powerplants. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Skoshi Tiger
08-09-2007, 07:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ploughman:
To be sure Skoshi your planes need range (i thought the F/A-18 had short legs). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats why we haven't got rid of our F-111's, I don't think there is another aircraft that can replace them at the moment.

The F/A-18s have a interdiction range of about 1000km if your talking about combat they put the range at about 750K's. The F-35 will (supposedly) have a combat radius of 1100Km's which is a bit more useable.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ploughman:
but I would say your defence strategy is to embed yourself as deeply as you can with bilateral and multilateral mutual defence treaties so that you get all the help you need in the event of a scrap, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

During WWII Australia relationship with Britain was about as strong as it could come. But when the crunch came Britain just didn't have enough resources to help herself, let alone a small colony on the other side of the world. In fact it was a huge battle just to keep our troops under Australian control and fighting for the defence of Australia. (My Dad was one of the men fighting the French in Syria and then was called back to fight in New Guinea)

If a global conflict erupted now (very unlikley) I doubt that ,even with the best intentions of all those bilateral and multilateral treaties you mentioned, anyone could guarentee anything, let alone all the help we would need.

Even if it was a more local conflict, Would (could) the US intervine and risk escalating the conflict? Who knows???

One lesson we learnt in WWII was to make strong aliances but only count on ourselves as much as possible.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ploughman:

your defence procurement strategies are designed to underpin these relationships as well as provide solutions to your defence requirements.

It makes sense on lots of levels for Australia to buy American. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Australia is only too well aware that we will never be able to compete with other nations in terms of numbers, It's all about geting the best equipment and being smart about using it.

A lot of our stuff comes from the US but we're not shy about sourcing equipment from different suppliers.

Our ASLAV's are based on a Canadian design, out assult rifles are Austrian, we've got Swedish recoilless rifles and submarines, most made under licence in Australia.

If you go back to F86 days even our Saber Jets were Australian built, powered by rolls royce motors and had 30mm cannons! It would have been easier (and cheeper) to just rely on the US to supply the Jets but sometimes the cheap or easy options not the best!

Airmail109
08-09-2007, 07:40 AM
Eurofighter has turned out not to be that much cheaper than the F-22

In terms of development costs, individual unit prices (typhoon is actually the same price as an f-22 in this respect) and performance price (if the f-22 turns out to be four times more effective than the Eurofighter, it will be worth the somewhat but not hugely more expensive development costs)

Airmail109
08-09-2007, 07:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HamishUK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/Eurofighter/engines.html </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually (as yet) there has been no treasury funding released for Tranche 3 thrust vectoring.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">At this stage there are no definite plans to fit the nozzle to any production Eurofighter. However Eurofighter, EuroJet and a number of consortium nations and other companies have indicated a desire to include the nozzle (if possible) in Tranche-3 aircraft (due from 2010). This would fit with the stated desire of the four consortium nations to incorporate new technologies in sucessive Eurofighter production runs. The current Eurofighter struture has already been strengthened in anticipation of increased loads created by TVC as well as higher output EJ2x0 series powerplants. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ahh yes but read the last half of that paragraph

ploughman
08-09-2007, 07:44 AM
Except we can't buy the F-22 (against the law) and if we could would the US let us build it under license so our aircraft factories stay open? No they wouldn't.

csThor
08-09-2007, 07:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
Eurofighter has turned out not to be that much cheaper than the F-22

In terms of development costs, individual unit prices (typhoon is actually the same price as an f-22 in this respect) and performance price (if the f-22 turns out to be four times more effective than the Eurofighter, it will be worth the somewhat but not hugely more expensive development costs) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How come I've found unit costs between 180 (probably ancient) to a staggering 360 million $ for a F-22? Unit price for a Typhoon is listed at around 80 million € (about 110 million US $). And effectiveness is a question with a lot more variables than just air combat tests and some simulations. Just my 0,02 € ...

HamishUK
08-09-2007, 08:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HamishUK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/Eurofighter/engines.html </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually (as yet) there has been no treasury funding released for Tranche 3 thrust vectoring.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">At this stage there are no definite plans to fit the nozzle to any production Eurofighter. However Eurofighter, EuroJet and a number of consortium nations and other companies have indicated a desire to include the nozzle (if possible) in Tranche-3 aircraft (due from 2010). This would fit with the stated desire of the four consortium nations to incorporate new technologies in sucessive Eurofighter production runs. The current Eurofighter struture has already been strengthened in anticipation of increased loads created by TVC as well as higher output EJ2x0 series powerplants. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ahh yes but read the last half of that paragraph </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That really doesn't mean a huge amount I am afraid. The possible requirement for a directional nozzle came about during the final prototype phase. Adding structural integrity is neither here nor there and was added as a future feasibility study rather than an MLU later on.

The gun was added, taken away and is till under consideration to be re-implemented following trials last week.

Your statement is still a moot point till the treasury parts with the development cash. At the moment the RAF has more pressing concerns in ensuring the Typhoon is fully integrated into the Link16 programme and all current Air to Ground munitions are fully trialed and greenlighted for operations in Afghanistan next year.

I wouldn't hold your breath for thrust vectoring anytime soon.

mynameisroland
08-09-2007, 08:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HamishUK:
I wouldn't hold your breath for thrust vectoring anytime soon. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who is holding their breath? Current Tranche 1 Typhoons are amongst the most if not the most manuverable fighters in the world. Both at supersonic speeds and at subsonic sustained manuvering. Adding thrust vectoring is not really essential to the Tyhpoon's performance. Infact its greatest benefit would probably be in improving STOL performance.

My only regret is that Tranch 3 aircraft havent been fast tracked for export purposes as the international market seems to want true multi role fighters - Typhoon isnt there yet. Not all airforces can afford the luxury of a 99% dedicated air superiority fighter.

HamishUK
08-09-2007, 08:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by csThor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Vuco1:
Here you go:

Demon or Lemon (http://www.ausairpower.net/typhoon.html) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd call that article a serious case of reading tea leaves. The author extrapolates simulated data from the nineties with some stuff from today as well as guesses on both the Typhoon as well as F-22. And the comment on stealth at the end gives it the sour taste of a tendential writing.

To me the Typhoon has still not reached maturity (Tranche 3 rings a bell?) and has yet to overcome some teething troubles. I'd reserve judgment on its capabilities and shortcomings until it has the chance to prove it. Right now it's more prototype testing than anything else.
As of today the real value of a modern combat aircraft lies just not within its combat potential but even more in the money tied to it(read = unit cost, maintenance costs etc). it makes no sense to develop the ultimate fighter which will walk over any other aircraft and yet find no buyer because it costs more money than some countries dispense in a year and makes maintenance a nightmare. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You hit the proverbial nail on the head there.

My former Squadron (6) are now training on Typhoon and the feedback I get is nothing but praise for the aircraft.

The article has some gaping knowledge holes in it especially in regards to software and avionics. Simply upgrading an F-15 doesn't advance the F-15's capability beyond it's existing airframes avionics and flight profile.

Articles like this are usually written by people who have not had any hands on experience of these aircraft and sit and read internet / book stats all day long.

naturally the F-22 is a generation ahead of the Typhoon but then the Americans can afford it. The Typhoon however has done well in the US tests and received praise from the USAF pilots who have been working with it during it's trials process in Nevada.

It's not an F-22 vs Typhoon pissing contest as both aircraft will serve their respective airforces well into the future. The important thing is the pilots training and how well the aircraft is integrated as a force multiplier into an allied inventory.

HamishUK
08-09-2007, 08:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HamishUK:
I wouldn't hold your breath for thrust vectoring anytime soon. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who is holding their breath? Current Tranche 1 Typhoons are amongst the most if not the most manuverable fighters in the world. Both at supersonic speeds and at subsonic sustained manuvering. Adding thrust vectoring is not really essential to the Tyhpoon's performance. Infact its greatest benefit would probably be in improving STOL performance.

My only regret is that Tranch 3 aircraft havent been fast tracked for export purposes as the international market seems to want true multi role fighters - Typhoon isnt there yet. Not all airforces can afford the luxury of a 99% dedicated air superiority fighter. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was referring to the original posters statement.

mynameisroland
08-09-2007, 08:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HamishUK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HamishUK:
I wouldn't hold your breath for thrust vectoring anytime soon. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who is holding their breath? Current Tranche 1 Typhoons are amongst the most if not the most manuverable fighters in the world. Both at supersonic speeds and at subsonic sustained manuvering. Adding thrust vectoring is not really essential to the Tyhpoon's performance. Infact its greatest benefit would probably be in improving STOL performance.

My only regret is that Tranch 3 aircraft havent been fast tracked for export purposes as the international market seems to want true multi role fighters - Typhoon isnt there yet. Not all airforces can afford the luxury of a 99% dedicated air superiority fighter. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was referring to the original posters statement. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif calm down Hamish. I used your comment to help demonstrate my own point. From what I have read from your posts I know you are not holding your breath.

HamishUK
08-09-2007, 08:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HamishUK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HamishUK:
I wouldn't hold your breath for thrust vectoring anytime soon. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who is holding their breath? Current Tranche 1 Typhoons are amongst the most if not the most manuverable fighters in the world. Both at supersonic speeds and at subsonic sustained manuvering. Adding thrust vectoring is not really essential to the Tyhpoon's performance. Infact its greatest benefit would probably be in improving STOL performance.

My only regret is that Tranch 3 aircraft havent been fast tracked for export purposes as the international market seems to want true multi role fighters - Typhoon isnt there yet. Not all airforces can afford the luxury of a 99% dedicated air superiority fighter. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was referring to the original posters statement. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif calm down Hamish. I used your comment to help demonstrate my own point. From what I have read from your posts I know you are not holding your breath. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wasn't being critical. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Taylortony
08-09-2007, 12:25 PM
SHI**Y SIX http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

As Ex 14 and 20 Squadron Jaguar, I just had to get that one in http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Airmail109
08-09-2007, 12:50 PM
Unit cost for an F-22 is 150 million Dollars

Unit cost for a Eurofighter is 130 million Dollars

You also forget that more Eurofighters are being produced than the f-22 'supposedly' driving unit price down even futher

In regards to the F-22 to be more a bit more precise. The average unit flyaway cost for the F/A-22 in 2003 was about $178 million, while the unit flyaway costs for future annual buys were projected before the budget decision to decrease to $127 million, $111 million, and $108 million in fiscal years 2007, 2008, and 2009 respectively [that is to say, roughly double the unit flyaway costs of the single engine F-35]. With the program will be truncated in 2008, the less expensive aircraft in 2009 and beyond will not be bought and unit costs are projected at $135 million in 2007 and $149 million in 2008 (increases associated with close-out of production).

The US spent 62 Billion Dollars in developing and procurring the F/A-22

The UK alone spent 19 Billion Pounds in development costs

Which ones more expensive again?

Truth be told, the Eurofighter Consortium idea was silly. There was no competition between the defence manufacturers to produce better planes, the consortium took FAR to long in developing the fighter, the costs were stupidly high because the whole program was unwieldly, and they produced a fighter that was not bleeding edge. Albeit a very good fighter.

mynameisroland
08-09-2007, 01:04 PM
Airmail101 Id take all of those figures with a pinch of salt mate because they are BS.

Do you seriously believe that the British government will ultimately procure say 200 Typhoons at roughly the same unit cost as a F-22 while the US government can only afford 200 F-22s?

That puts British MOD funding to the same level as the USA's.

These figures are just for PR's sakes. Just because it doesnt come with a 'made in the USA' sticker on it doesnt mean its sh1t. Im still waiting on the F-35 to see if it will be the all singing all dancing aircraft it needs to be or if it will be another F-104 or F-111 crock.

Airmail109
08-09-2007, 01:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Airmail101 Id take all of those figures with a pinch of salt mate because they are BS.

Do you seriously believe that the British government will ultimately procure say 200 Typhoons at roughly the same unit cost as a F-22 while the US government can only afford 200 F-22s?

That puts British MOD funding to the same level as the USA's. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep

The Eurofighter consortium was a shambles

I hope next time the government has the nouse just to give the contract to BAE, and let the rest of Europe buy into it as we've done with the F-35

ploughman
08-09-2007, 01:08 PM
Besides which, teh dollar's in free fall at the moment so any cost comparisons based on today's exchange (which they may well not be) are not going to correctly relate the relative costs of projects that have their roots in the early 1980s.

Agree with you Aimail, all that farting around in the early 1990s with the German government who didn't think they needed a plane any more now the Cold War was over and they were pumping all their money into the former DDR. What a waste of time that was.

mynameisroland
08-09-2007, 01:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
The Eurofighter consortium was a shambles

I hope next time the government has the nouse just to give the contract to BAE </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Airmail101, this isnt meant to cause offense but your just a product of brainwashing by US media. That the Typhoon has been publically criticised by the US means that the US see it as an a threat in world export markets and it means that they regard it as a good aircraft.

A2A the Typhoon exceeds the capabilities of any other aircraft except the F-22. The F-35 is a bomb truck with a tagged on A2A capability. Yes it has stealth but only from the frontal aspect and its design/avionics suite is optimised for attacking ground targets not shooting down aircraft at 65,000ft.

Its the same old story. When the TSR2 was in development there was General Dynamics issuing performance figures and units costs which were absolute garbage and bore no resemblence to reality and the F-111 arrived late, more expensive and less capable than the TSR2.

Airmail109
08-09-2007, 01:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
The Eurofighter consortium was a shambles

I hope next time the government has the nouse just to give the contract to BAE </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Airmail101, this isnt meant to cause offense but your just a product of brainwashing by US media. That the Typhoon has been publically criticised by the US is because the US see it as an a threat in world export markets and it means that they regard it as a good aircraft.

A2A the Typhoon exceeds the capabilities of any other aircraft except the F-22. The F-35 is a bomb truck with a tagged on A2A capability. Yes it has stealth but only from the frontal aspect and its design/avionics suite is optimised for attacking ground targets not shooting down aircraft at 65,000ft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL call that a counter to my argument? Sorry no offence.

And for your knowledge I havnt read any American propaganda on the subject. They dont see the Eurofighter as a threat to the F-22 because they never intend to export, EXCEPT....maybe...just maybe....a watered down version to Japan.

mynameisroland
08-09-2007, 01:29 PM
Airmail101 what argument ? You havent put one forward.

You have just continued your usual habit of making "US RoXoRs blah blah blah" contributions to most threads you partcipate in. One of your recent ones centered around how British people arent cool and why could we not be more like Americans - if I remember correctly.

I also seem to remember discussing the Typhoon with you before and again you displayed your bias towards anything American with no evidence or regard to actual facts.

So nothings changed mate vis a vis my stance on the subject.

Airmail109
08-09-2007, 01:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Airmail101 what argument ? You havent out one forward.

You have just continued your usual habit of making "US RoXoRs blah blah blah" contributions to most threads you partcipate in. One of your ecent ones centered around how British people arent cool and why could we not be more like Americans - if I remember correctly.

I also seem to remember discussing the Typhoon with you before and again you displayed your bias towards anything American with no evidence or regard to actual facts.

So nothings changed mate vis a vis my stance on the subject. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No I havnt I just pointed out costs, would you like me to find articles on how the Eurofighter consortium has been a mess?

Bias toward anything American? Dude, in this thread where have I shown any bias towards American tech. Ive only really pointed out the shortcoming of the Euro consortium. Next time as Ive said, the contract should just go to BAE

And that thread about Americans being cooler was a joke. It was designed primarily to wind English middle class snobs up

mynameisroland
08-09-2007, 01:42 PM
Great, so rather than make posts about aircraft on a aircraft community forum you enjoy starting threads with the sole intention of winding up English middle class 'snobs'.

Great no sign of bias there mate.

You also show a willingness to swallow any old **** US defense companies publish. I would post pictures of myself here naked if you can prove that the F-22 has the same unit cost as the Typhoon. Thats pie in the sky stuff.

Can you post a link of where you got the unit costs from?

Airmail109
08-09-2007, 01:55 PM
Go to www.nao.org.uk (http://www.nao.org.uk)

Use the search button

The only reason people think the Euofighters cheaper than the F-22 is because of the much stated "Eurofighter costs half of what the F-22 does" by the media.

In reality theyre comparing unit price for the Eurofighter (80 million GDP) versus procurment price for the f-22 (335 billion dollars per plane).

When you take the cost of development from all 4 consortium countries, then the fact that the initial production of Eurofighters is about 3 times higher than that of the F-22 making unit costs supposedly cheaper. Then you realise that in reality, theres not much difference

And yeah I love winding humorless people up, its great. Also I think I was wound up, after going to a party with an American friend who took a lot of racist **** from so called "educated" middle class folk. Besides so many people are anti-american its boring. Ooooh rebels

Man If i was vehemently anti-chineese like so many people are anti-american, Id be labelled racist

So http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

mynameisroland
08-09-2007, 02:12 PM
So im anti American because I dont buy in to the PR or is it because I choose to value something made partly in Britain over something made in the States ?

riiiiigghht

Airmail109
08-09-2007, 02:15 PM
Ohohoh http://www.guardian.co.uk/military/story/0,11816,1264306,00.html

In 2004 the Eurofighter project had costed 55 billion gdp. I never accused you of being anti-american roland.

And in case you hadnt noticed roland, I advocated something entirely made by BAE next time. That or next time, Europe as a whole issues a requirment for a fighter plane and EVERY country buys into it. With several companies competing.

That would be a bit hard though

Viper2005_
08-09-2007, 02:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
A friend of mine, a USAF-salaried historian at the time, used to gloat because in certain tactical tests in which F-15s and F-14s were not allowed to use their long-range radar/missiles against Harriers they were stomped. Well, that's like doing a tactical exercise where a Bf 109F squares off against a I-153 and both start at the same altitude, the 109 is not allowed to climb, can't use more than 3/4 power, and can't use its cannon. The species has a very long history of "conclusively demonstrating" "facts" for general publication which are utterly worthless. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's actually pretty plausible. BVR is a great idea if you're on day #1 of WWIII and you know that you're cleared to kill everything on the other side of the fence first and ask questions later. Fortunately or unfortunately depending upon your point of view, that hasn't happened yet.

Today if the bad guys fly at all they tend to do so in small numbers when compared with the good guys. Throw in the fact that the good guys are likely from a variety of Allied nations, some of which may operate Eastern Block aeroplanes identical to those employed by the bad guys, and the risk of blue on blue is obvious.

Given the political cost of blue on blue there is likely to be very strong pressure to enforce tight ROE which may force a positive vis ident. At which point any BVR advantage the good guys have becomes strictly academic. The experience of the F-4 in Vietnam is a classic example of the potential for ROE to effectively remove BVR from the equation...

The fact is that fighter aeroplanes are invariably designed to win the last war despite the invariable vigorous protestations to the contrary from design offices around the world. Of course that's not the war they end up fighting. Indeed, the next war may end up being very different from the last one, in which case all bets are off. Circumstances and differences in pilot skill can easily swing the balance; Spitfires shot down Me262s during WWII. Sea Furies shot down MiG-15s during Korea and Skyraiders shot down all sorts of MiGs during Vietnam. Throw political ROE into the melting pot and it's really quite alarmingly easy to envisage situations in which hugely expensive high performance fighter aeroplanes are brought down by very cheap and cheerful opposition. Of course it's not fair; the F-22 pilot would have to be fighting with his hands behind his back, hugely outnumbered, having a really bad day or perhaps all three at once, but Warfare isn't fair!

All that the score from any of these exercises can tell you is what would happen if the next war happens to be like the last exercise. Given that we can't yet predict the weather with any great confidence even a week ahead of time, I'd suggest that if the next war does happen to end up being like the last exercise it's probably more through luck than judgement...

ploughman
08-09-2007, 02:36 PM
To add something to your post Viper. The engagements, (from Sharkey's book) were guns and Sidewinder simulations. Bearing in mind the F-15 is all energy compared to the SHar is was an almost prescient series of engagements considering the SHar's air superiority opponents in the South Atlantic, Mirage IIIs and Daggers.

Curiously enough, Admrial Woodward, who was to command the task force had very recently done a wargame with an American CBG that messed around with exclusion zones and rules of engagement.

csThor
08-09-2007, 10:09 PM
Sorry, Aimail, but you're coming across as wearing blinders on one side only. You're rightfully accusing the EF makers of publishing a load of nonsense but you omit accusing the F-22 makers of the same (and to be frank - the US companies invented and prefected such PR nonsense). The Bundeswehr lists the unit cost for a EF2000 at 80 million Euros (about 110 million $) - and that price is listed on several other websites as well. What I doubt is the unit price for the F-22 - or why would the US DOD (an institution that does not seem to know financial boundaries at all) decrease demand for that aircraft for monetary reasons?

Was the development of the EF a lot less straightforward than it could have been? Oh yes. But per se multi-national european projects are successful - look at the Tornado or the Eurocopter product line (the EC-135 can't be produced fast enough to meet demand ATM for example). Secondly no nation - apart from the US and France - will shoulder development costs for such an ambitious project alone anymore.

OD_
08-10-2007, 06:15 AM
Letting BAe systems completely build anything is never a good idea. It never builds anything that works for at least the first twenty years of its service life, SA-80, New Destroyers, anything...it's rips off the British government on the understanding that it keeps a British arms industry going and keeps people in jobs. They are a joke in most circumstances.

Tyhphoon could be a useful aircraft, if like people were predicting in another thread, the Cold War is about to restart...which I still doubt. There os no way the Eurofighter will cost as much to buy as an F-22, we don't have that kind of money available.

OD.

Bremspropeller
08-10-2007, 02:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">To add something to your post Viper. The engagements, (from Sharkey's book) were guns and Sidewinder simulations. Bearing in mind the F-15 is all energy compared to the SHar is was an almost prescient series of engagements considering the SHar's air superiority opponents in the South Atlantic, Mirage IIIs and Daggers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Well, don't forget the Mirages and Daggers were low on fuel and did not feature all-aspect missiles.
That was a serious drawback.

ploughman
08-10-2007, 04:37 PM
Sure, with respect to the very courageous and skilled pilots of the Argentine Naval and Air Forces, the junta would have not discommoded an awful lot of people if they'd thought of that before they decided to have a war.

Viper2005_
08-10-2007, 05:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Well, don't forget the Mirages and Daggers were low on fuel </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well yes, but that is at least partly because the powers that be failed to purchase sufficient drop tanks to last for the duration in the event that the pilots actually dropped said tanks when encountering fighter opposition...

BoCfuss
08-10-2007, 11:15 PM
I've heard a zillion reports of the raptor taking on F-15s and 16s in groves, and coming out on top. Propoganda? I doubt it, but it could be. How has the Typhoon done in similar exercises?

Bremspropeller
08-11-2007, 04:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ploughman:
Sure, with respect to the very courageous and skilled pilots of the Argentine Naval and Air Forces, the junta would have not discommoded an awful lot of people if they'd thought of that before they decided to have a war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess that's called "learning the hard way" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif