Posted on 01/29/2010 10:41:06 PM PST by ErnstStavroBlofeld
When there is more than $10 billion in weapons sales at stake, marketing can trump diplomacy during NATO air combat training.
NATO pilots routinely participate in war games with its members, during which flights of "red team" airplanes play the opposition and square off against NATO pilots in realistic encounters. Recently, a squadron of pilots of the Spanish air force flew Eurofighter Typhoons, a multirole airplane with good dogfighting abilities, in mock combat against U.S. Air Force F-15s in the skies around Gando Air Base, Gran Canaria.
The engagements, judging by a press release issued by Eurofighter, did not go well for the Americans. The Typhoons tore into a formation of eight F-15s playing the role of the attacker.
One Typhoon shot down—that is, by the rules of the game, was able to target and lock onto—four F-15 fighter jets. Another Typhoon disabled three F-15 jets during the exercise.
"Eurofighters involved in a dogfight simulation against the F-15s enjoyed full control of the engagement," the release says. "Trump that."
(Excerpt) Read more at popularmechanics.com ...
The oldest squadron of US F-15s would take out the newest squadron of Eurofighters...easy.
Well, we could use real world facts
The F-15 family has a combat record of 101 victories and zero losses, and the F-15E predecessor flew thousands of combat missions during Operation Desert Storm and in the Balkans.
The only 1v1 F 15 loss I know of was where 1 F-15 was shot down — by another F 15 — here in Alaska! (Training accident, windman downd his Wing King with a sidewinder....
Incorrect. For a host of reasons.
Propaganda for the Eurofighter.
The military plans to meet "the threat"
If the US builds the F-15 Eagle, the SovUn will build the Su-27 "Flanker" to specifically counter the F-15.
Then Anglo-Germany design the Eurofighter to be better than the Su-27.
Next someone will e saying it is 'non stealthy' and thus should lose to the Eagle, when the fact is the F15 has an rcs of 25m2 (greater than a B52) while the Tiffy has one of 0.5m2 (which while not stealth is quite discrete). The outcome was not at all surprising.
Using a plane’s past combat record as proof of its superiority now is completely retarded. The Supamarine Spitfire had a more ‘proven’ combat record compared to the F-15 when it first came out, but only an idiot would have seriously suggested that a Spitfire was the superior plane....
Fortunately we are not at war with Spain. This should be a wake up call to our forces to train and develop better ships.
We can’t rest on past victories.
All the training in the world with obsolesent equioment won’t help against well trained oponents with modern equipment. And besides there is no political will to build modern equipment in the US - we’re onto more important matters like turning NASA into a AGW study group.
The future US military will train in singing kumbahya...
I know the avionics of the F-15 has been upgraded but I am not sure as to what degree overall compared to the Eurofighter. However, I was questioning what would be the purpose of advertising an F-15 loss under simulated conditions if not to bolster sales of European weapons platforms? In the past we have run simulated fights with Soviet and European aircraft and have come consistently on top yet there were no press releases then. Although I am being a bit jingoistic here, under real world fighting conditions, our aircraft victories speak for themselves.
A lot of folks overlook the Red Hat (IIRC) out of Fallon they fly real Russiqan A/C against real US A/C in mock combat over Nevada.
New airplanes by themselves won’t win a battle
The totality of the team matters... as do past victories.
Yeah, training has a lot to do with it. The one thing that aggravates me is that there is always a need to upgrade our air assets but Obama is playing politics with the F-22 (for example). Air superiority is necessary in order to win future conflicts. We can’t skimp on that.
If we don’t train and improve our weapon systems maybe we should invest in some white flags like France.
Consequently, ever since the Eagles introduction, what types of enemy airforces and plane types has it flown against? A USAF F15 flying against some Iraqi MiG, with the USAF having bvr missiles, and more importantly better Situational awareness (eg Awacs) to the Iraqi, better pilot training, better support etc ...and the Eagle being a far superior airframe to the MiG ...the result is a given. Same with the Israeli airforce flying against Syria. As in, if you have the Lakers playing against Wichita High, what do you expect? For comparison purposes I like to use Indian Su30MKI Flankers flying against Pakistani F16s. The Indians have the Israeli Phalcon Awacs, the Russian super flankers, and bvr missiles ....the Pakistanis have F16s (and even though soon they'll be getting a swedish awacs, and the US will give them amraams ...which will inevitably go to China) ....if the two nations were to go to war today, the Flankers would absolutrly obliterate the F16s like some sick joke!
My point is the USAF will not always be fighting Grenada or Iraq or Afghanistan or Somalia. Some day you'll have to fight a near peer country, andthen you'll realize why planes like the Raptor are important. A plane like the F15 (or any other legacy fighter like the 16 or 18) wouldn't be able to penetrate an advanced IADS like that of the Chinese. The Flankers coming up, like the Su35, will have Aesa radars and supercruising engines. China is interested in buying them. Then there are the new 5th generation airframes being brought to market - the Russian/Indian PakFa that just flew, and the work in progress Chinese JXX. Now, neither of these will be close to the Raptor, butthey'll be better than the Eagle. Already advanced Flanker types like the 35 are better than the Eagle ...they just require competent pilots and strategy. It is foolish to always assume enemy pilots will be incompetent or unprepared.
The Eagle has an unbeaten record, but that's like saying Mohammed Ali was a great fighter. Yes he was ...and I could kick his @$$ today from here to Timbuktu! Legacy victories are legacy victories. In the here and now they quickly fade. The Typhoon is a better aircraft. Fortunately, the USAF has the best aircraft ....better than the Typhoon, than the Rafale, than the Su35, than the PakFa ...the F22 Raptor. The problem is that the Bush Administration, via Rumsfeld, felt it was not that necessary since we already had air superiority/supremacy with the Eagle, and drastically cut numbers. Then the Obama administration decided to cement the 187 max, and for a conference even replaces the Raptor that would have been Obama's background with a F15Eagle ...literally having the Raptor removed! It is myopia ...which WILL KILL Americans someday if you ever face a near peer adversary who takes out forwarding bases with intermediate range ballistic missiles (like the Chinese plan to in a Taiwan confrontation, all the way to Kadena ...the closest base will be Guam), plans on denyingyou situational awarenesa (like the Chinese do with their very long range anti Awacs missiles), deny refueling capability (eg trgeting refueling planes with extra longrange missiles), and degrading bvr capability (advanced jammers). It will not br Bosnia, Syria or Iraq.
But hey ...the Eagle is good enough ...
It’s unfortunate that politicians have no clue about avionics. I would hope that the generals and admirals have their troops in mind when making purchase recommendations. F-22 development needs to proceed and subsequent variants should be not far behind.
Is this really a rant against the unfair Euro boys beeing so politically incorrect to exploit training success of new war toys for sales purposes ?
I mean - who on earth could possibly even think of something as evil as that ?
That’s - UNFAIR. A practice noone EVER would expect from lockheed, boeing or US military staff.
Honestly - US military aircraft engineers should be proud the Eurofighter is touted to be better then their 70ies museum planes.
BTW I never understood the whole F-22 story - why spend billions on a plane to demonstrate, that even if there was a threat to air superiority as powerfull as the US the US could overcome that ?
For what ? It can’t be sold it wouldn’t make sense to be used against China or Russia because if it accidentally fell on their territory they could just reverse engineer the rubble and gain ages in developement time and the F-15 with good sensors and network capability would do the job just fine .. in the meantime UAVs cover the next base and the F-22 has changed - nothing - except the household.
Maybe it was good for chasing the russians into building strange planes like the T-50 - wich is said to be stealthy like a baseball sized metal ball flying through the air. Or with other words perfectly well targetable if not better to identify for readily developed sensors and stand off weapons of the west.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.