Jump to content

Typhoon "kills" F-16


Recommended Posts

As someone else noted, if the best you can do to prove a point is to regurgitate the manufacturer's PR, you really need to call it quits. Do you really think Selex would state anything else? Really? They could just be re-selling ancient radars pulled from Her Majesty's retired Phantoms and they are still going to tell the world that their product is absolutely the best out there.

So if we cant trust what the manufacturer said, who can we trust then ? :rolleyes:

I have to ask (again) if this radar is really so awesome, then why are the Brits pushing so hard to field an AESA unit?

AFAIK, it is to enhance the Typhoon capabilities even further and to boost the chances of the aircraft on the export market. Some customers may have a requirement for an AESA radar even though there is nothing obsolete about the current Captor. Thats why the other Typhoons operators didnt jump on the bandwagon (yet).

Also again, you seems you have to get a snarky dig in about Americans. I'm not even sure how one could be sure what the nationality of that poster was. He could be a Yuropeen who's come to the conclusion that the F-22 is simply the best fighter in the world and the F-15 is second best. I do agree that he was a bit off-base in his comments but I don't think it's necessary to slag a particular nationality.

Believe me, i have nothing against Americans in general. In fact, i am a rather pro-American guy. But i dont like the attitude of some Americans on aviation forums who have that tendency to underestimate and look down on non-American aircraft and are like "America f*ck yeah ! The Typhoon is just Euro garbage haha !". <_< Its annoying and quite frankly, immature.

Indeed, i didnt know ChesshireCat's nationality. I just assumed he was American. :P

BTW, what exactly is a "butthurt American"? It sounds like someone who needs to get checked by a doctor.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ButtHurt

;)

Edited by ST21
Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends on who you ask. A lot of Mid east countries have made claims on Israeli F-16s and Iranian Tomcats. both those nations are pretty secretive so who knows? I think what makes the Eagles tally so impressive to people is just how lopsided it is. One could also claim that the F-15 being an Air superiority fighter, "shoots em down so you don't have to" F-14s were largely sidelined in the 1991 war. and the skies heavily cleared by F-15s in most conflicts since. So the bad guys arent getting a lot of cracks at the A-10s, F-16s, and Hornets etc.

Certainly the Syrians have claimed several Israeli F-16's in air-to-air combat, but (like the alleged F-15 shootdown) it's unlikely that we'll know the full truth for many years, if ever. As for the F-14, Iraq claimed in excess of seventy(!) F-14 kills over Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. Post-war research, however, can only confirm one IRIAF F-14 that was definately shot down in air-to-air combat - on 11 August 1984 a 63rd FS MiG-23ML shot down an F-14A of the 81 TFW near Khark Island with an R-60MK (Crew: All-e-Agha KIA, Rostampour OK).

Vince

Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly the Syrians have claimed several Israeli F-16's in air-to-air combat, but (like the alleged F-15 shootdown) it's unlikely that we'll know the full truth for many years, if ever. As for the F-14, Iraq claimed in excess of seventy(!) F-14 kills over Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. Post-war research, however, can only confirm one IRIAF F-14 that was definately shot down in air-to-air combat - on 11 August 1984 a 63rd FS MiG-23ML shot down an F-14A of the 81 TFW near Khark Island with an R-60MK (Crew: All-e-Agha KIA, Rostampour OK).

Vince

Well, 100 Tomcats were delivered to Iran. A few years ago Janes was pretty sure 70 still flew.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, 100 Tomcats were delivered to Iran. A few years ago Janes was pretty sure 70 still flew.

Not sure how long ago a "few years ago" was, but the last good estimate I heard was between 25-40 with the rest having been cannibalized over the years or lost to accidents and other attrition.

I'm pretty sure they do not have 70 still flying now. Tom Cooper over on ACIG has done some good research on Iranian Tomcats, I'm trying to see if I can find an article he wrote about the subject.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Somehow, i doubt that you would contest the claim if the F-15s had been on the winning side... :whistle:

I don't care who "won". I'm an F-35 fanboy anyone will tell you that. I also don't care much about the typhoon. As for American fanboyism, isn't annoying when someone ASSUMES something about someone like the above based on nationality? I'm American so I must slobber on the F-15. Its ok when you stereotype. :thumbsup: Frankly I don't care if the situation was reversed. Because as John said I would instantly wonder the circumstances of what made such a lopsided victory. Especially when its based on the word of PILOT. (Those guys are always so humble and honest, I would go on but I have to reel in this 9 foot bass I just hooked) In short I don't believe any of it. so whether its 9-1 or 1-9 I really don't care. Whats sad is someone who has to put so much stock into it. :whistle: Having to hinge national pride on an unprovable practice exercise is kinda pathetic really.

They know the capabilities of the Captor more than anyone else. They made the damn thing after all. Just because you didnt like what you read doesnt mean they are lying.

Here is what I read:

Though electronically scanned radars offer faster scan rates, with search and track times up to one third quicker than those of mechanically scanned radars, the Captor-M enjoys significant advantages in range and azimuth coverage, and especially in range at the edges of the scan, where energy losses inherent in phase shifting can dramatically reduce the range performance of an AESA radar.

So its actually better than an AESA Radar!!... in some areas In other areas the AESA is superior. Its a compromise like so many other things.

All I said is you need more sources, that are less BIASED. Typically the person selling something is BIASED. So As for them making it again, you need to take that with a grain of salt. They are going to overpromote its virtues and bury or hide its problems in order to sell more. You need to do more research with outside groups or government oversight programs to get a "whole picture" If you don't agree with me on that, its OK. I have some magic beans to sell you though, don't worry I made them myself. Who knows Magic beans better than me?

Edited by TaiidanTomcat
Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends on who you ask. A lot of Mid east countries have made claims on Israeli F-16s and Iranian Tomcats. both those nations are pretty secretive so who knows? I think what makes the Eagles tally so impressive to people is just how lopsided it is. One could also claim that the F-15 being an Air superiority fighter, "shoots em down so you don't have to" F-14s were largely sidelined in the 1991 war. and the skies heavily cleared by F-15s in most conflicts since. So the bad guys arent getting a lot of cracks at the A-10s, F-16s, and Hornets etc.

Conversely, the Israelis have lost more than a few aircraft to Arab fighters over the years but then have classified the loss as due to AAA / SAM's. I don't think anyone will ever no for sure what the final tally was for either side.

TT has made an important point - one reason for the F-15's impressive kill ratio is that (at least in American service), it has been used as THE primary air superiority fighter. During the Gulf War, the much vaunted F-14 was sent to the sidelines because only the F-15 had the means to make a positive ID on a BVR target (google NCTRS if you want to read up on one of the tricks that make the F-15 somewhat unique). Therefore, the vast majority of A2A kill opportunities were by Eagles.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The primary reason that the F-15 has such an impressive combat record is that it was designed from the outset to shoot down Soviet bombers from a distance, with minimal risk to the aircraft itself. It's really only doing what it was designed to do, and things such as supporting AWACS systems only make it's advantages all the more accessible. To be honest, I'd be surprised if the F-15 didn't have such an overwhelming record.

Vince

Link to post
Share on other sites

The primary reason that the F-15 has such an impressive combat record is that it was designed from the outset to shoot down Soviet bombers from a distance, with minimal risk to the aircraft itself. It's really only doing what it was designed to do, and things such as supporting AWACS systems only make it's advantages all the more accessible. To be honest, I'd be surprised if the F-15 didn't have such an overwhelming record.

Vince

Nuh-uh, nope. The F-15 was designed as an air superiority fighter - to engage both BVR as well as BFM - from the outset; to shoot down anything and everything and control the skies over any battlefield. As it happens, it made for a pretty good interceptor with ADC given it's radar and AAM complement.

It was the F-14 that was designed from the outset to shoot down Soviet bombers from a distance before they could threaten the carrier battle group.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nuh-uh, nope. The F-15 was designed as an air superiority fighter - to engage both BVR as well as BFM - from the outset; to shoot down anything and everything and control the skies over any battlefield. As it happens, it made for a pretty good interceptor with ADC given it's radar and AAM complement.

It was the F-14 that was designed from the outset to shoot down Soviet bombers from a distance before they could threaten the carrier battle group.

I read once that the main goal of the F14 was to shoot down TU-22M's at a distance. Now the TU-22M ain't exact a slouch and one of their main goals was to attack carrier groups with long range cruise missiles. The F15 on the otherhand was designed from the get go to be an air superior fighter against anything in the ski. Much like the SU-27 and MIG-29's (both good pieces of equipment in their own ways). Everything on the F15 was overbuilt for that task. The airframe has constantly been upgraded during it's whole lifespan (as well as the F16). I'd also expect the samething from our Russian friends as well.

gary

Link to post
Share on other sites

I read once that the main goal of the F14 was to shoot down TU-22M's at a distance. Now the TU-22M ain't exact a slouch and one of their main goals was to attack carrier groups with long range cruise missiles. The F15 on the otherhand was designed from the get go to be an air superior fighter against anything in the ski. Much like the SU-27 and MIG-29's (both good pieces of equipment in their own ways). Everything on the F15 was overbuilt for that task. The airframe has constantly been upgraded during it's whole lifespan (as well as the F16). I'd also expect the samething from our Russian friends as well.

gary

Yup. The Su-27 was designed in direct response to counter the F-15.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup. The Su-27 was designed in direct response to counter the F-15.

Which was in turn designed to counter the MiG-25 which was pretty much thought to be the Russian's uber fighter back in the day (or at least that is how the USAF portrayed the MiG in order to secure funding for the Eagle in congress).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Which was in turn designed to counter the MiG-25 which was pretty much thought to be the Russian's uber fighter back in the day (or at least that is how the USAF portrayed the MiG in order to secure funding for the Eagle in congress).

And the Foxbat itself was designed to counter the XB-70 Valkyrie... :D The Soviets really freaked out when they learned the existence of the Valkyrie.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I always found it interesting how the MiG-25 and F-15 were basically built to counter serial adversaries that didn't exist. The XB-70 never went into production, so the Foxbat didn't have the adversary it was built to counter, and the Foxbat wasn't the aircraft the West thought it was, so the F-15 didn't have the adversary it was built to counter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

I'd guess in the history of training ops and excercises that there have been an awful lot of "x beat y so x is better" stories. Most of which prove nothing bar the fact that on THAT occassion, in THAT scenario, with THOSE pilots, one combination proved superior.

Assuming I could fly an F-15, if I got into a visual "dogfight" with an experienced combat pilot flying pretty much anything, I would be toast very rapidly, but again I would assume I would learn something by being "killed"?

Thats the point of training.

I thought.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I always found it interesting how the MiG-25 and F-15 were basically built to counter serial adversaries that didn't exist. The XB-70 never went into production, so the Foxbat didn't have the adversary it was built to counter, and the Foxbat wasn't the aircraft the West thought it was, so the F-15 didn't have the adversary it was built to counter.

Not sure about that one. The 25 was a high altitude fighter with tons of speed, pretty much the way we thought it was. It out ran a few missiles back in its Iraq days.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure about that one. The 25 was a high altitude fighter with tons of speed, pretty much the way we thought it was. It out ran a few missiles back in its Iraq days.

Correct but it was originally designed as an air defense counter to the B-70. When the F-15 was in development, it's proponents made out the MiG-25 to be the ultimate fighter in the air when in reality, it was a very un-manuverable aircraft with a limited radar / weapons system (especially in it's early versions). It's supporters used this imaginary "fighter gap" to get the political support in place for the F-15.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...