Eurofighter V f15e

scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com...

Apples and oranges again. The E model F-15 is effectively a bomber that shoots missiles. It is larger and heavier than the E model. I commend the pilots of the Eurofighter for doing a great job in "shooting them down", and I'm not trying to say the F-15 is the best fighter in the world, because I know it's been surpassed, but the 15 series wasn't designed for close in dogfighting. It was always designed for BVR work, and the E model was designed to be a "mud mover" that carried missiles to defend itself when necessary. The British pilots did a good job to take them though. Congrats to them. I just would like to see how it does against something that was designed for close in A2A, so we could compare apples to apples.

Bulldog that one's for Y! lol

RAB

This is great news for the eurofighter, very cool.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
the 15 series wasn't designed for close in dogfighting.

- Wow, talk about 'revisionism' at work?

Sorry but this is plain wrong.
The F15 series was all about dogfighting from the moment the design requirement went out.
It was precisely because this aspect of fighter design was found to be lacking in the F4 Phantom compared to the Mig 21 that USAF thinkers wanted it brought back and taken to a level where the F15 (and for that matter the F14 and later the F16 & F18 etc) would dominate all current and all likely opponents.

In the same way that, earlier, some had claimed guns had lost their point but later were found to be very useful and of high value so a similar story emerged regarding the dog-fighting fighter.

I suggest you look closely at the original FX requirements that brought about the F15 program if you don't know this.

It was more than anything, absolutely primarily and explicitly designed to be the most agile and capable dogfighter in the sky; right from the very start.

Look at that wing and body, those 2 powerful motors; all designed to provide enormous lift and power - with great agility coming from such a huge lighly loaded wing coupled with a thrust to weight ratio of over 1:1.

The fact that F15A onward (until the E varient) were all optimised 'fighters' should tell you all you need to know about the design intentions. (First F15A flight 1972, F15A entered service 1976)

It was always designed for BVR work

- Yes, that too. Of course.....how could it not have been designed for BVR work too?
But absolutely not in the manner that, say, the Tornado ADV (the fighter varient) was optimised for BVR work with no real regard, or requirement given the expected operating environment, for close in operations.

, and the E model was designed to be a "mud mover" that carried missiles to defend itself when necessary.

- The fact that the F15E was so late on in the scheme of things should be telling you something. (first flight 1986 entered service 1988)

The F15E was as much about the traditional old 'made in America' ethos as anything.
They could have bought Tornado (IDS attack varient) to replace their F111's but instead chose to have flight systems and software do their best to turn a lightly wing loaded dogfighter into an attack plane (and did a pretty good job of it too, bar the ultra fast ultra low level stuff where Tornado - or F111 for that matter - are still 'king') and I suppose they retained a degree of commonality with the earlier types.

I just would like to see how it does against something that was designed for close in A2A, so we could compare apples to apples.

- If a 2 seat training version of Typhoon (in other words not the single seater optimised fighter) 'mullered' a lightly loaded F15E I think we have a good idea that we were seeing something very close to like for like.

It's pretty obvious that - if this story is true - the Typhoon would be handing the F15 pilot's a$$es back in a sling (accepting reasonably equal piloting skills).

But let's get real, this is only how it should be given the advances in tech and design between the two types.


[edit on 20-6-2005 by sminkeypinkey]

Nice news... Good to hear somrthing positive about the EF... I just took a step forward in my post, by putting the EF in the same class as the F-22 and the X-35...

I'm happy for the Europeans. It took them 30 years, but they finally did it.

I just took a step forward in my post, by putting the EF in the same class as the F-22 and the X-35...

Ha ha ha ha ha ha, you really better re-evaluate that my friend.

Originally posted by NWguy83
I'm happy for the Europeans. It took them 30 years, but they finally did it.

HAHA... where to start.... you know what... forget it..lol..i'll be here all night..

Originally posted by clashrock

Originally posted by NWguy83
I'm happy for the Europeans. It took them 30 years, but they finally did it.

HAHA... where to start.... you know what... forget it..lol..i'll be here all night..

He is right.... I don't know what's so funny.

ooooh..my bad...i totally mis-read that.... sorry.. i take back what i said... though in the 60's the fiasco with the f104 starfighter... the raf had a plane i can't remember the name exactly... but it had used two different types of engines... 1 for taking off and one for dogfighting... anywayz.. comparing them two was a joke...the only reason the f104 was actually accepted as natos main intercepter was the bullying tactics of the us goverment...and the fact they bribed certain officials in the german air force... with disastrous consequences..a lot of pilots lost there lives..to sum it up... the usa hasn't always had the best air intercepter for 30 years... so in a way i don't agree....but if were talking about actual aircraft that have been in service..then i'd agree..

Actually Sminkypinky, it wasn't revisionist history, it was forgotten history. heh. I spent so long working on bigger planes, I forgot my Eagle history, and made the mistake of listening to someone else instead of going back and rereading my history. My father wouldn't let me do much work with fighters, due to the large volume of air the intakes suck in, so I did most of my work on the flightline on tankers, bombers, and transports.

My bad on that one, sierra hotel to the eurofighter pilots.

[edit on 28-6-2005 by Zaphod58]

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Actually Sminkypinky, it wasn't revisionist history, it was forgotten history. heh.

- That's why I put a '?' in there Zaphod58; I was hoping it wouldn't come across as an accusation.

I appreciate that actually. Most people would just jump all over me for forgetting something like that. Thanks for keeping it civil.

Ironicaly, No names? No Squadron ID's? Nadda? how convenient


So it takes seemingly forever, for two F15's to lock onto a plane thats right infront of them....

But amazingly, the Eurofighter can meneuver around get behind not one but two F15's and be locked on?

Im calling bs.


Im not saying the eurofighter didnt or couldnt win a dogfight with an F15, but this story is either fake, or it didnt happen the way its being told, because if it was, then the two F15's won at the beggining of the story...