Eurofighter v F15

[rob justice]

From todays papers over here.
Despite the fact its over £3 Billion over budjet and approx 10 years late, this must be the first positive I've ever read on the Eurofighter:-

Eurofighter a shooting star in clash with US jets

MURDO MACLEOD
POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT


IT might be over budget and years late but the Eurofighter Typhoon has shown that it can shake off America's best fighter plane and shoot it down.

A chance encounter over the Lake District between a Eurofighter trainer and two F-15 aircraft turned into a mock dogfight, with the British plane coming off best - much to the surprise of some in the RAF. The episode was hushed up for fear of causing US blushes.

For a project 10 years late and $8bn over budget, it is a welcome piece of good news.

The 'clash' took place last year over Windermere when the two-seater RAF Eurofighter was 'bounced' from behind by the two F-15E fighters.

The US pilots intended to pursue the supposedly hapless 'Limey' for several miles and lock their radars on to it for long enough so that if it had been a real dogfight the British jet would have been shot down.

But much to the Americans' surprise, the Eurofighter shook them off, outmanoeuvred them and moved into shooting positions on their tails.

The British pilots themselves were almost as surprised at winning an encounter with an aircraft widely regarded as the best fighter in the world.

[red-beard]

OK, so put up a brand new fighter vs. a 1970's era fighter.....

I'd like to see it up against the Raptor or the JSF and see how it does.

[rob justice]

Eurofighter is so far behind schedule - I'd surprised if work on it didn't begin in the 70's - over here the only time the Eurofighter has made the news is to mention another overspend or major problem - its almost become a joke figure.

[Neilk]

I don't care which plane is better, but like cars, I am sure piloting had a lot to do with the Eurofighter's success.

[island911]

dogfight!?

Just wait for the mock square-rigger battles. . .. that'll separate the men fom the boys.

[Eagle Keeper]

Ok let me point out 1 little thing thats wrong with this story! 1. the F15E is a BOMBER not a fighter. 2. the F15 is not a dog fighter thats the F16. 3. I'm sure that the F15 radar saw the euro fighter before the euro saw ours. Plus the F-15 was designed in the 1960's not the 1990's!!

[vash]

doesnt INDIA crank out the best pilots? i saw a story on tv where there is a world pilot tourney or something, and i think india cleaned house in dogfights.

[widebody911]

Originally posted by Eagle Keeper
Ok let me point out 1 little thing thats wrong with this story! 1. the F15E is a BOMBER not a fighter.

http://www.combataircraft.com/aircraft/ff15.asp

Type: air-superiority fighter with secondary strike/attack role

http://www.military.cz/usa/air/in_service/aircraft/f15e/f15e_en.htm

The F-15E Strike Eagle is a dual-role fighter designed to perform air-to-air and air-to-ground missions.

[RANDY P]

Originally posted by vash
doesnt INDIA crank out the best pilots? i saw a story on tv where there is a world pilot tourney or something, and i think india cleaned house in dogfights.

India? I would think it would be Israel....

Surprising if true though...

rjp

[Eagle Keeper]

Ok widebody you have me. But in the 15 years that I've worked on F-15A's, B's, C's, D's and E's. All the stick actuators (pilots) have said that the E is a BOMBER and not a fighter! Yes it can carry air to air weapons but its PRIMARY role is a BOMBER.

[skipdup]

The brits are just darn lucky Maverick (and his polaroid) wasn't at the stick!

[jyl]

Dog fighting is a diminishing part of modern air warfare. Look at the last few wars. Air superiority has been won by striking the enemy's radars, command centers, airbases, etc.

The F15's recent combat record suggests the US military doesn't rely much on dogfighting. In Desert Storm the F15 scored 30 kills with 0 losses against Iraqi MIGs, most (appx 20) were beyond visual range using AIM-7 Sparrow radar-guided missiles, 9 were using AIM-9 Sidewinder heat-guided missiles, the F15's cannon was never actually fired in combat. These kills were by F15Cs which are the air superiority fighter version of the F15; the F15E was just entering service.

The dogfighting ability of the F15 versus other, newer fighters seems to get discussed a lot on military and aviation forums and blogs. The impression I get from reading those is that if F15s are restricted to only dogfighting, then other modern fighters could well win. For example, 2004 air combat exercises between the USAF and the Indian Air Force (IAF), in which the IAF won most of the time. The rules of those exercises appear to have been set up to disadvantage the USAF, maybe for political reasons (e.g. support the F22 program?). For example, USAF aircraft were prohibited from firing beyond 20 miles range. See this blog:
http://dawnsearlylight.blogs.com/del/2005/03/_would_you_be_s.html

But how realistic is that?

[Emission]

Originally posted by red-beard
OK, so put up a brand new fighter vs. a 1970's era fighter.....

I'd like to see it up against the Raptor or the JSF and see how it does.

My first thought too...

Hope to see a Raptor at an air show this year - it's been frickin forever in development!

[Eagle Keeper]

I see the Raptors every day! They are way cool!!!!!

[mikester]

Dad works for Lockheed and makes parts for their aircraft...raptor included.

The F15 is a very good fighter as is the Euro Fighter; Really I think it was likely just a very good pilot in the Eurofighter. Hate to say it but it is certainly possible and very likely that if this guy was able to shake two F15s (regardless of the model) then he was simply a better pilot or lucky. Both of which are traits very much needed to be a successful fighter pilot.

Match for match an F18 or f16 would have been a better match up against the euro fighter - Pilots being equal.

The forward canard and delta wing create lots of lift, the ability for extremely high angles of attack while retaining excellent control. That thing will be able to out turn anything except maybe the f18. There is a fellow at the field that I fly at that has a model of this airplane and another with the f15. These are very large models with actual turbines and the flight performance of them is extremely different. The Euro is able to fly and maneuver at speeds that extremely slow while the F15 is a speed demon that takes the entire sky to turn or do a loop. The Euro is also very fast but it could out turn an f15 every day of the week and twice on sunday.

[jyl]

mikster, do you fly RC? Wanna post some pics of yor plans and the F15/Eurofighter if you ever get a chance. I think RC planes are extremely cool ad wish I had the time to take up that hobby.

[jyl]

My dad worked on the F14 and I got interested in the technology, then did a bunch of reading in Jane's and similar sources. This was years and years ago. I came away realizing that if we have the airborne radars to locate enemy aircraft far away, and if we have enough IFF to identify them as enemy rather than friendly/neutral, then we can destroy them at long range rather than risk our pilots and aircraft in close fighting.

Check out the specs of the AIM-54 sometime. Range over 100 miles! Our other air-to-air missiles have ranges under 20 miles (assuming the available specs are true). I didn't quite understand why the military phased out the AIM-54.

[mikester]

I do fly RC but I don't fly jets - mainly aerobatics. But I have been facinated by flight my entire life. Dad was in the air force for twenty; had plans to go in myself but health proved a barrier that irritates me to this day.

The F14 as I recall was designed specifically with what the AIM54 does - long range kill them before they even know that we know that they know we know they are there.



The Delta wing idea that the Euro is centered around really has its advantages - the high lift that it provides allows it to carry more than the average fighter in load and fuel; the canards in the front provide even more lift at lower speeds as well as very precise control authority at those low speeds. It's the difference between turbo tie rods and not having a steering wheel. Extremely effective. Conventional Aircraft use "Tail surfaces" to change the direction of the aircraft - well this works but moving the tail is not as effective, efficient or as easy as moving the nose. The wright brothers flew a canard themselves. Moving the nose makes things happen much quicker and with more authority than the tail.

Just my two cents...attached are a couple of pictures of my planes.

[MFAFF]

This is an interesting one..read a little bit about it on another board...and the reality is the following:-

F-15 (a thro D0 were designed primarily as air superioroty figthers combining the hi tech radar and missile systems with an old fashioned canon for the close in stuff..it was built powerful and fast as a result of the Vietnam experience, with a canon , good pilot visibility and very good manoevring also as a result of Vietnam, when the F-4s, F-105s etc had a tough time agianst the smaler MiGs.
The F-15E was designed as an evolution of the basic D airframe as a fighter bomber...exploiting the engine power and size of the airframe to carry a much heavier warload at the expense of some 'fighter' performance.

The Eurofighter is a generation and a half younger in design and concept terms, being even later than both the F-16 and F-18. It was designed as a 'non stable airframe' meaning it cannot fly without the constant and complete control of the flying surfaces by a series on computers...inherently it has much greater turning capability than either the F-15 (in all versions) or the F-16/F-18 which are older....

So in an 'equal' fight with equally skilled pilots the Tyhoon would be able to out manoeuvre them... the F-22 would be much more comparable in those terms, but NOT the F-35 which would struggle, but then it like asking a pick up to race a 911.

In terms of the armament the Tyhoon does have a been (in theory) radar than the F-15 series in terms of long range detection, lock on etc..but its few genereations younger so it damn well should have...again the F-22 is probably more capable...

The F-14/Phoenix combo was phased out because Grumman refused to 'bend-over and take it' back in the 90s. The Tomcat was a 'better' airframe than the Eagle...in terms of providing a long range interceptor and fighter, burdened by poor engines for too long. The USAF however had waht they wanted and needed in the F-15...and rightly developed the aircraft well.
The Navy however got involved in the F-18 programme which diverted huge amounts of money form all other Navy aircraft programmes, including the A-6 and F-14 developement.

Grumman kept going back to the Navy proposing new upgraded versions of the 14 (the original F-14B and the Super Tomcat, the Tomcat 21 and the 'Bombcat' are but a few) however there was never sufficent money and political power to developthese, plenty for the F-18E....a less capable but lower maintenanace airframe...on such things are decisions made.

Back to the Eurofighter/F-15E dogfight; the Eurofighter was piloted by either a company test pilot or one of the instructors from the RAF, both likely to be more skilled with the Eurofighter than the squadron pilots in the F-15E, merely because they are older and more experienced overall....

Overall its not surprising the Eurofighter 'won'... a bit like asking a stock 73 RSR to race against a stock Supercup 997.....if the newer one didn't win you would wonder.

[livi]

How would a Swedish JAS Gripen compare ?