DescentBB

... picturesque Lake District:

Two American F15 fighters encountered a British Euro Fighter on a test flight, lined up behind it and tagged it with their radar to show the Brit they could have shot him down ... well, the British pilot outmaneuvered them both and finally got at the F15's tails ...

Guys, you need the F22. Direly. Expensive as it is.

Hey my sister lives in the Lake district...beutiful place. Nothing else to add.

heh F-15 is a 30 year old design, it doesnt surprise me that a new design is able to out manouver it. it should. still its 105 - 0 in favor of the Eagle in combat

As true as your statement may be Diedel, you are forgetting that if it was a real shootemup, your Euro Fighter would have been a bucket of chaff before he would have had the chance to out outmaneuvere the two F-15's.

But having said that, yeah, we need the F-22. The F-15 is still massively capable, but it is outdated against the new generation of fighters. It still makes one hell of a ground attack fighter though.

Dedman,

do you believe in a real fight the Eurofighter pilot would have allowed the F15's to ever get at its tail? Man, it was a test flight, the F15's happened to come by (maybe on a mission to watch), and pulled a joke on the Eurofighter, who let them at first.

The same article states however that the F22 seems to be superior to the Eurofighter, so don't worry: Europe will not be able to conquer the U.S. - at least not in the near future.

CUDA wrote:heh F-15 is a 30 year old design, it doesnt surprise me that a new design is able to out manouver it. it should. still its 105 - 0 in favor of the Eagle in combat

Maybe - but that is only because F15 pilots hardly ever - if at all - had an equivalent opponent (like a same generation soviet aircraft and pilot).

I'm holding back from stating the obvious.

As a by the way, what is a british pilot being called a eurofighter for? I've googled it but find no references. Was it an RAF pilot?

Diedel wrote:Dedman,

Maybe - but that is only because F15 pilots hardly ever - if at all - had an equivalent opponent (like a same generation soviet aircraft and pilot).

uhm maybe you should read up a little bit on the Isreali AF and see if you still think that

The airplane (model) is called "Eurofighter".

Oh i see.

Diedel wrote:Dedman,
do you believe in a real fight the Eurofighter pilot would have allowed the F15's to ever get at its tail?.

Manueverability is just one of the things that make a good fighter. Few if any air-to-air battle are actually "dogfights" anymore. There are many factors that determine the outcome of such a fight such as avionics, team taqctics, aerial radar support, weapon ability, pilot training, etc.

If an F-15 and a Eurofighter went head to head with all else being equal, the Eurofighter would probably win. However, few things in a real fight are equal; so who's to say who would win.

When is Europe expected to unveil their UCAVs again? 2009?

When's gravitational bubble waves around your ship gonna help you cleave through water, air, and space/time?

from what ive heard, read and seen in person..

the F-15C Eagle is and supposedly will continue to be the "World's Best" fighter ever produced.

Speaking of F-15's has anyone been to a IMAX Lately?


Red Flag is a pretty nice program. the sound is unbeatable!!

LOL. F-15 Pilots REALLY do not want you to get a view from above or below their plane! I have a 1:40 model of the F-15E Strike Eagle, and to say that the thing is a "large target" is something of an understatement - IT'S FRIKING HUGE!

No wonder a Eurofighter can "shoot it down". Hehe.

Here's my question: how are the eurofighter and the U.S.'s new JSF supposed to match up? (The one made by Lockheed Martin- I'm not sure what the numeric designation is.)

That's great Mobius... ever since when do missles hit planes from the top or bottom?

Yeah, the F-15's called the 'Flying Tennis Court' for a reason


Oh, and it's the Eurofighter Typhoon

Dedman, you will hardly be able to fire a homing missile at a target behind you ...

In a series of test f(l)ights the F15, Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon and F22 were compared with an SU 35.

Result: If SU 35 is a one: F15: 0.7, Rafale: 1.0, Typhoon 4.5, F22: 10.0 (i.e. for one F22 shot down by a SU 35, 10 SU 35 were shot down).

I believe there is a way to compare figher planes.

You all haven't got the point however, and that is that the American pilots, who obviously were pretty fond of their material and skills, found themselves surprisingly and badly outmaneuvered. Ofc, things would have looked different if a F22 hat been involved (which btw. looks pretty freakin huge, too).

Lothar,

you haven proven often enough that you don't even have the slightest sense of humor.

I suspected correctly, Diedel is once again bashing Americans for the sake of bashing Americans. I mean just do a search on all of his posts and read for yourself what they contain, what else does he actually talk about? He just needed a decent topic to compare how much Europeans are soooooo much better than Americans.

Give it up, its getting old.

the f-15 is old, and even tho its touted as a Air superoity fighter, it doesn't quite the general perception.

F-18's are more than capable of dealing with them, and I wager an f-16 could take them on a dogfight - F-15s are faster F-4's with a gun from the start - missile boats.

Air superioty meaning Beyond Visual Range missile platforms.

Course they'd suck in a dogfight.

Snoopy: planes are a bigger target from the top or bottom - unless you are BVR.

Is this thread about sharks now?

Top Wop wrote:He just needed a decent topic to compare how much Europeans are soooooo much........

The pilot was British not European...tsk!! how could you.

Lothar wrote:Is this thread about sharks now?

I though it was about monday morning quarterbacks

A JSF or Joint Strike Fighter is an F-35. It is a multipurpose aircraft, but largely STRIKE. I don't think it would stand up to a pure dogfighter, but it is probably pretty capable in that roll.

F-35, should be changed to an F/A designation. but then again there are several mis-matched designations in our military.


F-111 "Raven" <-- was pretty much a bomber with fighter like maneuverability and some ATA Capbilities

F-117 "Nighthawk" <-- same thing as F-111, just has stealth and does not engage airborne targets.

F-14 "Tomcat" <-- was designed from the start as a complete Air Superiority platform, but was given attack/bombing capabilites.

i could list dozens more, but ill leave it at this point here.

Wasn't the F-117 given the "F" designation rather than a "B" so that the top-notch fighter pilots who tested it wouldn't take offense?

AceCombat wrote:F-117 "Nighthawk" <-- same thing as F-111, just has stealth and does not engage airborne targets.

It doesn't Normally, but I do remember reading somewhere that is has been considered as an escort fighter for some stealth bomber of somekind.

It's too long ago for me to remember specifics, but I do know that it can work very well with a pair of Sidewinders in the bays. Why bother with Radar when everything on board is Infrared?

IIRC, the F-117 has no air-to-air capability. Here is about the best explanation you'll find regarding why it's designated F-117.

didnt i just say that it DOES NOT engage Air-To-Air targets? i think i did.............oh wait... yup here it is:

AceCombat wrote:F-117 "Nighthawk" <-- same thing as F-111, just has stealth and does not engage airborne targets.

and i know why they gave it the F instead of a A or B designation

Personally, I'm waiting for American UCAVs to enter mainstream use. They don't have to be built around pilots, and they don't have to have limits on the turning ability to suit a pilot's G-force limits. Of course, it'll never be able to match a human in a dogfight, but hey, you can produce as many programmed machines as you like, whereas eventually one will run out of trained pilots. I've already seen some prototype descriptions that are making these UCAVs out to be able to carry out some pretty incredible missions that human pilots would either have no wish (due to basically being a suicide mission) to attempt or simply couldn't attempt (due to the longevity of a mission--a single pilot can't take a fighter jet on a 14-hour cruise).

I KNOW you said it does not engage with airborne targets. I was just saying the potential is there.

I think the magazine where I got that from was Popular Mechanics, I think...

^x2@Stryker. The age of fighterbots and remotely-controlled strike and fighter aircraft will soon be upon us. I would also expect to seem them expand their roles beyond the traditional roles for warcraft. Imagine also possessing the ability to put themselves into geosynchronous orbit above a battle space for realtime intel or even land and form an automated parimeter defense. There will always be a need for manned aircraft in niche roles but I would expect the bulk to be unmanned.