Simviation Forum - Valid arguments against the Typhoon (go America!)

Reply #60 - Jul 21^st, 2005 at 3:31pm

Crumbso Offline
Colonel
The Sea Vixen - You aint'
never seen such a fox!!!
West Sussex, England

Gender:
Posts: 1794

Quote:

two psycho Yorkies

That's some dangerous chocolate.

I'll stick to dairy milke Grin

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #61 - Jul 21^st, 2005 at 3:40pm

ozzy72 Offline
Global Moderator
Pretty scary huh?
Madsville

Gender:
Posts: 37122

Believe me Pete if they were chocolate I'd have eaten them. Sometimes I'm tempted to pick one of the little buggers up and bite it to see how it likes it, but one look at the owner and I'm scared I might contract some horrible disfiguring skin disease Shocked

There are two types of aeroplane, Spitfires and everything else that wishes it was a Spitfire!

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #62 - Jul 21^st, 2005 at 3:53pm

Crumbso Offline
Colonel
The Sea Vixen - You aint'
never seen such a fox!!!
West Sussex, England

Gender:
Posts: 1794

Sounds uuhhh............. pleasant.

Neighbors, can't live with 'em, ~~can't~~ ............... actually it ends there I think Roll Eyes

Anyway back on topic, Beefhole you said that speculation is no valid way of judging a pissing contest. So what's the point in bringing the F-22 into the equation?

This whole argument is pointless to me anyway, the entire thing is based on speculation as the USAF and RAF have never gone head to head, infrastructure or no. The reason I like the Typhoon is it is loud, dirty and does neat aerobatics at airshows. I believe it is counterproductive to start saying mines bigger or better.

Btw I'm pretty sure the F-22 would kick the Typhoons arse but it does cost twice as much lol.

Pete

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #63 - Jul 21^st, 2005 at 3:57pm

Craig. Offline
Colonel
Birmingham

Gender:
Posts: 18590

Quote:

but it does cost twice as much lol.

try 4 times as much minimum

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #64 - Jul 21^st, 2005 at 4:56pm

hatter Offline
Colonel
hatter
Chicago, IL

Gender:
Posts: 162

ozzy72:

Oh it was impressive alright (though I was watching through CNN on some washed-out 1st gen NVD footage), but there wasn't too much air-to-air competition (not so in terms of the aircraft, even less so in terms of infrastructure).

The Iraqis had what back then? Mig-25s armed with what type of stuff?

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #65 - Jul 21^st, 2005 at 5:00pm

ozzy72 Offline
Global Moderator
Pretty scary huh?
Madsville

Gender:
Posts: 37122

They had a variety of stuff, most of it ran off to Iran to hide for the duration Grin

There are two types of aeroplane, Spitfires and everything else that wishes it was a Spitfire!

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #66 - Jul 21^st, 2005 at 5:00pm

beefhole Offline
Colonel
common' yigs!
Philadelphia

Gender:
Posts: 4466

Quote:

I would hardly consider the two Gulf Wars 'mass air wars,' though.

I would disagree Wink

Scales have changed since WW2, Korea and Vietnam. It requires less to do now what required a lot back then.
Quote:

Britain has lost far fewer planes per operation than the US in the last 15 years. In fact we've lost more planes to friendly fire than enemy action!

I don't mean to be disrespectful or anything, but could you clarify what this has to do with it (honestly, I'm not trying to be rude)? My only point here is WE'VE HAD MORE PRACTICE! That's it! Not we have more skill, not we have better planes (which we do Tongue

), just we've been doing it much more then the Brits have. Tis all. Just makes a statement about our foreign policy Roll Eyes

. And watch what you say about friendly fire, you may quash silverfoxes red flag example Wink

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #67 - Jul 21^st, 2005 at 5:11pm

Craig. Offline
Colonel
Birmingham

Gender:
Posts: 18590

You do know some examples of friendly fire given, Wernt red flag exercises Wink

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #68 - Jul 21^st, 2005 at 5:16pm

hatter Offline
Colonel
hatter
Chicago, IL

Gender:
Posts: 162

Well it depends, are we comparing aircraft solely in terms of performance or are we comparing Air Forces? There should be no doubt the United States Air Force is one of the best in the world, and definitely better than Iraq's 1991 Air Force (which was practically destroyed on the ground).

In my previous response, I was talking about lack of air-to-air combat (which is what I assumed when we are discussing air superiority fighters). Sure, there were many surgical strikes against ground targets, but how many actual air-to-air encounters occured? Probably a handful, all American victories no doubt.

If you want to compare strike abilities, it has as much to do with the aircraft as the bombs they dropped.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #69 - Jul 21^st, 2005 at 6:02pm

Hagar Offline
Colonel
My Spitfire Girl
Costa Geriatrica

Posts: 33159

Not wishing to gang up on you Beefy but I thought this was all about air-to-air combat. I'm not sure how much experience any air force has in this over the last 15 years. Using the 1991 Gulf War as an example, the first priority for coalition forces was destruction of the Iraqi air force and anti-aircraft facilities. Quote:

a massive air campaign codenamed Operation Desert Storm: more than 1,000 sorties per day beginning early morning on January 17, 1991. Weapons used included smart bombs, cluster bombs, daisy cutters and cruise missiles.

These were by no means all fighter aircraft. This would be a combined operation with all coalition aircraft under the control of a single commander. NATO forces practice this all the time in exercises & all use the same basic system or infrastucture as you put it. 38 Iraqi aircraft were destroyed by coalition forces & the rest of the Iraqi Air Force fled to Iran, leaving the Coalition air forces unchallenged. I don't know the type or how many of these aircraft were destroyed in aerial combat but the Iraqi Air Force was obviously inferior to the Coalition (in experience & numbers) & was quickly defeated. The biggest threat was the SAM missile sites & other types of anti-aircraft weapons. Once these had been neutralised the coalition had virtually total air superiority.

Founder & Sole Member - Grumpy's Over the Hill Club for Veteran Virtual Aviators
Member of the Fox Four Group

Need help? Try Grumpy's Lair

My photo gallery

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #70 - Jul 21^st, 2005 at 6:52pm

Wing Nut Offline
Colonel
Hoy-Hoy!

Gender:
Posts: 14173

Anyone who thinks air to air battles are passe' and the US has no serious competition, needs to take a look at China and the little beauties they have over there.

HP p7-1300w
AMD Athlon II X4 650 Quad-core 3.2 Ghz
23" HP Widescreen monitor/19" Dell monitor
Windows 7 Home Premium
16 Gb DDR3 PC10600 Ram
1 Gb GeForce GTX 550Ti video card
1 TB RAID Drives

If you want to see the most beautiful girl in the world, CLICK HERE!

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #71 - Jul 21^st, 2005 at 6:56pm

Craig. Offline
Colonel
Birmingham

Gender:
Posts: 18590

Quote:

Anyone who thinks air to air battles are passe' and the US has no serious competition, needs to take a look at China and the little beauties they have over there.

plus there was an article in the washington post about china and possible problems in the future. But i wont say more as it could get me in trouble.

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #72 - Jul 21^st, 2005 at 7:20pm

Hagar Offline
Colonel
My Spitfire Girl
Costa Geriatrica

Posts: 33159

The weapons might be different but I don't think the role of the fighter has changed that much . The primary job of the interceptor is defence, to prevent enemy bombers from reaching the target. Escort fighters are there to try & prevent this by shooting them down first. These days it all comes down to which one has the most sophisticated missile control system. I still think that the days of close air-to-air combat are gone. The MoD obviously thinks the same or the Typhoon would still have its gun.

Founder & Sole Member - Grumpy's Over the Hill Club for Veteran Virtual Aviators
Member of the Fox Four Group

Need help? Try Grumpy's Lair

My photo gallery

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #73 - Jul 21^st, 2005 at 9:55pm

beefhole Offline
Colonel
common' yigs!
Philadelphia

Gender:
Posts: 4466

Quote:

Not wishing to gang up on you Beefy but I thought this was all about air-to-air combat.

I stopped there Grin

If you reread my first post, you'll see this entire thread was about INFRASTRUCTURE and PRACTICE, not about air-to-air. That would explain a lot, hehe Wink

Quote:

Anyone who thinks air to air battles are passe' and the US has no serious competition, needs to take a look at China and the little beauties they have over there.

China's about the only country I'd be really, really afraid to tangle with. They're probably the number one threat AF-wise, not to mention the hundreds of millions of troops they have at their disposal Shocked

Back to top

IP Logged

Reply #74 - Jul 22^nd, 2005 at 10:51am

C Offline
Colonel
Earth

Posts: 13144

Quote:

Beefhole Britain has lost far fewer planes per operation than the US in the last 15 years. In fact we've lost more planes to friendly fire than enemy action!

In the last 15 years we've (the RAF) lost 1 (possilby) plane to enemy (insurgent) action and 1 to friendly fire...

On the friendly fire, from memory at least one of the A-10 incidents (GW1 or GW2) and the F-16 bombing of Canadian troops in Afghanistan were from the ANG...

Back to top

IP Logged

	Search the archive: