Euro fighter claims dominance over F-15 with the Typhon?

Maximus said:
http://www.eurofighter.com/po_bl.asp?id=169

Is this true? Eurofighter Typhoon dominance in a dogfight over multiple F-15s?
Click to expand...

Who knows?

My question would simply be:

a. What were the ROE for the engagements?

If the Eagles weren't allowed to use BVR shots, and to employ the aircraft AS IT SHOULD BE IN COMBAT, like they weren't when taking on the Indian AF in their Russian jets a few years ago (and where the same dominance was declared) then :screwy:

So who knows...but TALK is cheap.

Steve
USAFA ALO
USAFA '83
 
The UK did a study of low-speed dogfighting capabilities a few years ago. The Eurofighter scored significantly better than the F-15. (I'm not sure if that included the latest F-15 targeting systems and the AIM-9X...)
 
Why does it matter? Its not like we're competing with Europe nor are we hostile to each other...even though it would make me mad if this claim was true :unhappy:
 
Chockstock said:
Why does it matter? Its not like we're competing with Europe nor are we hostile to each other...even though it would make me mad if this claim was true :unhappy:
Click to expand...

It's called a "Blue-Grey" threat.

Never know who might buy the Typhoon that someday might not be really nice to us.

Theoretically the IIAF (Iran) has F-14's...that USAF pilots could have engaged in a "not so nice way" in the past. Of course, they've not had ANY spare parts, MX, etc., so "rumors" are that they have a fleet of display jets. As in: display on the ground, on sticks, etc.

Steve
USAFA ALO
USAFA '83
 
flieger83 said:
It's called a "Blue-Grey" threat.

Never know who might buy the Typhoon that someday might not be really nice to us.

Theoretically the IIAF (Iran) has F-14's...that USAF pilots could have engaged in a "not so nice way" in the past. Of course, they've not had ANY spare parts, MX, etc., so "rumors" are that they have a fleet of display jets. As in: display on the ground, on sticks, etc.

Steve
USAFA ALO
USAFA '83
Click to expand...

Oh. Never knew that. But it also doesn't make much sense either...why would US defense companies or companies based in US-allied nations sell such aircraft/weapons to nations that could even REMOTELY be a threat to us even if it can be profitable? And wtf is it with Iran...why the hell do they have American-made jets??:confused:

I know there's the free trade and government hands-off the economy blah blah but I really think that American and European companies should be regulated to be unable to sell such weaponry to foreign countries...isn't it a matter of national security?
 
Chockstock said:
Oh. Never knew that. But it also doesn't make much sense either...why would US defense companies or companies based in US-allied nations sell such aircraft/weapons to nations that could even REMOTELY be a threat to us even if it can be profitable? And wtf is it with Iran...why the hell do they have American-made jets??:confused:

I know there's the free trade and government hands-off the economy blah blah but I really think that American and European companies should be regulated to be unable to sell such weaponry to foreign countries...isn't it a matter of national security?
Click to expand...
Well, let's see....

Pakistan has F-16s...currently an ally, but what if they have a regime change to a "Pro Taliban" type government that doesn't much like us?

Venezuela has F-16's...they're not terribly friendly right now...

It's that simple for a nation to buy weapons from US or another "friendly" nation and then have a falling out.

Steve
USAFA ALO
USAFA '83
 
Anyone remember the Falklands, French built missles sinking British Ships.
 
Yeah, you don't know where planes will end up in 20 years.

We sold F-14s to Iran when the Shah was in power and friendly to us. Then, they had a revolution...

The British were attacked with French made Exocet missiles launched from French built Super Etendard aircraft. Fance still likes the UK, but Argentina didn't!
 
Dammit :unhappy::unhappy:

I dont know about you guys but it sounds like a real problem to me. Im aware, and strongly against, the US selling advanced weapons to foreign countries, no matter how friendly they are. And I read articles a few days back about the US considering just GIVING AWAY predator drones to Pakistan so they could "help" fight terrorists near their border. It made my blood boil and its boiling now to think of American-made weaponry in foreign countries that I didnt know of :unhappy:. I didnt know we exported so much war material.
 
Predators in Pakistan are probably a great asset in fighting the taliban in the mountainous terrain of the region. As you probably know a large portion of this war is in their country and any assistance we can provide is well worth it.
 
A good current example can be seen in the sale of US Missiles to Taiwan which sparked China to test their own missile defense systems and caused them to think a little less of us. Weapons sales can be a risky business but it is not as government regualted as one might think.
 
If you've been reading the news lately, you'll discover that Pakistan is not a strong or dependable ally. Anti-Americanism is severe there, their politics is infested with corruption, and there is countless evidence of Pakistanis working with the Taliban and other terrorist groups. Simply because they pledge support (which is itself suspicious) and they are geographically situated close to the enemy does not mean its worth just handing over millions of dollars worth of technology. HANDING OVER. Its UNCONDITIONAL. Not to mention other millions of dollars we've just forked over to help train their own anti-terrorist forces. I dont think it matters, even if they were the best ally we could ever hope to have. I find it extremely unwise and disturbing to be just literally throwing away some of our most advanced weapons to shaky allies.
 
Last edited:
Chockstock... you need to understand that most of our producers of planes are private contractors such as Lockheed Martin or Boeing...these are businesses looking to make a profit. Why would they sell their products to only one customer? It's not ideal, but the fact is that if our military demanded exclusive rights to their products, they would probably take their business elsewhere, IMO.
 
also consider the fact that we probably get some technologies from foreign nations as well.
 
^^^^^^^

Bottom line is that if technology gives one nation an advantage over the others, you can be sure that it will get leaked, sold, or stolen. And especially if there's money in it for someone.
 
Interesting story in the OP. Interesting claims.

Some things to bear to mind:

1) Lots of claims of kills of F-15s by the Typhoons. But a closer look shows that these F-15s came from the 493rd, an -E model squadron. (Not one of our air-superiority squadrons).
2) A minor mention that these F-15Es were also playing a "striker" role. And like Flieger said, No mention of the ROE for these strikers either. Bad guy tactics or good guy tactics? Hand-cuffs on capabilities since they were playing strikers? Load-out? Lots of things that make you go "Hmmmmm..."
3) Article author: the folks who MAKE the Typhoon. Guessing they ain't gonna tell a story on how they may have got their butts whooped.

Bottom Line: a dales pitch.

As to foreign partners using the same gear as us, or American companies selling our best to other nations? Well, you know who has the latest and best F-16s and F-15s? (Hint: it ain't us). And just how many other countries are in partnership with us to develop and field the F-35? Eight, and the list is growing.

Yeah, they may have the same gear, or perhaps even better. We got a better team :thumb:
 
I really think that national security trumps war profiteering. Even if the government were to tax revenues that come from military sales to foreign countries, the potential drawbacks could be far more harmful than the money.

Do we really import weapons? I might be being an elitist here but honestly, I doubt that countries like Iran or Venezuela (as you have mentioned) we once exported weapons to would have anything worthy enough to sell to us. Such countries are technologically inferior - which is the reason why they would import weaponry in the first place. One of the last remaining reasons why America remains the top superpower in the world is military might and I was under the assumption that we did little, if any, importing.
 
Bullet said:
Interesting story in the OP. Interesting claims.

Some things to bear to mind:

1) Lots of claims of kills of F-15s by the Typhoons. But a closer look shows that these F-15s came from the 493rd, an -E model squadron. (Not one of our air-superiority squadrons).
2) A minor mention that these F-15Es were also playing a "striker" role. And like Flieger said, No mention of the ROE for these strikers either. Bad guy tactics or good guy tactics? Hand-cuffs on capabilities since they were playing strikers? Load-out? Lots of things that make you go "Hmmmmm..."
3) Article author: the folks who MAKE the Typhoon. Guessing they ain't gonna tell a story on how they may have got their butts whooped.

Bottom Line: a dales pitch.

As to foreign partners using the same gear as us, or American companies selling our best to other nations? Well, you know who has the latest and best F-16s and F-15s? (Hint: it ain't us). And just how many other countries are in partnership with us to develop and field the F-35? Eight, and the list is growing.

Yeah, they may have the same gear, or perhaps even better. We got a better team :thumb:
Click to expand...

As Bullet said...I'm a bit biased...

Give me my "C" model Eagle, loadout of 4 heaters and 4 slammers (or better yet, 2 and 6)...900+ of 20mm...

I own 8 or more Typhoons, 'cause unless I'm really dense (sadly, been there, done that) I am NOT getting into a knife fight. I'm gonna shoot them in the face and blow through.

Bragging? Perhaps...

But I love that jet and I know its capabilities.

Let ME fight the jet the way its meant to be fought...

Steve
USAFA ALO
USAFA '83
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top