* Posts by akryu

4 posts • joined 23 Nov 2009

RAF Eurofighter Typhoons 'beaten by Pakistani F-16s'



"If you bother to read the facts we even fired more tomahawks than the yanks and we don't really have many. "

Nonsense. The first night, about 120 tomahawks were fired. Only a few were British.


You give the above link a good read.

"Piled on top of that was a pretty serious storm shaddow shitstorm."

I wonder how long Britain can sustain this pace considering...


"US mostly contributed planning, command and yes some air/sea assets, but not "mostly."

According to http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/08/gates-urges-us-allies-to-increase-role-in-libya-conflict/

"The U.S. military moved to a secondary role after the initial period of air and naval bombardment that established a no-fly zone over the North African country and opened the door to the NATO-led air campaign.

Obama has declined to put U.S. warplanes back into an offensive role -- aside from a relatively small number of planes targeting Libya's air defenses. But a few weeks ago the U.S. provided nine more aerial refueling planes to enable NATO to accelerate its bombing, the U.S. officials said."

According to: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2076471,00.html

"The U.S. is contributing about 75 percent of the aerial refueling capacity for the campaign and 70-80 percent of the intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capability, U.S. officials said.

That sure as hell sounds like "mostly" to me. Maybe you should read "the facts".



" Korea: No victory

- Vietnam: Had to run away with tail between legs

- Lebanon: Had to run away with tail between legs

- Somalia: Had to run away with tail between legs

- Iraq 1: Failed to topple Saddam

- Afghanistan: Failed to achieve really anything of value

- Iraq 2: Had to run away with tail between legs"

Korea - America was fighting Soviets,N. Koreans, and the Chinese. Last I checked, the Aussies, Brits, and S Koreans were there too. We lost politically, not militarily. If not for us, S. Korea would not exist today; I consider that a "win".

Vietnam - Our military never lost. Our politicians would not let the military engage the enemy using our total force due to concerns with China and Russia. It wasn't until the Chinese/Russian border skirmish that the U.S. military got the OK from Washington to bomb supply routes such as parts of the Ho Chi Minh trail that went through Cambodia. Our government would not allow the military to engage targets in neighboring countries; that's how the Vietcong openly hid from us. Just like today, our military has suffered losses mainly due to rules of engagement that bind us.

Lebanon, Somalia - had little political support; the military was never defeated.

Iraq - We didn't go after Saddam because it was not our mandate to. Just like how today certain countries are complaining that NATO is overstepping their mandate in Libya, we were just following our mandate in Iraq. If we had tried to topple Saddam, some countries would have thrown a fit just like they are now with Gaddafi in Libya.

Afghanistan and Iraq - "Had to run away with tail between legs" Really. We're still there. It was the Brits that needed us to take their place in Helmand. Most of NATO has so many restrictions on their military, that they can't even fight unless shot at first. Most are just there for show.

Our military has never lost a war. It's only due to our politicians and the war-weary public that cause us to pull out of a region before that job is done. Besides, what exactly is the criterea for considering any one of those wars a "win". If "holding ground" is the critera, then we'd be ostracized by the world for "expanding our empire" or accused of "colonizing".

By the way, America did help you during the Falklands, we just did it behind the scenes. I believe we had an agreement with Argentina over copper, or something like that that we didn't want to lose out on.

'F-22 Raptor stealth coatings are crap' case goes to court


while I'm here...

"our Rapier system can lock it up"

Your telling me that a system designed in the 1960s and upgraded through the years can track an F-22? O.K. Explain something to me then. When and where did your rapier system get a lock on an F-22? Was it the one time the F-22 was over Britain during Farnborough? Because that would be the only time the Raptor would have ever been in a position to be tracked by the rapier system that I can think of.

I know this was in the early 80s, but the rapier system earned its rep during the Falklands. However, of the aircraft it had supposedly shot down, it was later found that it had shot down only a quarter of its initial claimed kills. So basically, it earned its rep taking credit for something it didn't do.

So explain something for me since I'm just a fat, dumb American. If your rapier system can take out a stealth aircraft, then why isn't every country in the world beating down your door trying to get the rapier for themselves?

Who operates this state of the art stealth killer anyways? Lets see... Iran, Libya, Brunei, Zambia, Turkey, Malaysia, Oman, Switzerland, and of course, the U.K. With the exception of the U.K. and Turkey, all I see are countries with 3rd rate militaries. Yet, apparently, they are all impervious to stealth aircraft.

"when the Typhoon got various locks at VR and BVR."

So let me get this straight. The typhoon's CAPTOR radar is so good that it can pick up a stealth aircraft, yet in order to secure exports of the typhoon,the Eurofighter consortium is trying to upgrade the typhoon's radar to an AESA radar. American aircraft like the F-18, F-16, F-15, F-22, and future F-35 have AESA radars yet our F-18s, F-16s, and F-15s can't pick up a Raptor on radar. So, our AESA radars can't pick up the Raptor, yet your CAPTOR, which is a downgrade from AESA, can lock on to a Raptor. Huh. So that begs the question, why upgrade to AESA if CAPTOR can pick up a stealth aircraft? Why isn't every Air Force in the world beating your door down to get CAPTOR radars for their aircraft? Why isn't every air force in the world trying to get their hands on the Eurofighter since it so obviously is superior to anything America has?

"As for it's flippy high-alpha parlour tricks, one former RAF pilot said:

"I'd love it if I was dogfighting and the enemy stopped right in front of me""

I'm sure every fighter pilot would too. An air show is just that - a show. No fighter pilot in his right mind would pull a Cobra maneuver during a fight. The Su-30 and F-22 are just showing off their thrust vectoring capabilities during the show. So explain something else to me. If thrust vectoring is so useless, why is the Eurofighter consortium trying to add thrust vectoring to the Typhoon's arsenal? I mean, if thrust vectoring is only good for a parlour trick, then why would EADS be so interested in adding it to the Eurofighter?

"Indeed, prehaps you should have left us to it, that way you would have seen the Japs sneak up on you in Pearl Harbour."

Left you to it? To what? Getting bombed every night by the luftwaffe. If it wasn't for the Nazi's declaring war on us after the Pearl Harbor attack, we might have just left you to it. The only reason why we were illegally sending Britain supplies during our so-called neutrality in '39 and '40 and why we sent you military supplies in our lend-lease agreement was because Churchill was constantly trying to get Roosevelt to involve America in your conflict. The U.S. committed 90% of its war material to Europe after Germany declared war on us. The only reason the Japs lasted as long as they did was because we were busy helping you. You are correct though, the Japs snuck (sneaked) up on us, but we got 'em back good didn't we?

"Shh, you'll upset Lewis if you point out that British/European kit is more capable than what the Americans have."

If your kit is so much better than ours, then why does the Eurofighter have so much American kit in it that EADS has to get U.S. government approval before selling it to countries outside Europe like when the MoD so Typhoons to Saudi Arabia? If your kit is so much better, then why use our kit in your aircraft?

"Any half decent Doppler radar system can spot a "Stealth" plane a long way off."

If that's true, then why is every plane manufacturer from Sukhoi, to EADS, to Saab, to Dassault, building aircraft with reduced radar cross sections and reduced infrared signatures? I mean, if stealth doesn't work, then why are they all trying to build stealthier aircraft?

So the Eurofighter consortium wants to incorporate thrust vectoring (like F-22 and Su-30) and an AESA radar (like future Russian and current U.S. aircraft) on the Eurofighter even though the commenter's here believe their completely useless and that the typhoon is a superior aircraft. Sounds to me like the Eurofighter consortium is trying to upgrade their plane so it can compete with U.S., French, and Russian aircraft like in the Indian tender. Sad part is, in the Indian tender, the Eurofighter has to be upgraded to compete with late model f-16s and F-18s.


Re: avalon111

Oh where to begin...

Eurofighter - no AESA radar, no thrust vectoring, supercruises around 1.3M in a clean config, only 160 total for RAF in 3 tranches, contains exported U.S. technology ( EADS can't sell outside of Europe without U.S. approval), billed as multirole a/c

F-22 - AESA radar, thrust vectors +/- 20 deg pitch, supercruises above 1.6M, 187 total authorized (not 137), contains U.S. technology that is by law cannot be exported, air superiority a/c

The F-22 is designed to remove any airborne threats to allow the F-35, F-15E, or F-16 to enter enemy airspace and take out ground targets. In a Nato mission, the F-22 would clear the way for the Rafale, Eurofighter, or Gripen as they are all ground attack a/c.

The Eurofighter is not stealthy. It may have a reduced front angle radar cross section while flying clean, but as soon as you install external fuel tanks, targeting pod, or missiles/bombs, the RCS increases as does the drag on the a/c.

If an enemy has a radar, IRST, or any tech that can expose an F-22, then the Eurofighter or any other fighter for that matter wouldn't have a chance in hell.

I don't know where you get the idea that the North Koreans could take on PacAF. PacAF alone has enough firepower to take on any country's air force in the pacific with the exception of maybe China. One U.S. carrier group has enough firepower to do the same. The J-10 is a poor copy of the F-16 with inferior Russian built engines. I doubt its a match for any fighter we currently operate.

Besides, Eurofighter, A400M, Galileo, are all proof that Europeans are only good at running their mouths. Why don't you go and turn on your Sky and watch some American tv, or maybe go to the cinema and watch an American movie, or go listen to some American music on your radio. You really need to get over the whole "penis envy" thing. It's pathetic.


Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021