Valid arguments against the Typhoon (go America!)

[beefhole]

Hey everybody!  Talkin from Aspen here.  The hotel room is freakin amazin... more on that in about a week

On the drive back from D-day, I brought up the issue of how it seems all the Europeans I know think the Typhoon is soooo much better than anything we've got with a Marine Major, who was going to be a chopper pilot before being dropped late in his training due to problems with his night vision(8 months in).

Well, his answer? IT DOESN'T MATTER!  Who cares if the Typhoon can win in a 1-on-1 dogfight? Let me explain.

There is one thing the US military does extremely well-and that's infrastructure.  Nobody, but nobody is better than us at mid-air refueling and managing of our fighters through AWACS and KC-130 tankers.  As he put it-"We have that **** cold."

Since when did one fighter rise to meet one fighter?  Go ahead, send the Typhoon up-we'll have nine F-15s/F/A-18s flying CAT, around and around in circles at altitude, waiting to greet it.  F-16s will be sitting on the tarmac on the ground (they don't have enough fuel to fly CAT) waiting to be scrambled, and then recieve vectors from an AWACS.

What you need to understand about the AWACS system and how it ties into the (eventual) success of the F-22 is that there's already a plane that relies on the AWACS for radar-the F-16.  Only the F-14 and the F-15 were really ever built to operate independently.  The F-16 doesn't have a very strong radar, and therefore relies on the AWACS.

Another thing he mentioned-he knew a lot about all the flight programs for the RAF, etc., and he said while the actual skill and quality of their pilots probably matches that of American pilots, American pilots just communicate and work in groups better-we've been practicing since Korea.

So, in conclusion-the individual, one on one characteristics of a Typhoon v Eagle/Hornet really is irrelevent.  Not when US pilots tend to communicate and work together better-this isn't a rail against European airforces, we've just simply had way more practice, and we've absolutely perfected it, something that a European fighter pilot won't say about their airforce.

Tell me what ya think-but you have to admit it makes sense, nobody can argue that we can't manage resources effectively.

[ozzy72]

If the USAF is so all-powerful and perfect could you please explain why the town I live in was hit 4 times by US aircraft whilst the campaign against Serbia was running? I live in Hungary and a v.long way from Serbia
Then could you explain why several of my friends were killed by USAF pilots in the Gulf in '91 when their APC was attacked by A-10s whilst flying the Union Jack and in a safe area?
Think before you speak......

[Hagar]

Although I'm a Brit I was never an advocate of the Eurofighter Typhoon although I agree it makes sense for any country to use its own aircraft & equipment where possible. I have no idea if the aircraft itself is any better or worse than the US equivalents. RAF pilots & aircrew have always been among the very best trained in the world, if not THE best. That's the reason so many air forces send their people over here for training. I have no doubt about American efficiency but where the US will always score is in sheer force of numbers. In a conflict it all comes down to that, no matter how good the pilots or aircraft are. I would hope that we're never in a situation to find out.

PS. I think the days of one-on-one aerial combat went out with the Korean War of 1950 - 53.

[ozzy72]

I think the days of one-on-one aerial combat went out with the Korean War of 1950 - 53

They said that over Vietnam which is why the early F-4s didn't have guns Doug, suddenly they needed them. But I agree as missiles get smarter and better the dogfighting skills of yesteryear seem to be dying...

[Hagar]

They said that over Vietnam which is why the early F-4s didn't have guns Doug, suddenly they needed them. But

As I understand it the RAF versions of the Typhoon II now have their gun back - BUT it's fitted purely as ballast.

But I agree as missiles get smarter and better the dogfighting skills of yesteryear seem to be dying...

It might be better if the whole thing was done by remote control. Think about it, you could settle the argument over who has the best equipment once & for all without anyone getting hurt.

[eno]

What you don't mention in your posting Beef is the fact that when being controlled by AWACS even the U.S. pilots prefer being controlled by British AWACS crews.
Yes Beef we have AWACS too.

All in all the only advantage that the US has in most  conflicts is numerical superiority. Because when it comes to technology Vietnam proved that even a technologically superior protagonist can be beaten by pesants. A terrorist with a well placed EMP weapon could write off all of our techonlogy.

[Craig.]

we also have Tankers aswell. And again what is failed to be mentioned. During operations in various warzones, american pilots were given the option of british or american tankers and quite a few have chosen the British tankers. And just as an example for communication, hungary was not the only friendly target to be hit. Anyone remember the Canadian forces they also bombed? or just recently the plane that shot up the school in New Jersey?
Sounds to me this article wasn't really about the Typhoon but just one major who couldn't even make the cut for flight school trying to put down a friend. Just remember, the US isn't perfect and has many things that can put it down.

[Woodlouse2002]

My I also at this moment bring up that bomb that was dropped on Yorkshire a couple of years back by an American F15.

There ain't much the USAF can do that the RAF can't do equally well or better. And I certainly wouldn't take the word of a Marine Major on the state of foreign airforces in comparison to the USA's as absolute fact or fact at all for that matter.

[Politically Incorrect]

Well if all statements above are true about both sides then the only conclusion is the Allies are the best of the best when combined and are useless without each other.

So why bother with the "My dad is bigger than yours" argument???

[Craig.]

Well if all statements above are true about both sides then the only conclusion is the Allies are the best of the best when combined and are useless without each other.

So why bother with the "My dad is bigger than yours" argument???

a wise man with wise words

[Hagar]

Just to put this in perspective this is the total current strength of the RAF. http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/strength.html

Compare that with the US figures of 2002/3. http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/inventories/united_states.asp From a quick check the USAF requirement for 381 F/A-22 Raptor is more than the total number of operational RAF aircraft including trainers.

[Craig.]

I dont see Typhoon on the RAF lists, not sure of the exact numbers but it was in the couple hundred for orders i beleive. In the end, we just dont need the same numebrs as the US. Or to be more accurate. Cant afford the numbers.

[Hagar]

Well if all statements above are true about both sides then the only conclusion is the Allies are the best of the best when combined and are useless without each other.

So why bother with the "My dad is bigger than yours" argument???

Well said Jeff. You always spoke a lot of sense.

[ozzy72]

Lets not even go into the can't afford area Craig, I'll start foaming at the mouth about the MoD again

[Souichiro]

In my views Probably the IAF/IDF have the best airforce but that also lacks in size..

I think PI is correct..Current western militairy is based on Coorperation between nations