Originally posted by Black Aces:
The F-15[b]F? The single-seat version of the E?
http://www.patricksaviation.com/wiki/F-15F
Now I must admit I'm no expert in the stats provided by this Aussie
Analyst (who? Carlo Kopp?)
in his analyst between the Typhoon & the Eagle. And if he (or
she) was so spot on, why didn't the RAAF chiefs discounted the
Eagle earlier on and yet ordered the Rhino as the interim
(replacement of the The Pig) pending the introductory of the
Lighting II into RAAF service? But hey, this topic should not be
discussed here in this thread.....so I would take this OZ analyst
reporting with a pinch of salt.
Anyway, the Typhoon is NOT a design dictated by the Brits and its
capability defined by them only. Don't forget, the Typhoon is a
joint project by 4 countries (UK, Germany, Italy & Spain). The
Brits may be comfortable with the Typhoon being short-legged as
Britain itself is an island separated from continental Europe. But
the Germans? Spanish? Italians? They have shared borders and I
seriously doubt they are comfortable with meeting any potential
aerial adversary just outside their airspace.
Btw, UK 'survived' (I think you are referring to the Battle of
Britain?) not b'cos of the advantageous in the short-legged
capability of the Spifires & Hurricanes then. The Brits are
forced to operate close & take on the Luftwaffe as they (the
former) don't have a choice in both the Spits/Hurricane numbers vs
Luftwaffe numbers arrayed against them! And don't forget the very
shortfall in pilots available to the RAF in early 1940. No doubt
the RAF operated over own territory, it also meant that shot-down
RAF pilots could be quickly returned to their bases and get into
the fight again, as compared to downed Luftwaffe pilots who baled
out over England and will see their fighting days over as they will
be sent straight to POW camps in either England or shipped to
Canada. In addition, RAF were lucky as the short-legged Luftwaffe
could only operate from France and from Norway (bombers only w/o
figher escort). But in today's scanario, with the advent of
stand-off missiles & long-legged fighters/bombers (in the class
of the Flankers/Blackjet/Backfires) coupled with AAR, the RAF will
not be facing an an enemy that sufferred from the limits that faced
the Luftwaffe of the 1940s. Btw, traditionally the scope of
(patrol) ops for RAF is the GIUK (Greenland-Iceland-UK) gap, and
that's where Tornado F-3 long range was appreciated. Come on, I
don't think any decent fighter pilots would like multiple AAR
attempts esp in a hot job, surely no one wants to be caught with
their pants down when the enemy pops-up when in the 'act' of AAR!
Any pilots here want to disagree with me?
Personally, by the time the RAF meets any aggressor near their
shore, I'll be worried that do they (esp those in non-STOVL types)
have a place to land after their encounter in the air or they can
still identify whatever is left of London.
Yes, the Mustang helped to war the war over Germany BUT not b'cos
it has the range but alot of other factors. eg the Luftwaffe senior
leadership had always treated the Luftwaffe as a tactical AF rather
than a Strategic AF etc. Tactical as the German Army commanders had
always treated the Luftwaffe as a flying artillery to help the army
in its blitzkreig. Like after bombing, the softened-land targets
will be immediately exploited by a ground army. But when come to
the Battle of Britain, w/o a land army, no matter how hard the
Luftwaffe pounded the UK land defences, such acts is considered
fruitless & pointless as the short gains could not be exploited
on the ground therefore it became simply as an aerial attrition
that took a beating as RAF Spits/Hurricanes could pounce on
returning fuel-starved 109 pilots.
The fact is no doubt the Typhoon was derived in the 1980s, but
along the years it was evolved to meet futures threats esp it wqas
evolved to be super manoevorable to meet the SU-27/30 series. And
mind you, dogfights don't happen in high Mach numbers but more in
subsonic speeds. If give me to select between the victor between a
Tphoon/Flanker encounter (discounting BVR missile enagements), I
would pick the Typhoon having a very slight edge over the Flanker.
And how about an Eagle/Flanker engagement? errrr......
Therefore, I seriously doubt the Typhoon to be considered just a
short-legged fighter and I don't think the current RAF planners
share the same myopic vision that plagued the 1940s Luftwaffe in
having a short-legged Typhoon. 
P/s I had came across an Int'l Avaiation mag report that there was
an incident that happened in UK airpace during that time when the
Typhhon was being delivered for trials and apparently 2
Lakenhealth-based Eagles decide to takle on the 'newbies' and they
(Eagle pilots) came out shock over the engagement...now I'm not
sure did this engagement did take place but apparently this 'piece'
of info was suppressed by the official media.
[/b]
Britain survived the battle of britain for a number of
reasons.
One, they operated over friendly territory, and had then,
sophisticated radar systems that permitted them to intercept the
Germans. Their pilots that were shot down could be picked up,
patched up, and sent back to their squadrons. Luftwaffe pilots were
either captured or worst, froze to death in the Channel.
Second. Like you said, the Germans had a tactical air force, not a
Strategic one. Luftwaffe escorts had limited fuel that they could
only engage or fend off the Brits for short period of time before
returning back to base. German bombers were also less effective in
the role they were supposed to play.
Third, a less known detail. The luftwaffe expended much of their
veteran flight instructors over the Netherlands in transport
planes. Many of them were shot down, and valuable flight
instruction experience lost.
Britain was rather useless in contributing to the Strategic bombing
campaign over Nazi Germany simply cause their fighters couldn't
escort the bombers all the way. It was until the Mustang showed up,
where the Americans were able to have their bombers escorted all
the way to the target area and back.
Personally, I wouldn't give the Typhoon's agility too much credit
in modern air warfare. Most people who follow up in this, or even
if you ask Air Force officers who are senior enough will tell you
that no one wants to press for a merge. Especially if you are
numerically inferior. Hence, it is unrealistic to discount BVR
engagements.
Secondly, high off-boresight weapons such as the Sidewinder X, R-73
makes agility less of any issue. As usual, superior turn rate is
preferred over the ability to sustain a high-aoa-energy bleeding
turn. If they don't kill in that turn, they are in trouble. Even if
you get shot by one of these missiles, that little agility edge
isn't going to save you.
As for whether the RAF planners are myopic, I wouldn't say that.
But I'd say that they are politically committed typhoon already,
and cannot back out. Besides, its not a totally lousy plane or
anything. It serves its purpose as a dual role fighter, and has
exceptional handling. No reason to call the Brits myopic.
Neither is there any reason to deem the F-15SG to be incapable of
handling flanker threats. You can't kill what you can't lock. Its
not stealth, but it has the next best thing, powerful
jammers.
