More Argie Bargie

[ralphrj]

Mark.H said:

Step 1
Send in a naval military force to surround the islands just a couple of miles off shore, forcing the defending force to spread themself thin, ROE would prevent engagement until a first agressive act was witnessed

So inside Falklands territorial waters? I don't fancy their chances against one of our submarines.

Outside Falklands territorial waters? Declare 200 mile exclusion zone (sound familiar). Sink any inside.

Mark.H said:

Step 2
Draw out Eurofighters with a big enough wing of Argie aircraft to force the RAF into launching their jets, loiter on station and waste EF fuel, (repeat waves until EF are forced to return & refuel)...

Pair of Eurofighters launch and destroy incoming aircraft before they are within the range of the Argentine missiles.

When out of ammo launch second pair of Eurofighters to engage next wave of kamikaze Argentine aircraft whilst the first return to base for refueling and re-arming.

Mark.H said:

send in a real package and bomb the crap out of the runway and defences which would be overwhealmed, simultaneously landing naval forces leaving relatively small defensive force outgunned and out numbered)

A real package of what? Assuming they have something that no-one currently knows about it has to get past the Eurofighters and the Rapiers defending the airfield.

As for landing their naval forces, assuming that they aren't already paddling back to the mainland following step 1, there are twice as many British troops on the Falklands today than the Argentines used to take Port Stanley in 1982. Therefore, the Argentines are going to need a considerably bigger invasion force than they could muster 30 years ago to successfully take the islands.

[hidetheelephants]

It's been said before but it bears reiterating; their sole purpose is defending Mount Pleasant for as long as it takes Crabair to fly in the perhaps optimistically named joint rapid reaction force and few more Typhoons. Apart from counting penguins there isn't very much else to fill their waking hours with except planning and exercising; I'm going to bet they've thought about every cunning plan for capturing or neutralising the airfield, worked out a response to counter them with, then exercised it to the point of nausea. Dispersal and spreading themselves thinly around West Falkland isn't on the cards as there aren't enough of them and it's not their job, protecting MPA is.

[Ayahuasca]

hidetheelephants said:

It's been said before but it bears reiterating; their sole purpose is defending Mount Pleasant for as long as it takes Crabair to fly in the perhaps optimistically named joint rapid reaction force and few more Typhoons. Apart from counting penguins there isn't very much else to fill their waking hours with except planning and exercising; I'm going to bet they've thought about every cunning plan for capturing or neutralising the airfield, worked out a response to counter them with, then exercised it to the point of nausea. Dispersal and spreading themselves thinly around West Falkland isn't on the cards as there aren't enough of them and it's not their job, protecting MPA is.

Hold until relieved....hold until relieved....

[hidetheelephants]

Ayahuasca said:

Hold until relieved....hold until relieved....

That's what the 'biscuits, brown' are for!

[Balmoral]

I don't suppose it matters anyway, there's nowt the Argentinians can do except bleat and rattle their sabres, they won't have another pop at it, unless we let the current defence status slide over the long term.

[Mojocvh]

Bedazzled said:

I posted this on the carrier thread but I think it's relevant here too; just how invincible are those four Typhoons based at Mount Pleasant? RAF Typhoons beaten 3-0 by Pakistani F-16s... here

Yeah they are a bit out of practice having been bombing the st out a few peoples.

Still, ROE apart, it wouldn't have happened to the F3's. They never trained to play the game at all, long range interceptors.....let the m-> do the talking.....

[CBR JGWRR]

Mojocvh said:

Bedazzled said:

I posted this on the carrier thread but I think it's relevant here too; just how invincible are those four Typhoons based at Mount Pleasant? RAF Typhoons beaten 3-0 by Pakistani F-16s... here

Yeah they are a bit out of practice having been bombing the st out a few peoples.

Still, ROE apart, it wouldn't have happened to the F3's. They never trained to play the game at all, long range interceptors.....let the m-> do the talking.....

The argies wouldn't get close enough to try the tactics used, shot down long before then.

[Mojocvh]

CBR JGWRR said:

Mojocvh said:

Bedazzled said:

I posted this on the carrier thread but I think it's relevant here too; just how invincible are those four Typhoons based at Mount Pleasant? RAF Typhoons beaten 3-0 by Pakistani F-16s... here

Yeah they are a bit out of practice having been bombing the st out a few peoples.

Still, ROE apart, it wouldn't have happened to the F3's. They never trained to play the game at all, long range interceptors.....let the m-> do the talking.....

The argies wouldn't get close enough to try the tactics used, shot down long before then.

You DO realise who wrote the quoted article?

[CBR JGWRR]

Mojocvh said:

You DO realise who wrote the quoted article?

No, but I imagine they are a step above the usual links?

[davepoth]

CBR JGWRR said:

Mojocvh said:

You DO realise who wrote the quoted article?

No, but I imagine they are a step above the usual links?

It's

Lewis Page, The Man At The Register Who Hates The RAF.

[CBR JGWRR]

Bedazzled said:

The huge chip on his shoulder doesn't change the fact the Typhoons lost; from a quick Google it was also mentioned by Alan Warnes in Air Forces Monthly magazine, in an article about WVR combat training.

Also found this - apparently footage from a DACT engagement between a Danish F-16 and Italian Typhoons. In the second part the F-16 pilot makes two gun 'kills' and claims the F-16 has better maneuverability than the Typhoon in low speed turns. I expect (hope?) the Typhoon comes out on top in plenty other exercises, but it's surprising all the same.

I guess a lot of it is down to the pilot in a close-quarters knife fight. I love the F-16 though, the old-school energy fighter still has what it takes... if it can get close enough!

And eurofighters don't have that many seconds worth of bullets.

[twister]

Bedazzled said:

The huge chip on his shoulder doesn't change the fact the Typhoons lost

Did they lose fair and square, did they lose only because the starting conditions for the encounter put them into a disadvantaged position with little or no expectation they'd be able to win, or did they let the F16s win because that's what their mission briefing told them to do... Given the appropriate starting setup and ROE, a Sopwith Camel could shoot down a F22.

[fandango_c]

CBR JGWRR said:

And eurofighters don't have that many seconds worth of bullets.

RAF ones have zero seconds of bullets

[jmorgan]

So what is this, a worry or facts not known? Am I right leaning to the latter?


For what its worth, put me in a Eurofighter and they will not need to waste bullets.....

[Dr Banjo]

Hold the press.

F16 jock gets kill on Typhoon in knife fight.

You could replace F16 with pretty much any modern jet. Heck put Tom Cruise in an F4 and he might get a shot on target.

Can someone post the "Typhoon loses BVR fight to F16 in multiple engagements" link please.

[Dr Banjo]

Bedazzled said:

Fixed that for you.

So what ?

Should the Typhoon kill the F16 in the knife fight 100% of the time. ?

You seem to think we should be shocked by it.

[anonymous-user]

Bedazzled said:

A Mirage, for example...?

The Typhoon was designed for maneuverability, and yet here it is having its arse handed to it by a 30 year old aircraft in a turning fight. If our pilots don't get suckered into a knife fight then fine, but BVR missiles can be jammed or malfunction and it's not as invincible as some are making out.

To be fair the typhoon was designed 30 years ago also it just took much longer to enter service.

[davepoth]

Bedazzled said:

A Mirage, for example...?

The Typhoon was designed for maneuverability, and yet here it is having its arse handed to it by a 30 year old aircraft in a turning fight. If our pilots don't get suckered into a knife fight then fine, but BVR missiles can be jammed or malfunction and it's not as invincible as some are making out.

The Typhoon has the performance to mean that it won't get into a turning fight with an F-16 unless the ROEs require it, bearing in mind that a Typhoon can go faster than the maximum afterburning speed of the F-16 without having to use 100% of dry thrust.

[Dr Banjo]

Bedazzled said:

A Mirage, for example...?

The Typhoon was designed for maneuverability, and yet here it is having its arse handed to it by a 30 year old aircraft in a turning fight. If our pilots don't get suckered into a knife fight then fine, but BVR missiles can be jammed or malfunction and it's not as invincible as some are making out.

Not much wrong with the Mirage, proved to be very deadly in the hands of capable pilots.

I would bet that if you ran say 3 v 3 Mirage2000/F18/F16/Mig29 on Typhoon with equal pilot skill in a WVR scenario over multiple instances that there would be quite a few kills on the Typhoon.

Anyway who is saying that Typhoon is invincible ? Far from it but it is primary doctrine is to take the enemy out BVR every time. If they are dogfighting then the advantage is lost. Just dont get involved in knife fight at all costs.

No doubt there is always room for improvement in training and tactics and hopefully RAF wont make the same mistake the USAF did in the 60's by putting all the eggs in the BVR camp. Which obviously came back to bite them in Vietnam.

Edited by Dr Banjo on Friday 20th April 10:46

[Hooli]

Dr Banjo said:

No doubt there is always room for improvement in training and tactics and hopefully RAF wont make the same mistake the USAF did in the 60's by putting all the eggs in the BVR camp. Which obviously came back to bite them in Vietnam.

You mean something as stupid as ordering them without any guns fitted?