Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Eurofighter Typhoon : 'Even Worse Than We Thought'  
User currently offlineWingscrubber From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 854 posts, RR: 0
Posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 22982 times:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/03/eurofighter_nao_analysis/

I chanced upon this scathing article by the Register(which I don't normally read) on the Typhoon program, making various bold claims such as the following:

-The Typhoon is more expensive than the F-22
-The Typhoon is not maneuverable
-Tranche 1 Typhoons will be retired soon
-Typhoons coverted to bombers will be retired within 3 years
-Cost of Typhoon fleet is equivalent to two NASA space shuttle fleets
-As a side note, they claim the Tornado F3 was 'dismal'

As a British expat living in the US, I am somewhat embarassed by the current state of the RAF, laying off cadet pilots, implementing crippling defence cuts, retiring some of the most capable and serviceable aircraft in its inventory and cancelling much-needed modernisation programs; Harrier, MRA-4, and the british military aerospace industry does have a history of shooting itself in the foot; TSR2, SR53, Blue steel, etc with a few rare exceptions that were good enough to export; T-45, AV-8, but I had thought that the Typhoon program was a relative success, a highly capable euro-indiginous 4.5th gen fighter program?

According to this extreme right-wing article, the entire program is just a big pork barrel and the RAF should have just bought American instead (not that the F-22 is for sale), but meanwhile they're still waiting for F-35s!
If the RAF had bought american instead of investing in the development of this very capable soon-to-be-multi-role platform, they would likely be flying F-16s or F-18s, but the Typhoon will soon match their capability, and has been more successful than other competing euro-designs like the Gripen and Rafale with sales outside of the consortium of participating nations to Saudi Arabia and Austria totalling 87 aircraft worth approximately 7.8 billion euros. That's pretty good right?

Is there any credence to this article, or is it all right-wing bullsh*t?


Resident TechOps Troll
44 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13253 posts, RR: 77
Reply 1, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 22919 times:

Well those of a political bent you say that are behind this BS, have a vested interest of slating anything not American, as you noted, a mix of disparagement and xenophobia.
These after all the same types who boldly claim, with the confidence that comes with proud ignorance, that if a certain Stephen Hawking had been left to the horrors of that evil British Commie Health Service, he'd had died decades ago.
(Obviously one of the preeminent scientific minds alive HAS to be American).

So I'd take that article with the same amount of salt that you should the above.
(Sad really, this sort of thing is so rooted in the insecurity of those espousing it).

You say you are in the US, so presumably you see this sort of stuff way beyond the subject of this article?

It's rather like those chain e-mails that circulate, such as the ones which boldly stated that of course that AF A330 crash in 2009 was clearly the result of inherent flaws in the way Airbus build aircraft.
Or that the incident at Airbus, where that customer crew managed to, during an engine run, ram a brand new A340-600 into a concrete wall totalling the aircraft.
You do know that the whole thing was covered up in the 'European media', who did not report on the incident at all (news to me and everyone else who saw it reported), because they are SOOOOO scared that the Muslim world would take the implication of an incompetent Arab crew, that they feared it would incite terrorist attacks in an already terrified and cowering Europe.

That article, the ones I've cited above, good for a laugh and saying much more about their originators than their dull brains could comprehend.


User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7966 posts, RR: 12
Reply 2, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 22887 times:

Nowhere in the original report a phrase like "even worse" is used:
This is what I read in the original paper (not the article):

Quote:

Main findings
The capability Typhoon provides

Typhoon is performing important operational tasks
The 70 Typhoons already in service are protecting the air space around the 4 United Kingdom and the Falkland Islands. Typhoon was conceived in the 1980s during the Cold War, mainly for use as an air-to-air fighter and the aircraft is highly capable in this role. But the operational environment has changed significantly, making the ground attack role more important and so the Department is upgrading Typhoon to become a fully multi-role aircraft which can conduct both air-to-air and ground attack missions.

The full multi-role capability will not be available for some years
In 2004, the Department decided to withdraw its Jaguar aircraft. In the same year, 5 it decided to spend £119 million to upgrade its early Typhoons to replace the Jaguar’s ground attack capability. The upgrade was successfully introduced in July 2008. In 2009, a corporate decision was taken to retire early the other air defence fighter, the Tornado F3, to save money. As a result, Typhoon aircraft have been prioritised to take over the air defence role that the Tornado F3 fulfilled. The Department can currently deploy a small number of Typhoon multi-role aircraft but in the majority of cases, such as Afghanistan, the Tornado GR4 remains the Department’s preferred ground attack aircraft. Newer Typhoon aircraft will have progressively enhanced multi-role capability with, for example, laser guided Paveway IV bombs and Storm Shadow cruise missiles by 2018. By this time Typhoon is likely to be the aircraft of choice for both ground attack and air defence.

The report quotes problems with spare parts (which is news to me) and and a naive approach to cost estimates during Eurofighter's development (which is old news).



I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlinegarysted From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2005, 70 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 22729 times:

Gents,

I'm familiar enough with Mr Page's previous work to know the sort of selective, agenda led pieces that he has put out in the past, which relies on the readership swallowing it without thinking how the 'facts' have been slanted. However, and I really do hate to even be seen to be agreeing with anything he's written, he has - inbetween the rhetoric and silly sniping - stumbled across a couple of points that are quite fair, and deserve some form of explanation.

The block 5 upgrade; what really was the point to this? Even leaving aside the the Tranche one withdrawal issue for the moment. It had been stated by the goverment that the minimum force level for the UK air defence and associated commitments was five squadron's back in the late 90's, and this was before the resurrection of Russian long range flights into the UKADR and before anybody thought that AD assets would be required for anti-terrorist operations over the UK. With the accelerated withdrawal of the F-3, the embryonic Typhoon fleet had it's hands full working up a air-defence capability, a role which was always initally planned to be achieved first by all the Typhoon partner nations, which was presumably budgeted for and a timeline agreed.

Then suddenly the RAF wants a early, basic air-to-ground fit on the aircraft, which hasn't previously been intended and was not required by any other partner at that stage. This, again presumably, adds cost and puts a extra strain and distraction on a small force force attempting to reach inital capability in the AD role to replace the fast disappearing F-3 on QRA. The anticipated deployment of XI Sqn to Afghanistan to replace the Harrier force then never happened and the GR4 went instead. At the time (2008) the RAF possessed seven frontline Tornado GR4 units, roled for mud moving and also with a readily available recce capability, which were eventually, and rather obviously eventually deployed instead.

Why was the Typhoon deployment even considered and resources spent on preparing for it? Was it industry pushing so they could put a 'combat proven' badge on the marketing brochure or the MoD/RAF being panicked by ill informed media stories into trying to much too soon with the aircraft in response to the criticism?

Whenever or not my suggestions are accurate or not, the block 5 upgrade seems a unnecessary waste of money, and early Tranche one aircraft are still even now going through Warton (one returned to Coningsby this week after upgrade). If these stories of early Tranche one withdrawal are accurate, and with no air-to-ground deployment now intended for these aircraft in such a short lifetime, then this is surely a wasted effort.

This leads onto the second point - the withdrawal of Tranche one early. I've read various articles that hint at what that 'obsolescence issue' actually is, but nothing from a particularly reliable or detailed source. If it turns out that it is actually true, then I think Mr Page is probably correct in his comments on that issue, nor will he be the the only one. I still wonder how accurate that story was, as nothing has been said that I know of about this from the other operators, and it was always stated for many years that all aircraft would be upgraded to the latest standard during the aircrafts service life, now suddenly Tranche one has a built in obsolescence issue that's so bad the aircraft have to be withdrawn, and nobody saw it coming until late last year. Something doesn't sound very plausible there, even for the MoD.

I'm mostly playing devils advocate above, as with proper funding and support, I don't see any reason why the aircraft cannot excel at both roles, if the will to make it happen is there.

Gary

[Edited 2011-03-05 13:44:44]

[Edited 2011-03-05 13:53:31]

User currently offlineWingscrubber From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 854 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 22311 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 1):
You say you are in the US, so presumably you see this sort of stuff way beyond the subject of this article?

I do, but this article doesn't originate in the US, 'the register' is a .co.uk domain, so it's domestic criticism along the typical lines of 'look how much money labour made us spend'.

From my vantage point, the Typhoon is a great airplane. The Harrier was a great airplane, the MRA4 would have been a great airplane. It's just disappointing to see the UK military air power continually weakening.



Resident TechOps Troll
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13253 posts, RR: 77
Reply 5, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 22154 times:

Lewis Page? Now there's a name!
What to say about this disgruntled ex MoD employee?
Well even the not well informed/sniffing for a scandal press don't seem to use him so much as a source these days.

The man has no credibility - at all.

Garysted, thanks for an excellent and very informative post.
Should we also throw in the disruption to the RAF procurement thrown up by the Saudi order too?

My own view is that say two squadrons, at each of the main UK bases, should retain Trance 1's in a basic AD role, let the others with the more suitable later Tranches do the whole swing role thing, some of which will of course be to supplement the AD dedicated aircraft.

I also think that the Typhoon procurement has be somewhat misguided in that years ago, the replacement of half the Tornado GR.4 fleet should have been the intention, with Tranche 3 aircraft, doing this by keeping to the original numbers of Typhoons intended.
By 2015, The rest of the GR.4's going after replacement by BAE Mantis drones and finally, the last two units disbanding by 2018 prior to forming up as F-35C units.
When the costs of maintaining the GR.4 force through to 2020 emerged in last year's review process, it just struck me as a waste of money on a still capable, though very finite asset, when considerably less than that could have allowed the suggestions just mentioned.

It's not as if they'd have to invest in a whole lot of expensive new weapons to carry, ALARM, Storm Shadow, Brimstone, RAPTOR pod, new LGB's, just integrate them on to Typhoons, which they are going to have to do anyway. (Or will they?)

Having said that, in 1981 the then Defence Secretary, John Nott, stated that if stand off weapons are not brought for the Tornado fleet, then just entering service, the 'development of the aircraft will have been wasted.' Not that he did anything about it.
Only in 1991, rushed into service for the Gulf War, did Tornado get ALARM, over a decade would pass after that when they got (rushed into service for the 2003 Iraq war) Storm Shadow - 21 years after Tornado entered service, then after that, 25 years after entering service, did RAF Tornados get Brimstone. To fill an air launched anti armour missile requirement first mooted in 1978.


User currently offlinewvsuperhornet From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 517 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 21110 times:

Quoting Wingscrubber (Thread starter):
Is there any credence to this article, or is it all right-wing bullsh*t?

To be honest I don't know alot about the Euro-fighter but from what I have seen in articles and posts around various aircraft board the only aircraft that is better was the F-22. As far as saving money yes europe and the US would have been smart to both develop the F-22 and the F-35 together but since it didnt happen. So I would say most of its right-wing b/s we have the same thing over here with the F-22 with people saying the stealth doesnt work when it rains if it sthe case most pilots who have flown it say it doesnt really matter if it works or not its still a magnificant aircraft and would be hard to shoot down. So being from across the pond I would take the article with a grain of salt.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15831 posts, RR: 27
Reply 7, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 20912 times:

Quoting wvsuperhornet (Reply 6):
the US would have been smart to both develop the F-22 and the F-35 together but since it didnt happen.

No. The US would have been smart to develop the F-22 and then design a real light fighter and a real attack aircraft.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinespeedygonzales From Norway, joined Sep 2007, 745 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 20689 times:

el Reg should stick to tech news, which they do fairly well. Their political editorials have been 'out there' on more than one occation.


Las Malvinas son Argentinas
User currently offlinesebolino From France, joined May 2001, 3682 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 20547 times:

Quoting wvsuperhornet (Reply 6):
To be honest I don't know alot about the Euro-fighter but from what I have seen in articles and posts around various aircraft board the only aircraft that is better was the F-22.

I found that.
I absolutely don't know if it's true or not, maybe someone can answer ...


http://airforces.fr/2009/12/20/rafale-vs-typhooneurofighter/


User currently offlinewvsuperhornet From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 517 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 20450 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 7):
No. The US would have been smart to develop the F-22 and then design a real light fighter and a real attack aircraft.

no arguments here I always thought that the US should have had the F-15,F-14 for fighters and the F-16,F-18 for attack and the F-20 for a light fighter for the 4th generations aircraft.


User currently offlineautothrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1609 posts, RR: 9
Reply 11, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 19842 times:

Quoting Wingscrubber (Thread starter):


-1)The Typhoon is more expensive than the F-22


-2)The Typhoon is not maneuverable


-3)Tranche 1 Typhoons will be retired soon


-4)Typhoons coverted to bombers will be retired within 3 years


-5)Cost of Typhoon fleet is equivalent to two NASA space shuttle fleets




1) The F-22 costs roughly 361 million $ per plane according to US Government Accountability Office (GAO)

Typhoon costs roughly 190 million $ according to the National Audit Office(newest data available)


2) Interesting, as the only plane with the capability of flying 9 g maneuvers in the
supersonic range that is new to me.
(Source) http://www.luftwaffe.de/fileserving/...0INFODE/Pressemappe_Neuburg_en.pdf



3) Depends to the RAF needs.


4) Nonsense


5) LMAO

Utter nonsense.

Quoting Wingscrubber (Thread starter):
If the RAF had bought american instead of investing in the development of this very capable soon-to-be-multi-role platform, they would likely be flying F-16s or F-18s, but the Typhoon will soon match their capability, and has been more successful than other competing euro-designs like the Gripen and Rafale with sales outside of the consortium of participating nations to Saudi Arabia and Austria totalling 87 aircraft worth approximately 7.8 billion euros.

Do you mean the capability as CAS plane or generally spoken? The F-16,F-18,F-15, Gripen, Mirage etc.. cannot beat the Typhoon in the air/air combat.

Quoting wvsuperhornet (Reply 6):
To be honest I don't know alot about the Euro-fighter but from what I have seen in articles and posts around various aircraft board the only aircraft that is better was the F-22.

Correct. However the Typhoon has in some areas advantages over the F-22.



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13253 posts, RR: 77
Reply 12, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 19714 times:

A recent news report seems to indicate that Tranche 1's could be retired in 2019.
Still rather soon, they'd be mostly around 15 years old, however it is true that a very major upgrade to full Tranche 2 would be in the same cost range as buying new.
2019 should see F-35's arriving to make up the numbers, we'll have to see, the temptation will be with government to save money sooner that that. Whatever happens with the crisis in Libya might have concentrated minds.
(A case for a rapid Urgent Operational Requirement to integrate ALARM anti radar missiles on to the RAF Typhoon fleet?)


User currently offlineF27Friendship From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1125 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (3 years 9 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 19512 times:

Quoting autothrust (Reply 11):
The F-16,F-18,F-15, Gripen, Mirage etc.. cannot beat the Typhoon in the air/air combat.

ouf.. excersizes between several European air forces have shown otherwise.

Besides, it's not only about the plane. I believe in several dog fighting classes, instructors fly F-5s or even T-38s against students in F-16s, F-15s etc.


User currently offlineautothrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1609 posts, RR: 9
Reply 14, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 19249 times:

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 13):
ouf.. excersizes between several European air forces have shown otherwise

Do you mean the very doubtful fight against the Rafale?

Quote:

During Dissimilar Aircraft Combat Training, involving different types of aircraft. In this situation, where the air dominance is a matter, the Eurofighter Typhoons turned out to be the leading air-to-air fighter jets.

In an interview on the exercise, Major Juan Balesta, the 41-year old Commander of the 111 Squadron stressed that a two-ship formation of Eurofighters involved in a dogfight simulation “against” the F-15s enjoyed full control of the engagement. The Typhoons managed to smash a formation of eight F-15s which had the role of the attacker with the first Eurofighter jet managing to "shoot down" four F-15 fighter jets. The second Eurofighter managed to disable three F-15 jets.
Quote:

During the exercise "Typhoon Meet" held in 2008, Eurofighters flew against F/A-18 Hornets, Mirage F1s, Harriers and F-16s in a mock combat exercise. The Eurofighters won all engagements (even outnumbered 8 vs 27) without suffering losses



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlineF27Friendship From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1125 posts, RR: 5
Reply 15, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 19124 times:

Quoting autothrust (Reply 14):
Do you mean the very doubtful fight against the Rafale?

no, I'm referring to friendly excersizes that were not published about where a particular European Air Force was pitting 2 typhoons with mildly experienced pilots against 2 american-designed jets of another European Air Force with 30 years of experience of the type and very experienced pilots. The typhoons had no chance in this particular case.

Although on paper the typhoon is a winner in most of the aerodynamic domain, that doesn't mean there is a part of the envelop where an initially inferior aircraft cannot force a victory. I've seen many so called "dog-house" plots where several fighters are compared, especially to determine the right strategy to defeat an aircraft which essentially is a better fighter.

The machine is just one part of the equation, so you can never write: " The F-16,F-18,F-15, Gripen, Mirage etc.. cannot beat the Typhoon in the air/air combat."


User currently offlinewingman From Seychelles, joined May 1999, 2337 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 19115 times:

If that Rafale story is true I don't see what the worry is for the RAF. Based on the numbers the UK would really only need about 40-50 fully functional Typhoons to defend NATO airspace against a combined air assault by Russia and China simultaneously.

User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1857 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 19084 times:

Quoting wingman (Reply 16):
If that Rafale story is true I don't see what the worry is for the RAF. Based on the numbers the UK would really only need about 40-50 fully functional Typhoons to defend NATO airspace against a combined air assault by Russia and China simultaneously.

Hey, Canada defends its airspace with around 60 fighters and we are the second largest country in the world by land size.


User currently offlineGST From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 938 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 18988 times:

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 15):

The machine is just one part of the equation, so you can never write: " The F-16,F-18,F-15, Gripen, Mirage etc.. cannot beat the Typhoon in the air/air combat."

   Its just a shame the people with agendas neglect to remember this when writing their scathing comments about Aircraft X.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 17):

Hey, Canada defends its airspace with around 60 fighters and we are the second largest country in the world by land size.

Incidentally, how does that work? Are there QRA fighters with range to intercept anywhere the Russians can reach? I guess the south border doesn't really require alert fighter protection, at least not since 1812.


User currently offlinespudh From Ireland, joined Jul 2009, 301 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 18911 times:

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 15):
no, I'm referring to friendly excersizes that were not published about where a particular European Air Force was pitting 2 typhoons with mildly experienced pilots against 2 american-designed jets of another European Air Force with 30 years of experience of the type and very experienced pilots. The typhoons had no chance in this particular case.

Although on paper the typhoon is a winner in most of the aerodynamic domain, that doesn't mean there is a part of the envelop where an initially inferior aircraft cannot force a victory. I've seen many so called "dog-house" plots where several fighters are compared, especially to determine the right strategy to defeat an aircraft which essentially is a better fighter.

The machine is just one part of the equation, so you can never write: " The F-16,F-18,F-15, Gripen, Mirage etc.. cannot beat the Typhoon in the air/air combat."

There are lots of variables as you say, with ROE's and tactics being particularly big ones for excercise.

In the run up to the famous AIMVAL/ACEVAL exercises in 1977 the, then new, block 90 F14's were mauling the F5 aggressors until a Top Gun instructor who had been an F14 RIO before his posting to Miramar came to their assistance. Just before the evaluation proper the aggressors changed their tactics using the RIO's inside knowledge of the AWG 9's operation, strengths and weaknesses (using doppler effect etc). Of course what worked against the F14 worked just even better against the single seat F15. The net effect was the then earth shatterring 1:1 exchange ratio between the much vaunted high end fighters against the cheap and cheerful F5 in multi fghter engagements.

Up until that change in tactics the F14's (and presumably the F15 too) were tatooing the F5's for fun. But history records the 1:1 ratio as the outcome of AIMVAL/ACEVAL and the need for a lightweight fighter was confirmed.

ROE's and Tactics.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1857 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 18906 times:

Quoting GST (Reply 18):
Incidentally, how does that work? Are there QRA fighters with range to intercept anywhere the Russians can reach? I guess the south border doesn't really require alert fighter protection, at least not since 1812.

Canada primarily bases its fighters at Cold Lake, Alberta, and Bagotville, in Quebec. There are also rotations to Comox in British Columbia, Goose Bay and Gandar in Newfoundland, and Greenwood in Nova Scotia. Also, Yellowknife is also on that list of rotation and forward deployed locations.


User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4871 posts, RR: 14
Reply 21, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 18856 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting spudh (Reply 19):
There are lots of variables as you say, with ROE's and tactics being particularly big ones for excercise.

Its not just the machine you are flying , its the training and the tactics. Since 1997 Taiwanese Block 20 F16As based at Luke AFB have been whipping active and reserve USAF later block 30/40/50 C/Ds and Navy/marine F18s regularly. The 21st FS has won more awards at Luke than all the other squadrons combined since it was reconstituted to train the Taiwanese. And till the mid of the last decade they only had AIM7 sparrows against the aim120 amraams the regular US forces had, they still don;'t have AIM9X /JHMCS and they still beat the regular US units. Several years ago in the COs office of the 2st FS there was a banner - When 1000 enemy aircraft of the People's Liberation Army are 10 minutes flying time away, the defense of the Taiwan Straits will rest on superior tactics and training. There's supposed to be a new banner up but I can't say I've personally seen it. "Raptors down".


User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4952 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 18770 times:

Quoting spudh (Reply 19):
The net effect was the then earth shatterring 1:1 exchange ratio between the much vaunted high end fighters against the cheap and cheerful F5 in multi fghter engagements.

Up until that change in tactics the F14's (and presumably the F15 too) were tatooing the F5's for fun. But history records the 1:1 ratio as the outcome of AIMVAL/ACEVAL and the need for a lightweight fighter was confirmed.

The others would, as a consequence, have also had a change in tactics.....but it does make one wonder what could have been, had the USAF acquired F-20 Tigersharks.....

http://www.fas.org/man//dod-101/sys/ac/f-20_tigershark.jpg.
http://www.fas.org/man//dod-101/sys/ac/f-20_tigershark.jpg



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineautothrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1609 posts, RR: 9
Reply 23, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 18460 times:

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 15):
The machine is just one part of the equation, so you can never write:

Of course it is!!! Give a idiot the controls over a F-22 and a experienced pilot with a P-51 would shoot it down.

I'm talking from the purely technical point of view .  

Even more once the Typhoon gets the Meteor with two way datalink and its AESA Captor Radar. The hardware of the Typhoon is just more advanced then that found on the F-16/F-18/F-15,Gripen etc.. that is fact.

It can climb faster, much higher, more manouvrable, more sensorfusion(totally passive Infrared-Search-and-Track-System), less workload, lower wingload, supercruise, it can do 9g manouvers while being supersonic, roll rates over 260°/sec etc...



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlinespudh From Ireland, joined Jul 2009, 301 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 18434 times:

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 22):
The others would, as a consequence, have also had a change in tactics.....but it does make one wonder what could have been, had the USAF acquired F-20 Tigersharks.....


I assume that the RIOs adopted tactics to switch betwen radar modes, or at least had the wingman searching using a different mode instead of searching a different quadrant. I don't know, its only from reading autobiographies that you pick up bits of inside information, official reports from excerises are normally very bare.

I still can't understand how the F-20 never picked up an order. It seemed like a real winner A to A.

I know the USAF probably wanted it killed so as not to oppose the F-16 in international sales (thereby driving down unit costs) but you would have thought that the economics would still have weighed heavily enough in its favour. I believe it was short ranged, any idea how true that was? Or was it lacking in growth potential maybe?

I suppose when you look at the Eurofighter or any of the teen fighters it shows just how important growth potential is. The Gripen seems to be running out of steam that way, at least until the NG comes along. How does the Rafale measure up to the Eurofighter in this regard?


25 Post contains links and images DEVILFISH : Politics aside, the Tigershark had a very defined target market - it was primarily meant to be an affordable point defense interceptor. This gives a
26 Post contains images spudh : Thanks Devilfish, there are really great links off that page No more off topic excursions by me now either
27 mffoda : I had an interesting thought regarding the Typhoon.... Since the RAF is considering dumping so many Typhoons before the end of their service life... I
28 trex8 : It was pitched for those customers who were being offered the "downgraded" F16/J79 engine combo, when Carter decided to back track on trying to push
29 GDB : mffoda, practical and sensible sounding idea, alas that tends to exclude them from the powers that be.
30 Bongodog1964 : As the BBC have just reported that the LIbya no fly zone may be getting the green light in the next few hours, we may find out if the Typhoon does do
31 GST : Good lord, we couldn't possibly have a workable scheme like that!
32 Ant72LBA : The resolution has just been passed by the UN.
33 Post contains images cpd : Unbelievable! Give this man a gold medal for sensible thinking!
34 wvsuperhornet : Well Chuck Yeager did say it was the best fighter jet that was never developed!
35 DEVILFISH : Especially if it would mean sidelining the F-16s, reacquired F-5s and T-38s of the local aggressor squadrons. Of course, if the latter were transport
36 Post contains images osteogenesis : The US would probably not like the idea of constantly losing air to air battles against a superior foe not US build. Maybe the US air force would sta
37 Post contains images mffoda : Yeah... you're right?? Active US European A/C: AV-8 Harrier UH-72A Lakota CN-235 HH-65 CASA-212 C-27A
38 Spacepope : C-27A is long retired. Add: C-27J, T-45, T-6, HH-65
39 Post contains images mffoda : Thanks, Spacepope... I ment C-27J... & had HH-65 listed already
40 highlander0 : Did you get the Shorts Skyvan in there? I think it's the Sherpa in US Army service. Don't forget the Antonovs the USAF special air wings use.
41 Post contains links and images DEVILFISH : Has there been any later delivery (Army or AF) other than these three? View Large View MediumPhoto © Leandro Rocha - AzoresAirPhotos Another one....
42 Spacepope : Doh! Indeed you did. Well, I'll just have to add Special ops flying MI-8/17 and MI-24. Down in Florida they're flying PC-12s too. They were very acti
43 Wingscrubber : @ Autothrust : Thanks for addressing each of the bogus claims individually. I didn't think they were entirely fair either... There is some truth to th
44 GDB : True, however the (superb) French aircraft has two factors which helped. No delays caused by several partner nations having to work everything out. N
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Eurofighter Typhoon : 'Even Worse Than We Thought'
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
James May's 20th Century - Eurofighter Typhoon posted Wed Jul 18 2007 00:09:15 by EK20
Eurofighter Typhoon Could Come To Holloman posted Sun Jul 3 2005 16:35:39 by Columba
The Eurofighter/Typhoon? posted Sun Jan 16 2005 02:38:32 by VSIVARIES
Eurofighter Typhoon Vs M. Schumacher posted Mon Nov 17 2003 20:01:28 by Dahawaiian
UCAVs... Closer Than We Might Think posted Sun Jul 29 2001 04:54:29 by FlyBoeing
F35 Fighter Even More Expensive Than Planned posted Mon Mar 17 2008 16:07:26 by Mortyman
Is Super Hornet That Much Better Than F-14? posted Sat Dec 11 2010 11:10:28 by bmacleod
Eurofighter Crash In Spain posted Tue Aug 24 2010 06:59:59 by jmrebes
Eurofighter Vs Sukhoi 27- Engines Position Concept posted Tue Jun 22 2010 13:39:09 by Flagon
Will We See 777 Flying Military Charters Soon? posted Tue May 4 2010 20:00:57 by 747400sp
Eurofighter Typhoon Could Come To Holloman posted Sun Jul 3 2005 16:35:39 by Columba
The Eurofighter/Typhoon? posted Sun Jan 16 2005 02:38:32 by VSIVARIES
Eurofighter Typhoon Vs M. Schumacher posted Mon Nov 17 2003 20:01:28 by Dahawaiian
UCAVs... Closer Than We Might Think posted Sun Jul 29 2001 04:54:29 by FlyBoeing
F35 Fighter Even More Expensive Than Planned posted Mon Mar 17 2008 16:07:26 by Mortyman
C-130, RAF Typhoon Photo Op posted Sat Jan 14 2012 17:26:17 by geezer
Rafale Vs Typhoon Again In The UAE posted Sun Nov 13 2011 06:21:48 by Devilfish
Eads Desperately Sought Eurofighter Deal posted Fri Sep 2 2011 17:10:48 by mffoda
Saturn V: Cheaper To Launch Than The Shuttle? posted Tue May 17 2011 16:50:42 by Thrust

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format