Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Eurofighter: Great Fighter. Nothing Spectacular.  
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 11 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 4271 times:

I remember seeing the EAP prototype 20 years ago.



Eurofighters are now entering service across Europe.




- I think it has no spectacular radar capasity, no vectored array scanner
- I has no spectacular air to ground capasity yet
- It has no spectacular stealth capability
- It has no spectacular range
- It is more agile then an F16? maybe, not much. Then a thrustvectoring Russian? Likely not.
- Supercruise ? hardly, at what warload / range? Nothing spectacular.
- The total un-censored cost during the project´s 30 years will probably be spectacular.

A great fighter but nothing spectacular IMO.

Maybe the German/British/Italian airforces were so sick flying Tornado´s that have no chance against F15s, F16s and F18s that they focussed too much on agility. Now the world has changed. No defending the home country anymore.

You can probably find a zillion Eurofighter pilots, sellers, designers, politicians and proud patriots saying the Eurofighter is the greatest thing to ever fly.

Objectively looking at the specifications is ok, but nothing more. A best buy so to say, I wonder how sexy it will be in say 2020.





41 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAngelsonefive From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2006, 3 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (7 years 11 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 4251 times:

It looked good at Fairford air show but was on reheat the whole time of the display as were most of the fighters - ! how long would the fuel last at that rate of consumption?

It is good for jobs in the EU otherwise we buy off the shelf from the USA and export jobs -



Red Leader, vector 230, angels one five
User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (7 years 11 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 4245 times:

Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
- Supercruise ? hardly,

Even here in the United States, the Eurofighter Typhoon is highly regarded and is said to be superior to most every fighter we have with the exception of the F-22. So it's fair to say the Typhoon is something spectacular. At this early stage in its development, emphasis is on the air-to-air role. Work is already being done to fully develop its air-to-ground capabilities. I wouldn't write this bird off so quickly. I don't believe her full potential has been realized yet.



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7943 posts, RR: 12
Reply 3, posted (7 years 11 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 4190 times:

Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
I think it has no spectacular radar capasity, no vectored array scanner

I told you a couple of times already that CAPTOR is more capable than probably any other radar in the wilderness, including Rafale's. What good is a fancy technology that is still in it's infancy? That said, everyone knows CAPTOR is only an interims solution (just like Rafale's).

Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
I has no spectacular air to ground capasity yet

Eurofighter can drop almost any bomb in the US or European portfolio.

Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
It has no spectacular stealth capability

Stealth was not demanded.

Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
It has no spectacular range

A longer range than originally demanded. An even longer range would mean a bigger aircraft, bigger RCS and more expensive to maintain.

Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
It is more agile then an F16? maybe, not much. Then a thrustvectoring Russian? Likely not.

Typhoon is definitely more agile than the F-16. Even I who is not a professional can quite easily spot the difference, and thrust-vectoring will come.

Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
Supercruise ? hardly, at what warload / range? Nothing spectacular.

Supercruise was not demanded.

Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
The total un-censored cost during the project´s 30 years will probably be spectacular.

Just like alomost any other fighter project.

What you have to understand, but so far have failed to, is that a fighter is always a compromise. You can have a lower RCS, but then the fighter will lack some maneuverability and vice versa; you can have a longer range, but then the bird gets bigger, heavier, has a bigger RCS and is more expensive to maintain. You can build your fighter out of modules and thus make it more maintenace friendly, but then the plane is again one third bigger with all it's implications. You can have a wing design ideally suited for air/air combat, but that would spoil it's A/G capabilities.

Typhoon was designed to scramble against Su-27 and Mig-29 and was later modified to a multi-role aircraft with longer range - without compromising A/A capabilities. It's still considered the second best air-superiority fighter only after the - much more expensive - F-22A that indeed is probably not truly a multirole fighter.*

Why do you want something "spectacular" by all means? Eurofighter will certainly do it's job - and do it well. What more do you want, you who is always willing to praise Rafale to the skies for it's weaker radar.

* Edit: Not that it was their intention to develop a multirole-fighter

[Edited 2006-08-23 01:45:09]


I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlineChecksixx From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1078 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (7 years 11 months 6 days ago) and read 4141 times:

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 3):
* Edit: Not that it was their intention to develop a multirole-fighter

Wrong...dropping iron was always in the works for the Raptor.

-Check


User currently offlinePADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (7 years 11 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 4085 times:

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 3):
Supercruise was not demanded.

Wrong. Supercruise was demanded and the EF is fully capable of it. It can go Mach 1.3 with 6 missiles and two drop tanks and Mach 1.5 with 6 missiles and w/o the drop tanks.

Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
- It has no spectacular stealth capability

It has the best stealth capability of all aircraft that were never intended to have it. Although of similar size it only reflects about a quarter of the radar energy compared to a F-15.

Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
It is more agile then an F16? maybe, not much. Then a thrust-vectoring Russian? Likely not.

Thrust-vectoring will be an option in later batches. Up to now it is deemed not necessary. The thrust-vectoring engine however is long in testing ...

Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
- The total un-censored cost during the project´s 30 years will probably be spectacular.

Well, compared to the Raptor it is still rather cheap. If you want cheap airplanes go to Russia or China ...


User currently offlineManzoori From UK - England, joined Sep 2002, 1516 posts, RR: 34
Reply 6, posted (7 years 11 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 4040 times:

Quoting Checksixx (Reply 4):
Wrong...dropping iron was always in the works for the Raptor.

You sure? I was under the impression it was purely an Air Dominance Fighter to begin with and only the ongoing budget overruns and congressional threats of cuts forced them to expand its envelope to include the A2G role... of course I could be wrong... it has been known!  Wink

Rez



Flightlineimages DOT Com Photographer & Web Editor. RR Turbines Specialist
User currently offlineColumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7057 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (7 years 11 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 4038 times:

Quoting Checksixx (Reply 4):
Wrong...dropping iron was always in the works for the Raptor.



Quoting Manzoori (Reply 6):
You sure? I was under the impression it was purely an Air Dominance Fighter to begin with and only the ongoing budget overruns and congressional threats of cuts forced them to expand its envelope to include the A2G role... of course I could be wrong... it has been known! Wink

I beliebe Manzoori is right on this one.



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (7 years 11 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 3989 times:

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 3):
Stealth was not demanded.



Quoting NoUFO (Reply 3):
A longer range than originally demanded.



Quoting NoUFO (Reply 3):
thrust-vectoring will come.



Quoting NoUFO (Reply 3):
Supercruise was not demanded.



Quoting PADSpot (Reply 5):
It has the best stealth capability of all aircraft that were never intended to have it.



Quoting PADSpot (Reply 5):
Thrust-vectoring will be an option in later batches.

I'm not looking why the Eurofighter is lagging in these areas just noting it is.

I think it is dated at the moment it enters service. Airforces / governments / parlemements will be really sick if they are told to spend further billions for major mod's so soon after EIS.

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 5):
It can go Mach 1.3 with 6 missiles and two drop tanks

I'm no "give a source" guy, but with RH & tanks / missiles, without RH? ..


User currently offlineMigfan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (7 years 11 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 3978 times:

Keesje,

What aircraft do you favor?

/M


User currently offlineChecksixx From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1078 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (7 years 11 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 3968 times:

Quoting Manzoori (Reply 6):
You sure? I was under the impression it was purely an Air Dominance Fighter to begin with and only the ongoing budget overruns and congressional threats of cuts forced them to expand its envelope to include the A2G role... of course I could be wrong... it has been known!

Rez

When the threat of more cuts hit, they pushed heavily the A2G aspect of the jet...ie...when they first redesignated the jet "F/A-22" so as to push the multirole capabilities. Those capabilities had been planned for and already integrated into the jet. As a matter of fact, SDB's have already been fit tested in the Raptor.


User currently offlineDeltaDC9 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 2844 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (7 years 11 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 3922 times:

Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 2):
Even here in the United States, the Eurofighter Typhoon is highly regarded and is said to be superior to most every fighter we have with the exception of the F-22.

The EF is probably about as good as any 4th gen fighter out there and better than many, but the F-22 and F-35 are 5th gen fighters. Whole different ballgame.

I am sure it will mature into something of a hybrid of a 4th and 5th gen fighter and make quite a name for itself, but assuming it can take out F-15s consistently is by no means certain.

Quoting Manzoori (Reply 6):
You sure? I was under the impression it was purely an Air Dominance Fighter to begin with and only the ongoing budget overruns and congressional threats of cuts forced them to expand its envelope to include the A2G role... of course I could be wrong... it has been known!

With the success of the Strike Eagle, the Strike Raptor was always a consideration in the design. I do believe the Air Force wanted all their F-22s to be Air Dominance though until the axe fell, IIRC. Now they must push both roles just to justify 180. Pretty sad really.

Only if the original 800 or so were allowed would the USAF actually use some of them as "Strike Raptors". With 180, there really are not enough to spare.
The F-15E will be around for a long time, and does those missions quite well anyway. The F-22 will end up filling in for the F-117 though.

Thats just how I see it.



Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
User currently offlineArt From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3379 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (7 years 11 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3912 times:

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 11):
Only if the original 800 or so were allowed would the USAF actually use some of them as "Strike Raptors". With 180, there really are not enough to spare.
The F-15E will be around for a long time, and does those missions quite well anyway. The F-22 will end up filling in for the F-117 though.

To me you make it sound as if the F-35 does not have a role to play. When it becomes available (OK, when is when?), it will the strike aicraft of preference, won't it?


User currently offlineAutoThrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1589 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (7 years 11 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3913 times:

Not again Keesje, its getting booring all this anti-Eurofighter Topics.

Quote:

EF-2000 v.s F-16C

The data of F-16C is from http://www.mirage-jet.com/COMPAR_1/compar_1.htm

Road length for Take-off / Landing / Sea-level
F-16C: 457m / 914m (2 WVRAAM)
EF-2K: 300m / 500m (4 BVRAAM + 2 WVRAAM) (world record)

Flight-envelope
F-16C:
36,000ft (10,973m) --> Maximum speed 1.90Mach (2 WVRAAM)
49,500ft (15,088m) --> Maximum speed 1.80Mach (2 WVRAAM)

EF-2K(2 WVRAAM + 4 BVRAAM):
30,000~55,000 ft --> Maximum speed 2.00 Mach
60,000ft (18,300m) -->Maximum speed 1.85 Mach

Acceleration (36,000ft, initial speed 0.9 mach, Maximum A/B)
F-16C: accelerating to 1.75 mach in 2min and 1.86 mach in 3 min (2 WVRAAM)
EF-2K: accelerating to 2.00 mach in 2min (4 BVRAAM + 2 WVRAAM)



Factors for BVR combat:

1. Detective range of Radar for RCS = 5m2 targets:
(http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~dheb/ ... G/PGSA.htm)
AN/APG-68: 80 km
AN/APG-80: 130km
Captor: 160~185 km (Tracking range )



2. The frontal RCS:
F-16C: 1.2 m2
EF-2K: 0.10~0.25m2 (exact data is classified)




Theoretically,
the EF-2000 could detect or even track F-16C 110~130 km away.
the F-16C Block50 could detect EF-2000 30~40 km away.
the F-16C Block60 could detect EF-2000 50~65 km away.



5. Flight-envelope

F-16C:
36,000ft (10,973m) --> Maximum speed 1.90Mach (2 WVRAAM)
49,500ft (15,088m) --> Maximum speed 1.80Mach (2 WVRAAM)
(2 WVRAAM + 4 BVRAAM) --> Always less than 1.60 Mach and the maximum speed for 5G maneuver is less than 1 mach.

EF-2K(2 WVRAAM + 4 BVRAAM):
30,000~55,000 ft --> Maximum speed 2.00 Mach
60,000ft (18,300m) -->Maximum speed 1.85 Mach
45,000ft (13,725m) --> 1.60 Mach plus 5G maneuver


-There is already Thrust Vectoring available developed by ITP and MTU.
-The Thypoon offers the best price/efficiency of all Planes in the World.
-No other Jet needs less runway and time to take off and is faster at 14,000 meter. (5 seconds from brake release and 50 to be at 14,000 meters)
- there is study by the UK's DERA comparing the Typhoon to other contemporary fighters. In it, the Typhoon was second only to the F-22A in combat performance.

Quote:

2004/05, magazine of AFM
An UK test pilot declared that the maximum Air-to-air tracking range of CAPTOR radar is significantly longer than the 100 miles / 161km.

2004/06, magazine of RAF
The same test pilot declared that with the help of Meteor AAM, the EF-2000 could attack the multiple aero-targets (up to 8 targets) as far as 200km away at the same time.

EADS:
During the test, the CAPTOR radar showed the capability of tracking up to 20 air targets (F-4 and Mig-29) simultaneously 160~185 km away and then automatically identifying and prioritising them.



Quote:


An AESA array may be used to CAPTOR radar after 2010~2012, which will increase the detection range / tracking range of CAPTOR 75% more at least.



From AFM "Singapore very impressed with the Typhoon" and Western Daily Press

".....................It is a very capable aircraft and better than the American F16 he champions. In a recent competition run by Singapore to find a replacement for its F16 fighters, Typhoon was up against the American F15E and the French Rafale. Typhoon won all three combat tests, including one in which a single Typhoon defeated three RSAF F16s, and reliably completed all planned flight tests. According to one observer, neither competitor aircraft could claim the same (Defence Analysis August 2004)."


http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/
http://www.eurofighter.starstreak.net/E ... /tech.html

The F-18,F-16,F-15,Mig-29,Rafale, have no chance against the Eurofighter.
Still nothing spectacular?  Yeah sure



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7985 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (7 years 11 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3899 times:

I think the Typhoon is an excellent fighter because the plane has far more modern features in terms of enhancing manueverability than the F-16 and F-18.

Indeed, much of the features of the Typhoon came out of the X-31 research program, especially in the way of coupling delta wings with a forward canard with a full fly-by-wire system so it could turn faster.


User currently offlineDeltaDC9 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 2844 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (7 years 11 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3885 times:

Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 13):
The F-18,F-16,F-15,Mig-29,Rafale, have no chance against the Eurofighter.

No one can predict that at this point.

Quoting Art (Reply 12):
To me you make it sound as if the F-35 does not have a role to play. When it becomes available (OK, when is when?), it will the strike aicraft of preference, won't it?

I was making the point that as far as the strike role goes, even though the F-22 is capable, they will keep the F-15E so they can devote the F-22 to dominance.

The F-15E carries a lot more payload and can defend itself better than the F-16, but the F-16 does most of the ground attacks and missions in general, and the F-35 will start to take over in about 4-6 years.

With 1200 or more F-35s, they must do the bulk of the strikes as we have about 200 Strike Eagles and will have 180 F-22s anyway.



Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
User currently offlineAutoThrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1589 posts, RR: 9
Reply 16, posted (7 years 11 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 3836 times:

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 15):
No one can predict that at this point.

The RSAF and RAF and Luftwaffe can predict and confirm that.



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlineArt From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3379 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (7 years 11 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3802 times:

Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 13):
The F-18,F-16,F-15,Mig-29,Rafale, have no chance against the Eurofighter.

You did mention that the Eurofighter had "defeated" all opponents in the Singapore contest. You also mentioned the DERA simulation. If it is the one I am thinking of, neither F-22 not Typhoon had a 100% success rate against the notional MiG or Sukhoi (I forget which) opponent. I think the ratio was 9:1 in favour of F-22 and 4.5:1 in favour of Typhoon. All other western fighters in the simulation had worse results against the notional opponent.

Correction:

In the JOUST simulation, BVR results against an SU27 upgraded to SU35 were as follows:

F-22 10.1:1
Typhoon 4.5:1
Rafale 1:1
F-15C 0.8:1
F-16C 0.3:1

Source: http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/Eurofighter/tech.html

[Edited 2006-08-23 20:34:18]

[Edited 2006-08-23 20:36:58]

User currently offlineDeltaDC9 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 2844 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (7 years 11 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3777 times:

Quoting Art (Reply 17):
In the JOUST simulation, BVR results against an SU27 upgraded to SU35 were as follows:



Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 16):
The RSAF and RAF and Luftwaffe can predict and confirm that.

You said 'no chance' against those planes. That is just not true, it cant be.

Remember how guys like you made asses out of themselves over the Sea Harrier before the Falklands War? How did that work out?

Those predictions are just that, predictions with a certain percentage of certainty below 100%.

You cannot predict what will happen with great certainty. Tactics, tactical support, and training all throw any certainty out the window.

An F-15 will be able to shoot down a F-22 at some point during exercises, just not yet. Once that happens, dont expect any details.

No chance is an absolute that should have set off an alarm when you typed it.



Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (7 years 11 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3753 times:

Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 13):
The F-18,F-16,F-15,Mig-29,Rafale, have no chance against the Eurofighter.
Still nothing spectacular?

I think we have to take a good look at these far from independent sources. No of them ever said the Tornado´s were flying meatballs in dogfights..

Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 13):
Theoretically,
the EF-2000 could detect or even track F-16C 110~130 km away.
the F-16C Block50 could detect EF-2000 30~40 km away.
the F-16C Block60 could detect EF-2000 50~65 km away.

+

Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 13):
2004/06, magazine of RAF
The same test pilot declared that with the help of Meteor AAM, the EF-2000 could attack the multiple aero-targets (up to 8 targets) as far as 200km away at the same time.

At least one of the sources is wrong.

Quoting Art (Reply 17):
In the JOUST si
mulation, BVR results against an SU27 upgraded to SU35 were as follows:

F-22 10.1:1
Typhoon 4.5:1
Rafale 1:1
F-15C 0.8:1

+

Quoting AutoThrust (Reply 13):
The F-18,F-16,F-15,Mig-29,Rafale, have no chance against the Eurofighter.

Again at least one of them is wrong.

Apart from that some time after the study F15 went up against Flankers & the outcome was "surprising"..


User currently offlineDeltaDC9 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 2844 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (7 years 11 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 3736 times:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 19):
Apart from that some time after the study F15 went up against Flankers & the outcome was "surprising"..

What is more suprising is the actual details of that exercise. Lets just say take the results with a grain of salt, along with any published numbers in these posts.

We all should know that the real numbers are classified, and anything we do have access to is selective.



Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (7 years 11 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 3731 times:

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 20):
We all should know that the real numbers are classified, and anything we do have access to is selective.

 checkmark 


User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7943 posts, RR: 12
Reply 22, posted (7 years 11 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3689 times:

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 5):
Wrong. Supercruise was demanded

I clearly remember an EADS test pilot saying supercruise was something their clients get for free and without ordering it.

Quoting Checksixx (Reply 4):
Wrong...dropping iron was always in the works for the Raptor.

Even if, dropping some iron as you called it does not make the F-22a a multirole fighter. I believe Raptor can only carry some GPS guided JDAM bombs.



I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlineArt From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3379 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (7 years 11 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3677 times:

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 18):
You said 'no chance' against those planes. That is just not true, it cant be.

Agreed. They would all have a chance against Typhoon. The question is how good a chance.

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 18):
Those predictions are just that, predictions with a certain percentage of certainty below 100%.

You cannot predict what will happen with great certainty. Tactics, tactical support, and training all throw any certainty out the window.

Agreed. Nevertheless a simulated Typoon success rate of 4.5:1 against SU35 is so dramatically better than the F-16C 0.3:1 score that it is reasonable to think that Typhoon outclasses F-16C by a big, big margin. And F-15, F-18 and Rafale by a significant margin.


User currently offlineAutoThrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1589 posts, RR: 9
Reply 24, posted (7 years 11 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3658 times:

Quoting Art (Reply 17):
F-22 10.1:1
Typhoon 4.5:1
Rafale 1:1
F-15C 0.8:1
F-16C 0.3:1

Interesting data Art thanks for sharing.

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 18):
hose predictions are just that, predictions with a certain percentage of certainty below 100%.

You cannot predict what will happen with great certainty. Tactics, tactical support, and training all throw any certainty out the window.

An F-15 will be able to shoot down a F-22 at some point during exercises, just not yet. Once that happens, dont expect any details.

I agree the words wasnt wisely choosen, but with same arguing you could say the same about the F-35, F-22, B-2, F-117 at certanly tactics and positions every plane can be shooted down there isnt a perfect jet, so where's the point.

The Typhoon has simulatad shoot down 2 F-15C (couldnt even lock the EF) and 3 F-16E(at the same time attacking) & Mig-29, without they could shoot. The EF also won all three RSAF combat tests . If that doesnt shows clearly air superiority....



“Faliure is not an option.”
25 DeltaDC9 : Like I said above, the Typhoon, while clearly not a 5th gen fighter, and is looking to be better than most if not all 4th gen fighters. Seeing that t
26 AislepathLight : The thing is is that the US really skipped 4th gen fighters, and went strait on to 5th gen fighters, in the F-22 and F-35. But then again, late model
27 DeltaDC9 : Pretty much, but me personally, I would definitely call the SuperHornet a 4th gen fighter, and agree that the and F-14D, F-15E and later versions as
28 AutoThrust : Very True, with that i fully agree with you. Mostly accurate but the F-35 and Typhoon aren't really comparable at all, but they work good together an
29 Pyrex : 20 years into its development is early? None of those choices was made on technical grounds...
30 PADSpot : At least one of the sources is wrong. Probably the last one is exaggerated. Meteor will have an effective range of at least 100km (depending on shoot
31 Sebolino : Sure. The British have made basically a video game in the 90's showing the EF shooting down everything but the F22, so we have the evidence that it's
32 AutoThrust : True but we shouldnt forget at this time the F-35 will enter into service and the Typhoon tranche III will receive new Captor AESA Radar and Thrust V
33 Art : AESA radar looks very likely - the manufacturers have enough confidence in this being ordered to be spending their own money on development. I don't
34 PADSpot : Both are options, which are not confirmed parts of tranche 3. Luftwaffe for instance will not order thrust-vectoring. I don't know about the radar, I
35 AGM100 : All the technical stuff aside , and no offence intended ... But it really looks like it was designed in 60/70's. It looks cool , but its nothing new ,
36 Tom12 : Probably won't be but if we go by what the RAF usually do it will probabl be updated around then. The GR.4's were GR.1's before there major update (I
37 Angelsonefive : I repeat again my sentiments that we keep a pool of expertise within GB and Europe by building such planes here - I see you all quoting stats about th
38 Post contains links and images Lumberton : IIRC, that was resolved. Bush, Blair Agree On F-35 Technology Transfer (by Lumberton May 27 2006 in Military Aviation & Space Flight) If this agreeme
39 GDB : Typhoon is designed to be significantly more capable than US 'Teen Series' fighters (and Mirage 2000), it should be, with a decade later design. The f
40 AutoThrust : Well saîd. Over 2000 high qualified people got a job through the Typhoon Program. As i said there is already Thrust Vectoring but the Typhoon being
41 TheSonntag : As would German F-4 Phantoms with AWACS help. But if the Eurofighter is using the same AWACS resources, this victory is getting doubtful again. With
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Eurofighter: Great Fighter. Nothing Spectacular.
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...
Fighter With The Highest Landing Speed. Which One? posted Thu Nov 9 2006 22:29:05 by Art
Fighter Jet Fly-by Question posted Mon Nov 6 2006 05:37:12 by Chi-town
Croatia Future Fighter Purchase Options? posted Thu Oct 26 2006 10:03:18 by Mig21UMD
Great Picture Of An Unpainted F-22A posted Thu Oct 19 2006 19:57:59 by Egronenthal
Fighter Almost Shoots Down Learjet posted Mon Oct 16 2006 17:30:54 by Columba
Austrian Eurofighter Purchase In Doubt? posted Tue Oct 10 2006 21:31:40 by Lumberton
Fighter Planes Intercept Russian Bombers posted Sun Oct 1 2006 00:16:08 by Clickhappy
Buying A Fighter Jet? posted Thu Sep 14 2006 00:35:50 by Cgagn
Wow, What A Great Military Flight Sim! posted Tue Sep 12 2006 22:28:53 by B737-112
For Heli-Fans: Great Bo 105 Video posted Sun Sep 10 2006 15:58:37 by Columba

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format