Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Related task forces...


	Military aviation task force
	British military history task force
	French military history task force
	German military history task force
	Weaponry task force

	Eurofighter Typhoon is part of WikiProject Aircraft, an attempt to better organize articles related to aircraft. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Aviation WikiPortal

This article has been cited as a source by a media outlet. See the 2004 press source article for details.

"Budget pays attention to the poor, but..." (March 16, 2004). The Straits Times. [1].

[edit] Start

"This entirely routine incident was eagerly seized upon by those wishing to denigrate the aircraft and the programme."- Is this NPOV?

Why has "problems section" been deleted on the 9 February by 83.67.58.239 ?-ODB

Adding the dates of the crashes of the development aircraft in the development timeline is not vandalism. Furthermore it is undisputed fact that one of them, DA6, crashed. Removal of a fact is vandalism, not adding the fact in the first place. -- Nick Wallis 10:50, 07 Mar 2006 (UTC)

I rewrote the section on the comparison between the Typhoon and the new American fighters. Any actual assessment of their relative combat potential requires access to classified information.

Not necessarily. There is a pretty good technical study over here that takes the information that has been published, plus the author's extensive knowledge of fighter aircraft (he was a member of Australia's defence establishment with responsibilities in this area) to create a fairly complete and quite persuasive and fair overview. Eurofighter: Demon or Lemon? Conclusion? No way a Eurofighter matches an F-22 (reasonable conclusion, one even DERA came to), but it will come close to a late model F-15 (above in some areas, below in others) in an F-18 sized airframe. -- User: Joe Katzman 10:34 10 Dec 2005 (UTC)

In any case, the point is largely moot. Given the expected customers and delivery schedules of both fighters it seems unlikely they will face each other in combat, or indeed will ever go up against comparable planes. --Robert Merkel 14:15 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I've added section headings for the Typhoon, based loosely on the headings for the F-16. Robert, regarding the Typhoon's combat potential, perhaps it'd be good to include information about the DERA study. --User:Cabalamat 23:50 26 Aug 2003

Is the DERA a disinterested party here, given that Britain is a partner in the Eurofighter? --Robert Merkel 09:42, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

No, they are not; OTOH, there is no other comparable study I know of. Is there any reason the DERA study wouold be biased? That is, was there political pressure to bias the study in some way? I don't know the answer to that question. I suppose one could measure the performance factors of the aircraft (such as thrust:weight ratio, wing loading, accelerations at various speeds, turn rates, etc) - if you do, my understanding is the Eurofighter comes out better than all except the F-22 - anyway I think it would be useful to try to collect these figures for all modern fighters, and write a page comparing them - one would also have to consider avionics, missiles, etc. -- Cabalamat 14:07, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think the point I'm trying to make out of all this is that the Typhoon, even in the opinion of one of the nations that created it, is superior in combat to anything that has come before it, but inferior to the F-22. But then, we don't have a comparable opinion from either the Americans, or perhaps Russia (what the Russians think of the two aircraft would be *extremely* interesting to know). I think the article should state this.

From an Australian perspective, I would be really interested in a comparison between the JSF and the Eurofighter, seeing that our government seems to have committed to the JSF despite some fairly compelling arguments that a longer-range aircraft with supercruise capabilities might be rather handy in the Australian operating environment. --Robert Merkel 00:23, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Robert, have a look at Comparison of 2000s fighter aircraft. I was under the impressino the F-35b did have supercruise - am I wrong? BTW, isn't Australia developing a conformal drop tank for the Typhoon? BTW2, I agree that long range is important for a vast country like Australia (perhaps they could go for the Su-35 which has a range of 3300 km on internal fuel?) -- Cabalamat 03:14, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

From all the reading I've been able to do it appears that the F-35 doesn't have supercruise capability. Yes, an Australian firm has been developing conformal tanks for the Typhoon (reference: http://www.awgnet.com/shownews/03paris/hard05.htm ), but we have also become a "technology partner", or some such thing, in the JSF program Australia's fighter aircraft (and the old but very useful F-111) all become obsolete between 2010 and 2018, so Australia is looking very hard at the next generation of fighters. --Robert Merkel 02:41, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

If the F-35 doesn't have supercruise, we need to amend the [F-35 Joint Strike Fighter] page. BTW, the Wikipedia doesn't like it when you follow a ULR with a ")" -- Cabalamat 03:34, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I've ammended the supercruise speed to M1.3, based on information at http://www.eurofighter.starstreak.net/Eurofighter/engines.html . I'm going to reword the section on Combat Performance to make it more NPOV. -- Cabalamat 16:11, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hi User:Sugarfish, I like the new picture you put up. It shows very well how the plane looks from the top (I'm sure there's a better way to say that :-)). One thing I'm not sure about is my decision to have a separate section with pictures in it; perhaps we should revert to having the pictures alongside the text, to the right of it (making the pictures smaller might be useful in that case). Thoughts? -- Cabalamat 23:12, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I think the general policy is to have the images inline with the text, but sometimes many images of aircraft are needed to get a good general picture of different variants in different roles. If more images are added in future, it could end up dominating the article. -- sugarfish 02:19, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

That sounds sensible. Perhaps best if we leave the images where they are for now -- Cabalamat 02:46, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Agreed! -- sugarfish 06:48, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

David, if you're going to add a table at the top (something which I'd prefer doing without, since it is both too complex as it stands using HTML (maybe we'll get a Wiki-markup table soon), and also IMO makes the page look unbalanced and badly laid out), please fill in the values. Don't just leave them blank. -- Cabalamat 00:31, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Its inriguing that on the RAF's website the aircraft is listed under "Offensive aircraft" with the Harrier, GR4 and Jaguar not under "Defensive aircraft" with the Sentry and F3. The RAF are really pushing the "multi-role" tag aren't they! Mark 15:29, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps a little late to answer this Mark, but the Typhoon has been intended from the begining to be a multirole aircraft. It's is primarily replacing the Sepecat Jaguar Gr.4, the last two squadrons of which stand down within the next few months. JayFrancis 17:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

It's odd to start the article by saying the Typhoon is "very similar to the US-German Rockwell-MBB X-31 prototype". This seems to imply the development of the Typhoon owes something to that project, but I've never heard any evidence of that. The only major similarity is that both use canard-delta layouts, and the British had already been trying such designs in the preliminary work that led to the Typhoon even before it became a multinational project. Anyway, it's a layout that predates both aircraft. And there the similarities end. The X-31 was built specifically to investigate thrust vectoring, a technology that the Typhoon does not employ. - --Sergeirichard 15:58, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why was the validated and sourced reference to removal of cannon from RAF aircraft removed. --User:Nick Wallis 17:30, 06 Mar 2006 (UTC)

Typhoon uses the gun aiming algorithms of the Tornado (optimised for Air to Surface) despite being primarily an air-to-air role. These differences are reflected in the differing inclinations of the cannon on Tornado and Typhoon relative to the axis of the aircraft. In addition the Typhoon uses distributed processing with communications over a 1553 style weapons bus. This adds unpredictable latency to the calculations and display. Errors were discovered in the gun aiming markers during flight tests in 2002. Failure of the British and the Germans to agree who was at fault prevented resolution of the issue.

With removal of crown immunity and inaccurate weapon aiming fears of collateral damage and liability may be the real reason that the UK has removed gun capability.

Regarding the Typhoon MMI why is there no mention of the planned Helmet Mounted Sight/Helmet Mounted Display or of the Direct Voice Input?

Note that I use the terms HMS and HMD very carefully to mean different things. A Helmet Mounted Display is a device which projects a display onto the helmet visor. A Helmet Mounted Sight adds head tracking to this to allow real-world stabilisation of the display and provide true target tracking capabilities.

Typhoon was proposed to have a full integrated HMS (or as Eurofigher.com call it a Helmet Mounted Symbology System) which provides:

off-boresight weapon aiming outside of the traditional HUD field of view

increased pilot situational awareness by providing targeting displays in all aspect

display of critical flight parameters when looking outside the cockpit and HUD field of view

Are these more technology items that are late?

--User:Nick Wallis 11:00, 13 Mar 2006 (UTC)

[edit] thrust to weight

The thrust to weight ratio doesn't look right. Surely it should be 120kN / 9000kg, or about 13 N/Kg? (More with reheat). Too far out of my field to correct the article personally. 194.106.59.2 17:42, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It looks like somebody forgot to double the thrust for two engines. The loaded weight is normally used, 15,550 kg, so I'd say it should be 120,000 N/15,550 kg = 7.7 N/kg. I'll change it to that. Gene Nygaard 01:35, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The loaded weight is normally used, 15,550 kg? wrong, 11,350t + 5t fuel and arms 500 kgs+ pilot 100k is = 17t http://www.eurofighter.com/Documents/General/2002.1.FactBook.pdf unsigned comment by User:Jim G. Smtih 12:13, 13 January 2006

wrong, the evalutions was for the first eurofighter,early in 90's about a 9.7t plane, and never was reprocessed because propaganda web site didn't change datas, only weight, so, if you have a 1.5t increase on empty plane as the eurofighter tests sources shows today, and that engines are the same, you have to reprocess all performances datas, and job wasn't done! unsigned comment by User:Jim G. Smtih 10:46, 13 January 2006

Thrust to weight is all wrong, it should be 1.1 or better. We dont screw up the F-22A page, stop screwing the Eurofighter wiki.

[edit] AMONGST the most capable

I weakened the language because, obviously there is some debate about this. As presently written, the comparison section gives the impression that the eurofighter is inferior to the F/A-22. If there are some specific arguments to this effect (it is designed for a wider variety of missions that the F/A-22, it is faster than the (undeployed) F-35, whatever), they probably belong in the comparison section.

[edit] Primus Inter Pares

I had chosen the words quite carefully there. The F-22 should be a clearly superior fighter when it enters service, but it is not in service yet and won't be for a few months. So if you don't mind I'll change it back for now, I think the Typhoon should be allowed its moment of glory!

Sergeirichard 00:20, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The F-22_Raptor page claims that 51 were in service as of late 2004. Even if this were not the case, I think it is generally not a good idea to claim anything as being the "best" or "most capable" in an entry, as it tends to be POV. "Fastest", "most kills", "most expensive", "rated the best by Jane's" are all meaningful phrases that could be objectively true. Where there is a clear consensus that something is "most capable", it should always be possible to replace the subjective phrase with something more concrete. --Jsolinsky 09:16, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Even "amongst the most capable" bothers me. It ought to be relatively easy for a fan of the aircraft to find a highly positive quote reguarding the Typhoon's capabilities in one of the more respected publications, thus removing the subjectivity. --Jsolinsky 09:20, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

This article should really have an infobox such as used in many other aircraft articles - I can modify the Hawker_Siddeley_Harrier infobox and post it here for verification. Good idea? -Benbread 18:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Can the Eurofighter be deployed on the current british and French Aircraft carriers and if not what about the future British and French Aircraft Carriers? Since Aircraft Carriers are the major force projector in any nations military and if Eurofighter is not deployable on them shouldnt there be some mention of this serious shortcoming especially since the F-35 can and will be deployed on British Aircraft Carriers.

Secondly if the Eurofighter is not deployable on aircraft carriers i dont see the need why Britian, Germany and Spain have bought so many. Its like California purchasing fighter jets to deter Florida. Europe spends approx 1/3 on military as U.S. does and yet has a force projection much weaker than 1/3 of the U.S. Europe deploys approx 110 fighters on Carriers while the U.S. deploys approx 1000.

Any number of reasons. One, Europe's conventional submarine forces are reputed to have repeatedly "sunk" American carriers in exercises, possibly making Europe a bit more skeptical about whether carriers are still viable in a "hot war" situation. Two, European countries were faced with a direct threat over a land border; that hasn't existed for the US since the invention of the airplane. Third, it arguably still does; Russia hardly seems likely to start a war with the west any time soon, but it is a militarily powerful country that has relapsed into something much less than democratic. Fourth, because "Europe" doesn't have a common military, buying really big pieces of hardware like carrier fleets is kinda awkward financially. Fifth, because maybe Europe doesn't really feel the need to have global "power projection" capabilities; it's quite happy to be have formidible local defense to deter any invasion and leave the neocolonialism to the US. Fifth, because buying fighter planes isn't an entirely rational decision; they get male politicians, who've read Biggles books like the rest of us, irrationally excited. --Robert Merkel 06:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

It should be noted that Eurofighters cannot be deployed on UK aircraft carriers because they are SVTOL, not full size. The Future Carrier ships will likely be suitable for Typhoon deployment, but remember that we don't have the Atlantic Ocean to deal with, so Aircraft Carriers are less required -Benbread 13:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The Typhoon can't be deployed from current Royal Navy 'Invincible' class aircraft carriers as it does not have STOVL capability, nor do the carriers have arrestor wires/catpults. However, the future carrier program retains the option of having both arrestor wires and catapults, although they will not be fitted from the outset. The Future Carriers will carry JSF-B's that have STOVL. Remeber that Typhoon can be deployed from allied airbases near to the area of operations.

Update

I can't find a couple of facts, and i'm not entirely sure on Entered Service/First Flight (for the latter i assumed the first Typoon Prototype not British Aerospace prototype)

Any suggestions, comments? -Benbread 18:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the current guideline for an article says that you should remove the infobox so the specs for this plane are displayed correctly. But feel free to replace the infobox for the Hawker Siddeley Harrier with the new standard for the specs. --Sylvain Mielot 18:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Heh, maybe i should have read that before i spend 30 mins making the infobox, ahh well. -Benbread 19:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rolled-back edit..

With respect to the last edit, military project and especially planes are always years later, over budget, and take years after initial deployment to reach full capabilities (witness the F-22); in any case your claims are unsourced. --Robert Merkel 01:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced rants...

Unsourced rants on what a POS the Eurofighter is will get summarily reverted. --Robert Merkel 00:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is the whole start of the article a long rant about what a failure and how bad the Eurofighter is? I think that section should be reworked to a general description and overview of the fighter and the programme Itake 04:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eurofighter Stealthiness

The article contains a new bunch of unsourced claims about how stealthy the Eurofighter is. Who is claiming that the Typhoon has 1/3 the radar signature of the Rafale? Who said that being less stealthy than the F-22 was a cost-saving measure (which doesn't entirely make sense, surely it doesn't cost anything to, for instance, go with the F-22's angled tails rather than the Typhoon's straight-up tail)? If it was some random guy on a message board, that's not a reliable source. --Robert Merkel 01:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak for the numbers, or for whoever wrote the disputed section, but things like not having to develop internal bomb bays and launch mechanisms and not having to pay for all of the wind tunnel and radar reflection trials do represent substantial cost savings. For example, that stealth tail on the F22 would have to undergo far more rigerous trials than an ordinary tail, if only to prove that it wasn't going to shear off during flight.

perfectblue 09:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the relevant sentence:

Even equipped with full weaponry the Eurofighter is after the American F-22, F-117A and B-2 the plane with the lowest radar cross-section. It is said to be 1/7 of the Su-27, 1/3 of the F/A-18 or Rafale, but only 1/3 larger than the radar cross-section of the F-22.

This information is unsourced and thus it's impossible to assess its accuracy. --Robert Merkel 04:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree, the Typhoon has a low RCS yes, but that is only front the front, and the addition of weapons signifigantly adds to the radar signature. Does the low RCS apply only to the front on view of the craft carrying no armament? Or is it an evaluation of all direction arcs with a full combat load? I may have just come across it yet, but I have yet to see a reliable and unclassified evaluation that takes all of these factors into account. Does anyone here know of one? Klauth 04:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The actual radar cross section is of course classified, it is however set out for the RAF in SR(A)-425. According to the RAF the Eurofighter's RCS more than exceeds these requirements. More recent comments from BAE seem to indicate the radar return is around four times less than the Tornado. During a recent press event BAE Systems stated that the Typhoon's RCS is bettered only by the F-22 in the frontal hemisphere and betters the F-22 at some angles. Although the later comment is very questionable it still indicates a real attempt to reduce the Typhoon's radar signature. This should enable a Eurofighter pilot to remain undetected by his enemy until he his significantly closer than he may otherwise be able to achieve. --80.226.190.30 17:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major Changes

The Eurofighter Typhoon Page on Wikipedia needs some help with the writing. The sentances are long and you cant understand them. We need writing more like the F22 Raptor page. Sentances that are understandable to a regular reader, and even fun to read. I have started trying to change the sentences around to be more interesting. --clearfuture417

Totally agree, F-35 Joint Strike Fighter has just been awarded Featured, so it'd be a good template to work from --PopUpPirate 00:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

if I have time I wil reshuffle some of this text. I don't think that the production section with a lot of tables should come before a fairly large text section. Also, the error with a thumbnail should be cleared up. I'm too tired to do it now though. --The1exile 23:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

To the user(s) who continually remove Saudi Arabia from the production totals table; Saudi Arabia has agreed to purchase the Typhoon, as confirmed by the British Ministry of Defence, numerous reputable media outlets and the contractor BAE Systems e.g:

"In December 2005, the governments of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the UK signed an Understanding Document, intended to establish a greater partnership in modernising the Saudi Arabian Armed Forces.... It is also intended that Typhoon aircraft will replace Tornado Air Defence Variant aircraft and other aircraft in service with the Royal Saudi Air Force. The details of these arrangements are confidential."

The last sentence is the important one, we don't know for sure how many they have bought. However pending further offical confirmation I believe it is acceptable to include the numbers quoted by reputable media outlets (the Financial Times via Forbes.com and The Times). It is also more correct to quote these numbers than to exlude mention of the Saudi purchase at all. Mark83 16:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I know there is an Understanding Agreement between the two Govs, but there are no official figures mentioned in any media...anywhere. So, don't just guess. Unsigned comment by User:Superdan8

The agreement is secret, so of course there are no official numbers, but as I said the reference are from reputable sources who must have had some official indication. The FT reference says:

"The agreement is understood to be for 48 Eurofighter Typhoon jets, with an option for a further 24, people close to the talks told the newspaper."

I say again it is less accurate to totally exclude mention of RSAF orders than to include this number. I don't see your objection, it is very clearly highlighted that it is not an offical number. Mark83 00:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

CORRECTION? >>> I think that only the first 24 of the initial 48 come from tranche 2 - you might want to check/correct that.

The accuracy is your opinion, which you are entitled to. The FACT is there are NO official numbers released from either the UK Gov or the SA Gov. So, when there is CONTRACTED and official numbers, sure lets put 'em in.Unsigned comment by User:Superdan8

Your right it is my opinion, what's your opinion? Do you not think it more than a coincidence that two highly respected newspapers came up with exactly the same figures? I'm going to say this for the third time; it is less accurate to totally exclude mention of RSAF orders than to include this number.Mark83 21:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Coincidence or no coincidence, it is still not a contracted order - it is purely an Understanding. Hell, it might all change with Chirac le Worm over in Saudi this week. The official order book is without any guessing on Saudi Arabia...unless you're wanting this page to be an unofficial Eurofighter Typhoon entry...(Superdan8 16:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC))

The entire article is ripe with suggestion, loaded terminology and opinion, and few of it is labeled to indicate it as such. There is a strong bias throughout the article in favor of the Typhoon's superiority to other modern fighters (the only exception suggested is the F-22 Raptor, actually a non-concession since it suggests that the two craft are highly comparable despite the lack of any truly concrete, non-biased evidence to this claim). The best example of the opinion present in the article occurs in the 'Problems' section, where the author(s) claim that a crash due to engine trouble, later gear failiures, and lack of an automatic spin/stall recovery system in an airframe designed to be unstable are 'minor', 'political', and 'easily solved'. Furthermore, the author(s) make mistakes and inconsistencies throughout the article, such as failing to note the aircrafts cannon as 'disabled' or 'non-RAF' under armament, or failing to note that not only is it unlikely that the encounter ever happened (or that it happened in the manner suggested by the Scottsman, since 2v1 tactics in dogfighting are well established and extremely hard to defeat), but that the reference to 'The Scottsman' article is politically linked and not without bias. The Eurofighter is likely a fine aircraft, but the handling of this article does it a disservice.

[edit] Singapore Evaluation

I note with interest that mentions of the Singapore evaluation in the article lacked reference to one of the biggest advantages that the Typhoon and Rafale would have possibly given over the F-15, namely, the MBDA Meteor, and its immediately availability to RSAF airbases in time of war.

To be honest, while the Eagle may not be on par with its evaluation competitors in the areas of manuveurability and avionics, given the training of the RSAF pilot, it is a sufficiently capable and modern aircraft, and would prove to be an even match to the Su-30MKs being acquired by Singapore's neighbours. However, if said neighbours begin engaging RSAF aircraft with R-77 air-to-airs without prior warning, Singapore would be unable to respond immediately with AMRAAMs, since they are stored in the US and would take time to ship home.

Granted, such a scenario may seem a little ridiculous, but surely the immediate availability of BVRAAMS in RSAF airbases would have been considered in the Singapore evaluation, and thus deserve some mention, at least in terms of analysing the evaluation? --83.67.208.250 09:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It was my understanding that the Meteor is not yet in production, and wont be ready until 2010 at best. Furthermore, I believe that the Eagle (F-15E modded to F-15SG, which is a strong ground-attack variant of the F-15K) decision was primarily motivated because neither the Rafael nor the Typhoon could demonstrate strength in Air to Ground capability. --68.105.141.199 02:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for clarifying. I was aware that Meteor was still in development, but didn't realise that projected production date would be beyond the RSAF's timeframe. Thanks for this. Your observation about the F-15SG's capabilities relative to the other two craft are also quite spot on. Having said that, I'm inclined to accept the rumours from the RSAF eval team regarding their pref for the Typhoon... When you mention lack in strength in Air to Ground, do you refer to the Typhoon and Rafale's projected capability when RSAF wants the planes delivered, or its Full Operational Capability? --83.67.208.250 00:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anonymous vigilante monitoring

Hello all. Am gonna start monitoring the talk page and clear it of any comments I find to be inflammatory/annoying/attacks of personal nature. Apologies for any inconvenience caused. 83.67.208.250

If you remove info you arbitrarily deem to be "inflammatory/annoying/attacks" which others may not consider to be so, you risk being banned from editing. This is a talk page, where opinions are fine within limits. Just a friendly hint to not insist that your high limits must be accepted by others. Moriori 10:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Noted. thanks for the heads up. --83.67.208.250 10:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Supercruise capability F 22

"...while the F-22 by comparison can supercruise rather faster with a full internal weapons load." Doesn't sound very precise... Has anyone a definitife value/source? Otherwise i'd remove that.84.155.116.121 10:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The F-22 is not slowed by the parasitic drag of external stores and so suffers little penalty when carrying internal weapons. --Mmx1 13:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah but it is also heavier, weight must equil lift which will result in drag from the wings. and besides having internal storage for wepons increases your crossectional area, increasing drag, and evern if it can super cruse faster, can it supercruse for as long? actual reference would be needed for such a claim. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.244.246.25 (talk • contribs) .

It's well established that induced drag decreases with airspeed while parasitic drag increases sharply with increasing speed. --Mmx1 14:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

induced drag is to do with the energy lossed in the tip vortex of the wing. the Coefichient of induced Drag is Proportional to Lift Coefichient. lift coeficient must be reduced with the squair of the speed to maintain the same lift in level flight, therefor the total induced drag probably stays constant with speed,

however this is of inconsiquence, the main consticuence of drag at supersonic drag is from form drag and wave drag, (skin friction plays a small part, however coursing flow seperation, which results in fome drag) now the important charicteristic when crusing is the lift to drag ratio. this is the ratio of lift(=weight) to the drag created by the airframe to suport that. at transonic speeds the lift to drag ratio is greatly reduced due to the shock waves creating flow seperation on the wings. i dare say that carrying stores internaly for stelth reasons also reduces drag, however the assosiated increase in fusalarge size may have an adverse effect on the drag it creates, and thus the lift to drag ratio of the airframe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought - you'll need a source, otherwise that speculation has to be removed from the article in order to meet WP's quality requirements 84.56.50.181 22:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Section removed

I've removed the following:

"The validity of this encounter has also come under much scrutiny by aviation enthusiasts who point to the the facts that no F-15s are deployed to the area in question, the Typhoon was devoid of its production anti-aircraft radar which were only installed in test aircraft in September, 2005, and the unlikelihood of exceedingly rare aircraft happening upon each other accidentaly."

Because

"no F-15s are deployed to the area in question" — F-15s aren't based hundreds of miles away in Scotland, but can still be seen there, for example using the bombing range at Tain. They could easily have been going to/returning from exercises over the Irish Sea.
"was devoid of its production anti-aircraft radar" — production radar or not, the BAE Typhoons have carried development radars for years and very likely trialling advanced capabilites much higher than initial production radars. Also the article merely states the Typhoons were able to dogfight their way out of being pursued, it doesn't mention any scenario where radar capability was necessary.
"exceedingly rare" – F-15s are not exceedingly rare, Typhoons might have been but the area in question is close to Warton, where they were based at the time.
Whoever added it is pursuing their own agenda. Does anyone doubt the Typhoon is capable of such a manouvre? Even F-15 pilots wouldn't argue it. Mark83 20:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canard-delta?

This term is in the opening sentence, yet is probably not familiar to many laypeople reading this article - I had to look it up to be sure. Could it be linked to a suitable explanatory article, if such exists? Loganberry (Talk) 18:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I've linked the two seperate words, we don't have an article on "canard-delta" as a configuration.

Canard
Delta wing Mark83 19:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed resemblance

I removed this from the article: "The EAP and the EFA nose and canard sections resemble the MiG Ye-8 [2] of 1962". My reasoning is that one could say the same of the Rafale or the Gripen, and that the canard on the Ye-8 is unlikely to have fulfilled the same role that the Typhoon's does. It isn't clear from your reference but I'd say they're likely to have been fixed like on the Cheetah or the Kfir. In fact the ref you gave doesn't even allow me to judge the degree of the resemblence. Let's talk the matter out here, rather than revert-warring over it? --Guinnog 17:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

With that reasoning I agree with you. But the point i was making is the visual (not neccessarily technical) similarity. The Rafale and Gripen's air intakes do not resemble the Eurofighter's at all, wheras the MiG Ye-8's resemblence is striking across the entire fron section. Gunter 17:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The visual resemblance is not necessarily worth a mention. If you had verifiable evidence that the designers were influenced by the Russian design, now that would be worth including! --Guinnog 19:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that the resemblence is "striking" — compare this with this. Different in so many ways. Also only similarity regarding intakes is their position, in terms of design they are very different. Mark83 20:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Although from that first photo, it looks like the canards on the Ye-8 were indeed movable; were they used for Mach trimming or something? I don't think the processing power available to the Soviets in the 60s would have allowed their use as actual flight controls. --Guinnog 20:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

the Ye-8 air craft would not have been relaxed stability, there for prosesing power of the controls is not an issue! the air craft would just use the forplanes as normal control surfaces! the advantage of canards being that the force of a control input acts in the direction that you want the aircraft to go!

saying that the the Mig has Canards that looks like the Typhoons there for they are the same is like saying the Typhoon has wings, so dose a Cesna-128 there for they are based on each other, or Cows haf 4legs, so do horses, therefore Cows are Horses Richard 10:01, 31 july 2006 (BST)

[edit] OT, but fun

You guys are really doing a good job here, so relax for amoment and check out this little fun propaganda from Royal Air Force ;-) [3] Cycling fan22 16:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that, very enjoyable. Although its a Eurofighter GmbH video I think (just happens to be portraying a Royal Air Force Typhoon). The take off sequence and missile launches etc are very well done. Mark83 16:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I liked it too. Thanks for posting it. --Guinnog 17:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Definite similarity to Behind Enemy Lines with the SAM sequence – dodgy looking smoking guy, freeze frames etc. Couldn't have been cheap to make. Mark83 17:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Not seen that. Looks like it though, from the article. --Guinnog 17:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately the quality of the flash video isn't that good and sound sometimes asynchronous, but the downloaded *.avi is better. Cycling fan22 17:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep, downloaded version is much better. I liked the way the Typhoon trashed the SU-35 :) don't know if this is that realistic, but after all they want to sell their plane... 84.56.28.238 17:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Added Information about voice control and IRST

I added some some technical information about the passive infrared tracking system, the voice control and the "carefree" FBW; i consider these details relevant, hope you'll agree. There are many sources but [4] and [5] should be sufficient. Cycling fan22 18:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Ahm, there are still some technical features that could be added, but i'm not sure how detailde the article should be in the end... so i'll just summarise a bit what could be interesting or relevant or both:

-the helmet-mounted display (HMD) system for the Eurofighter Typhoon; BAE Systems claims that this is the first binocular, visor-projected, night vision-capable helmet with complex imagery on a fighter aircraft. The head tracking system also provides weapon aiming through the pilot’s visor.

-the Automatic Low Speed Recovery System (ALSR), wich should prevent stalling in a variety of situations by automatically taking control of the airplane

-the ability to auto-attack - combining the radar and the digital flight control system to engage a selected target under autopilot control

-TERPROM (terrain profile matching) linked with GPS, INS and radar altimeter for a variety of purposes

-the advanced defensive aids subsystem (DASS) to detect, identify and prioritize threats, and then respond with active countermeasures without pilot intervention

-Sensor fusion and networking with other Eurofighters

-the engine featuring single crystal turbine blades and integrated health monitoring

-integrated structural health and usage monitoring system (HUMS) with stress monitoring sensors in the airframe, also a novelty.

Please give feedback, Cycling fan22 23:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed reference to BBC article

I removed the following text from the first paragraph:

Also in Aug 2006,the BBC indicated that,reports suggest that RAF Eurofighters have flown highly successful missions against the F-22 during recent exercises in the US,and in reference to the F-22, stealth aircraft cannot carry out tight dogfight manoeuvres at high speed.

First of all I don't think the first paragraph was the best place for it, secondly I doubt the statement stealth aircraft cannot carry out tight dogfight manoeuvres at high speed. I don't think an aircraft's stealthiness is directly linked to its manoeuverability at any speed. I contacted the BBC about this when I read it in their original article and asked them where they had got the information from. They could not provide a source for the information and eventually agreed that it should be taken out of the article. Although the article from which the quote is taken appeared at the time of the Saudi order, the part about manoeuverability was actually written a few years ago.Mumby 10:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No Tiffie 2 for Turkey?

Seems that according to reports at end of October 2006 that Turkish AF prefers the JSF (more fool them). It is for the NATO nation’s 15-year, $10 billion program to buy about 100 new-generation fighter aircraft, Turkish procurement and military officials said. Selection process had narrowed down to a choice between buying all JSFs and a mixed buy of the JSF and the Typhoon. But the Air Force, whose fighter fleet is exclusively of U.S. design and which follows a strong American tradition, has opted for an all-JSF solution, the officials said.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=2306905&C=europe

81.86.144.210 08:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Costs and delays

Typhoon has suffered very large cost increases has been changed to Typhoon has suffered large cost increases.

Can the increase from £7 billion to £19 billion not be described as "very large"? It is misleading to describe it as anything else: it is truly "very large" in both percentage and overall terms - the increase is a little larger than India's entire annual military spend for example. Just to use "large" on its own is POV. Mark83 mentions Wikipedia:Words to avoid, which I had a good look at, and I also checked on Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. There is no reason why the reasons for the increase cannot be discussed - indeed they would be a helpful addition. Any other views? Springnuts 12:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with Mark83's edit, very is a relative term and is best left out. However, I would go further and say that

Typhoon has suffered..

is anthropomorphism, so the entire sentence needs a re-write. Something along the lines of : "The cost of the Eurofighter project has increased from £7 billion to £19 billion", I think that is also better with respect to NPOV.Mumby 13:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, it's up to the reader to decide what's very large and what it is not. Also note that £19 billion is UK only costs, not total project costs. Mark83 13:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I have rewritten iaw Mumby's helpful comments - hope this is OK. Some context of reasons for cost increases would be useful. Springnuts 15:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks better to me. I hope between us we can expand this section on a classic piece of UK defence procurement! However, this now begs a question: If we want to write about cost increases to the UK jets only, should that not go on the page for the UK jets (RAF Typhoon F2)? In the talk page for that article I have suggested the possibilty of a merge with this article, no replies so far. Any opinions? Mumby 21:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The above issue has been resolved, the discussion is still available throught the link above (now a redirect for Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon variants) Mark83 21:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MBDA Meteor

No mention of the AMRAAM-D which will enter service a full two years before the Meteor? How passive, "current AMRAAM", Hmm.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by West Point MP (talk • contribs) .

Oh, you mean this AMRAAM? Looks like that AMRAAM article could do with some serious updating. As far as this article is concerned, I've noted that the AMRAAM is also getting an upgrade.

Putting my speculation hat on for a moment, however, no matter how clever Raytheon is, it's going to be damned hard for the AMRAAM to match the kinetic performance of the Meteor with a rocket-powered missile - but then, who knows about the quality of the respective electronics and software.

Oh, and one other point. You'll appreciate that the Wikipedia isn't intended as a forum for fanboys of particular aircraft to score points at other fans' expense. There are innumerable other forums for that purpose. --Robert Merkel 15:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the Meteor will likely have better kinematics in the terminal phase because it will be ramjet powered, as such it wont be gliding to the target. However that was not my point just that there's no mention of the future D version. But I understand the reasoning and wont bother about it anymore, thanks for the response BTW. --West Point MP

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/u/r/Talk%7EEurofighter_Typhoon_ee71.html"

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.