F-16.net

Thumper3181 wrote:

Is it really? At what cost? The UK MOD is being put under severe budgetary pressure trying to pay for operations in Afghanistan, two aircraft carriers, the JSF and the money pit also known as the Eurofighter. The opening post says it all. For 68 Million pounds they got an aircraft that is not even fully developed. The Tranche III planes are going to cost so much that they have to mothball the Tranche I and II planes. So for the cost of 232 very expensive Typhoons that get less than half of those operationally and an MOD woefully short of other needed equipment.

Fundamentally I agree with you. But how do you put a price on your own national security? Alliances as good as they are cannot be guaranteed. The UK could of course abandon their own fighter program and rely on the United States. But this would be a titanic shift in foreign policy that no UK politician would take lightly. It would be an overt admission by the UK of the obvious but unsaid reality that the UK depends on the United States for meaningful military capability.

The Typhoon represents the pinnacle of European fighter technology. As such it's cost is proportional with the F-22. Since the US is a lot more militarily technologically advanced, the fighters from the USA are a lot more capable for the money in general.

So while the Europeans will probably never completely abandon the production of their own designs. If they want to remain capable of power projection and of dealing with the upper tier threats they will need to seek an alliance with the United States and import our fighters. Without a common defense policy to direct the vast sums of money and technology "Europe" has at it's disposal into military programs. It's likely that this trend will continue for some time. i.e. The USA can buy more R&D man hours, more exotic materials, more advanced technologies and focus it all on a common set of objectives and with the program having Unity of Command. While the Europeans have to all sit down and debate over what features are more applicable to their individual needs and decide if it's worth it to pay for capabilities they don't really need but another partner nation does. With no nation in the lead directing the effort, chaos and cost overruns will plague the program which is what happened to the Typhoon and Rafale which represents the French being displeased with what they thought was an aircraft that could not meet their needs so they built their own version. An astonishing amount of money wasted but necessary unless they wanted to be dependent.

-DA

F-16.net Sponsor

This message from our sponsor will disappear if you log on as a member.

DarthAmerica wrote:

The UK could of course abandon their own fighter program and rely on the United States.
-DA

Typhoon is not their "own fighter program". While they assemble all of their EFs they share components and development with the rest of the consortium. I think your argument would hold water if they went about developing and fielding their own indigenous fighter as the French did.

The Rafale is purely French, and while it still needs work and it is expensive they have got their own fully independent design and manufacturing capability. The British have spent far more and have less to show for it.

Thumper3181 wrote:

DarthAmerica wrote:

The UK could of course abandon their own fighter program and rely on the United States.
-DA

Typhoon is not their "own fighter program". While they assemble all of their EFs they share components and development with the rest of the consortium. I think your argument would hold water if they went about developing and fielding their own indigenous fighter as the French did.

The Rafale is purely French, and while it still needs work and it is expensive they have got their own fully independent design and manufacturing capability. The British have spent far more and have less to show for it.

I agree with this assessment. I should not have characterized the fighter as "British". Either way though, it shows that European aerospace manufacturers are at a stage of technological development where operationally they can field fighters in the mid blk F-16, F/A-18 class independently but at much greater cost. Arguably, I'd have to agree that the French have the most developed and capable European fighter program. Although, I'd like to see an analysis of the Rafale side by side with the Gripen just to be sure.

It's going to interesting to see what the various European nations will do following the F-35 and EuroCanard Deltas service lives.

-DA

DarthAmerica wrote:

What I've seen is aircraft carrying 2 to 4 AAMs IN COMBAT.

In fighter configuration various aircraft carry a larger number in COMBAT. Just search for some pics of F-15s, F-14s or Tornado ADV for example over Iraq during ODS f.e.

Quote:

No, it's the sensor. Why do you think prior aircraft were very much tied to AWACS and GCI to maximize effectiveness. It's because on their own they don't have the situational awareness to set up attacks in the most advantageous way. Why do you thing getting AESA compatible aircraft is a # priority these days. Please, nobody respond with the suggestion that I'm saying AESA fighters makes AWACS and GCI obsolete.

The sensors are good for the start, but your advantage can vanish when weapons range is insufficient. That is spoken in general and not related to the F-35. LO/VLO platforms take the advantage of entering in the enemies missile launch envelope remaining undetected or lets say that's at least how it should work in theory.

Quote:

Wrong. Has nothing to do with flight performance. Think of how an ASAT works. A DDG can fire at targets well outside the range of an SM-3. It doesn't supercruise either. Understand now?

-DA

So you are inventing new laws of physics. Claiming that the speed and altitude of the launch platform doesn't matter for the missile's range is a pretty false conclusion.

Thumper3181 wrote:

Is it really? At what cost? The UK MOD is being put under severe budgetary pressure trying to pay for operations in Afghanistan, two aircraft carriers, the JSF and the money pit also known as the Eurofighter. The opening post says it all. For 68 Million pounds they got an aircraft that is not even fully developed. The Tranche III planes are going to cost so much that they have to mothball the Tranche I and II planes. So for the cost of 232 very expensive Typhoons that get less than half of those operationally and an MOD woefully short of other needed equipment.

You are aware that this isn't fly away cost, are you? Until no one knows how much tranche 3 aircraft are going to cost at all, negotiations are still underway so that point is nonsense. BTW the Typhoon has achieved its intended block 5 FOC configuration which is still mainly optimised for the AA role. That was the primary object, the AG capabilities will evolve.

DarthAmerica wrote:

I agree with this assessment. I should not have characterized the fighter as "British". Either way though, it shows that European aerospace manufacturers are at a stage of technological development where operationally they can field fighters in the mid blk F-16, F/A-18 class independently but at much greater cost.
-DA

Sorry but that comparison lacks. The Typhoon is in the F/A-18s weight class but apart from that it's a totally different beast. The Typhoon is much more complex as the F-16 or F/A-18 or any other teenseries design.

Scorpion82 wrote:

DarthAmerica wrote:

What I've seen is aircraft carrying 2 to 4 AAMs IN COMBAT.

In fighter configuration various aircraft carry a larger number in COMBAT. Just search for some pics of F-15s, F-14s or Tornado ADV for example over Iraq during ODS f.e.

ODS era fighters carried AIM-7's and not AMRAAMs which have a higher pk. Also, during ODS, there are very few instances of fighters firing that many weapons if any at all. I'm talking about Combat TODAY. I could email you pictures from my personal camera if you would like and you will see the combat loads I am describing.

Also, I'm not inventing laws of physics at all. You are misunderstanding what I am saying Scorpion. If fighter A CAN'T SEE fighter B until fighter B is inside the maximum range of Fighter A's weapons, then obviously the R_Max of the missile is irrelevant since it is not possible to take the shot at a target you cannot provide telemetry for.

However, if Fighter B can see fighter A from well outside of missile kinematic range. Then Fighter B can predict when fighter A will enter that range and fire a missile to "meet" fighter A at the moment he enters that range. This is completely different from what you are talking about. AESA equipped fighters can do this.

-DA

Scorpion82 wrote:

DarthAmerica wrote:

I agree with this assessment. I should not have characterized the fighter as "British". Either way though, it shows that European aerospace manufacturers are at a stage of technological development where operationally they can field fighters in the mid blk F-16, F/A-18 class independently but at much greater cost.
-DA

Sorry but that comparison lacks. The Typhoon is in the F/A-18s weight class but apart from that it's a totally different beast. The Typhoon is much more complex as the F-16 or F/A-18 or any other teenseries design.

No it doesn't. Sorry but that's the reality. I know a lot of ECD fans don't want to hear that but it is the truth. Sure the Typhoon may be more complex and have some superior avionics due to the longer development period stretching into the late 1990's. But the Typhoon is actually less capable as a multirole platform. Its have a very limited variety of weapons and can't even self designate it's own targets(that has or will change but still).

You are in denial if you think a Typhoon is as capable as a late model F-teen. Any of them. And just forget about the F/A-18E/F.

-DA

Thumper
As indicated at the top of the post, so far there is only an op-ed from a gadfly with an anti-BAE record to suggest that the T1 and T2 Typhoons will be mothballed.
Darth
As noted before, the problem with your notional engagement is MAWS. At the very least, the targets know they are being shot at. The technology is very much in hand for them to know the approximate launch location. At extreme launch ranges there is time to reduce the Pk via evasion, jamming and decoys. So it's a bit more complicated than you say.

LowObservable wrote:

Thumper
As indicated at the top of the post, so far there is only an op-ed from a gadfly with an anti-BAE record to suggest that the T1 and T2 Typhoons will be mothballed.
Darth
As noted before, the problem with your notional engagement is MAWS. At the very least, the targets know they are being shot at. The technology is very much in hand for them to know the approximate launch location. At extreme launch ranges there is time to reduce the Pk via evasion, jamming and decoys. So it's a bit more complicated than you say.

I'm sorry but this is not always true. Stealth technology goes beyond just reducing the RCS of the firing platform. It includes emissions and even the type of guidance methodology for the weapons. MAWS will not always warn you either. Most MAWS detect the IR/UV signature of the rocket motor. That works at close ranges. But at BVR distances I think that would get a bit challenging even if it could work that far away. Although it may work better on METEOR rather than AIM-120. You can probably guess why. There are some active RF emitting MAWS but these are less common and certainly would not have the range to detect a BVR weapon at range.

Besides, I do hope you realize 90% of the threat aircraft flying around out there barely even have a simple RWR. Most of the BVR kills of the last 20 years probably didn't even know they were being engaged until too late. Read some of the interviews of pilots who were shot down by other fighters at BVR ranges. Almost all were caught by complete tactical surprise and "found out" they had been shot down after the fact.

-DA

Scorpion82 wrote:

You are aware that this isn't fly away cost, are you? Until no one knows how much tranche 3 aircraft are going to cost at all, negotiations are still underway so that point is nonsense. BTW the Typhoon has achieved its intended block 5 FOC configuration which is still mainly optimised for the AA role. That was the primary object, the AG capabilities will evolve.

No, according to the British NAO (kind of like the American Congressional Budget Office) the Unit Production Cost for each UK built tranch I and tranch II Typhoons is 68.9Million Pounds

Page 158
http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/nao_ ... 0898ii.pdf

This was in 2007 and it does not take into account such badly needed upgrades like AESA or Meteor integration. That converts to 137.8 Million dollars each for a plane that can do far less than a Super Hornet or upgraded Eagle.

Unit production cost includes engine, airframe, sensors. Total if development is taken into account is in excess of 80 Million Pounds per unit.

Don't fool yourself about Tranche 3. I know they are conducting the negotiation in secret. Do you really think they are going to cost less than T1 and T2. Just the AESA alone is going to add significantly to the cost of the plane.

Scorpion, Europe is in collective denial about this plane. It's nice but it's no big deal and it is bankrupting defense budgets. At least the French can say they have developed their latest multi role jet independently and it can be used aboard aircraft carriers as well.

LowObservable wrote:

As indicated at the top of the post, so far there is only an op-ed from a gadfly with an anti-BAE record to suggest that the T1 and T2 Typhoons will be mothballed.

He is not the only one talking about mothballing those fighters. It is a fact the UK MOD is broke and the Typhoon is the single most expensive item in the budget.

Enthusiast Joined: Jan 21, 2008 Posts: 52 Status: Offline

DarthAmerica wrote:

Scorpion82 wrote:

DarthAmerica wrote:

I agree with this assessment. I should not have characterized the fighter as "British". Either way though, it shows that European aerospace manufacturers are at a stage of technological development where operationally they can field fighters in the mid blk F-16, F/A-18 class independently but at much greater cost.
-DA

Sorry but that comparison lacks. The Typhoon is in the F/A-18s weight class but apart from that it's a totally different beast. The Typhoon is much more complex as the F-16 or F/A-18 or any other teenseries design.

No it doesn't. Sorry but that's the reality. I know a lot of ECD fans don't want to hear that but it is the truth. Sure the Typhoon may be more complex and have some superior avionics due to the longer development period stretching into the late 1990's. But the Typhoon is actually less capable as a multirole platform. Its have a very limited variety of weapons and can't even self designate it's own targets(that has or will change but still).

You are in denial if you think a Typhoon is as capable as a late model F-teen. Any of them. And just forget about the F/A-18E/F.

-DA

Ok, so the multi-role argument holds true for the F-22 as well, which will probably never be able to lase it's own targets. (Not that that's that bad of an issue given it's role and JDAM, but don't go inflating this when talking about the EF). Sure the F-22 has some other good stuff, but you are selectively picking arguments against the EF and over simplifying all the things that go into a modern combat aircraft that aren't obvious. Agility (and agility ENVELOPE!), reliability, speed/supercruise, ECM, maintainability, IRST... Plus, the Typhoon has proven itself against most if not all teen-series or equivalents at countless exercises (do the research). It's large price is largely for economic reasons (not least the weak dollar course in recent times). I'd say that it's slightly below the F/A-18E in terms of electronics (this will be fixed with the upgrades, should they happen), but beats it hands down in airframe performance. More than enough to take on newer Su/MiGs. Of course it's not on par with the F-22 and the F-35, which will be nearly a decade more advanced, but you are grossly underestimating it. It's performance in exercises makes that point.

AeroG33k wrote:

DarthAmerica wrote:

Scorpion82 wrote:

DarthAmerica wrote:

I agree with this assessment. I should not have characterized the fighter as "British". Either way though, it shows that European aerospace manufacturers are at a stage of technological development where operationally they can field fighters in the mid blk F-16, F/A-18 class independently but at much greater cost.
-DA

Sorry but that comparison lacks. The Typhoon is in the F/A-18s weight class but apart from that it's a totally different beast. The Typhoon is much more complex as the F-16 or F/A-18 or any other teenseries design.

No it doesn't. Sorry but that's the reality. I know a lot of ECD fans don't want to hear that but it is the truth. Sure the Typhoon may be more complex and have some superior avionics due to the longer development period stretching into the late 1990's. But the Typhoon is actually less capable as a multirole platform. Its have a very limited variety of weapons and can't even self designate it's own targets(that has or will change but still).

You are in denial if you think a Typhoon is as capable as a late model F-teen. Any of them. And just forget about the F/A-18E/F.

-DA

Ok, so the multi-role argument holds true for the F-22 as well, which will probably never be able to lase it's own targets. (Not that that's that bad of an issue given it's role and JDAM, but don't go inflating this when talking about the EF). Sure the F-22 has some other good stuff, but you are selectively picking arguments against the EF and over simplifying all the things that go into a modern combat aircraft that aren't obvious. Agility (and agility ENVELOPE!), reliability, speed/supercruise, ECM, maintainability, IRST... Plus, the Typhoon has proven itself against most if not all teen-series or equivalents at countless exercises (do the research). It's large price is largely for economic reasons (not least the weak dollar course in recent times). I'd say that it's slightly below the F/A-18E in terms of electronics (this will be fixed with the upgrades, should they happen), but beats it hands down in airframe performance. More than enough to take on newer Su/MiGs. Of course it's not on par with the F-22 and the F-35, which will be nearly a decade more advanced, but you are grossly underestimating it. It's performance in exercises makes that point.

First, your analysis is what's known as category error. You have so improperly defined the problem so as to make a response to this post impossible. First I'll start out with the irrelevancies you posted. Irrelevancies:

1. F-22 is was designed first and foremost to be an air dominance stealth fighter. AFAIK it was never even intended to carry any type of LGB. So why it would need to designate targets for LGB's is really beyond me. YOu should not have even mentioned something like that.

2. DACT, Exercises and "Proving Oneself against F-Teens". That has never ever happened. That isn't even the purpose of those training events. I'm going to link you to an explanation of what DACT is so that you can avoid this in the future.

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1157

Now when the Typhoon did actually have to compete against F-15s to fulfill several different next generation multirole fighter contracts. It was not chosen EACH TIME. Why do you think that is?

3. Agility, Supercruise, IRST blah blah blah...The Typhoon offers no significant advantages whatsoever compared to F-Teens in terms of performance or sensors. PERIOD. At best it has some more modern man machine interface technology but that is like arguing the interior of a BMW vs Benz. It's preference and subjective. Also, the Typhoon does not supercruise. Again in case you don't hear me. Typhoon does not supercruise. One more time, Typhoon does not supercruise. I know its all over the internet that Typhoon can supercruise. This is an example of the phone game gone wild. One person said it, now its grown to where the Typhoon is just shy of the F-22s flight performance. Supercruise being defined as something that could actually be used to an advantage operationally. Lots of modern jets can exceed Mach 1 and stay there briefly with out burners.

4. Typhoons flight performance is not better than an F/A-18E/F. Both aircraft are built to fly certain flight profiles under specific conditions. They weren't built to compete in some fighter race where the intent was to see who's fighter is fastest, higher flying or more maneuverable. All of those specs are variables anyway. Also, Typhoons avionics are nowhere near as capable as the F/A-18E/F. Nor will they be anytime soon.

5. Typhoon beats MIgs/SUs. Yeah, ok. Sure. Unfortunately, neither the Typhoon or any Russian jets are going to fight one vs one in some contest. It will be a war where the best system will triumph. The latest Migs and Su-27s are more than capable of shooting down Typhoons. Typhoons don't really enjoy any distinct advantages. If its a NATO Typhoon going up against an Isolated overwhelmed Serbian Mig fleet then that has nothing to do the Typhoon being superior at the platform level. That is failure or inability of the Serb System. If said Typhoons tried to fight over Western Russia against the PVO then the results could be dramatically different. I'd say the latest operational Su-27s and Mig-29s while being a bit more crude in their design approach are about on par with Typhoon all things considered.

At the end of the day, the Typhoon is a mid sized moderately capable fighter that is about as capable as a mid life non-AESA equipped F-15C in terms of BVR capability at short range but with more a2g capability although not as capable as an F-16 or F/A-18C in terms of multirole performance and it is entirely inferior to any of the AESA F-15Cs, F-16 Blk 50/52, F-16 Blk 60, F-16I, F-15E/I/K/SG variants or F/A-18E/F.

-DA

Enthusiast Joined: Jan 21, 2008 Posts: 52 Status: Offline

DarthAmerica wrote:

AeroG33k wrote:

DarthAmerica wrote:

Scorpion82 wrote:

DarthAmerica wrote:

I agree with this assessment. I should not have characterized the fighter as "British". Either way though, it shows that European aerospace manufacturers are at a stage of technological development where operationally they can field fighters in the mid blk F-16, F/A-18 class independently but at much greater cost.
-DA

Sorry but that comparison lacks. The Typhoon is in the F/A-18s weight class but apart from that it's a totally different beast. The Typhoon is much more complex as the F-16 or F/A-18 or any other teenseries design.

No it doesn't. Sorry but that's the reality. I know a lot of ECD fans don't want to hear that but it is the truth. Sure the Typhoon may be more complex and have some superior avionics due to the longer development period stretching into the late 1990's. But the Typhoon is actually less capable as a multirole platform. Its have a very limited variety of weapons and can't even self designate it's own targets(that has or will change but still).

You are in denial if you think a Typhoon is as capable as a late model F-teen. Any of them. And just forget about the F/A-18E/F.

-DA

Ok, so the multi-role argument holds true for the F-22 as well, which will probably never be able to lase it's own targets. (Not that that's that bad of an issue given it's role and JDAM, but don't go inflating this when talking about the EF). Sure the F-22 has some other good stuff, but you are selectively picking arguments against the EF and over simplifying all the things that go into a modern combat aircraft that aren't obvious. Agility (and agility ENVELOPE!), reliability, speed/supercruise, ECM, maintainability, IRST... Plus, the Typhoon has proven itself against most if not all teen-series or equivalents at countless exercises (do the research). It's large price is largely for economic reasons (not least the weak dollar course in recent times). I'd say that it's slightly below the F/A-18E in terms of electronics (this will be fixed with the upgrades, should they happen), but beats it hands down in airframe performance. More than enough to take on newer Su/MiGs. Of course it's not on par with the F-22 and the F-35, which will be nearly a decade more advanced, but you are grossly underestimating it. It's performance in exercises makes that point.

First, your analysis is what's known as category error. You have so improperly defined the problem so as to make a response to this post impossible. First I'll start out with the irrelevancies you posted. Irrelevancies:

1. F-22 is was designed first and foremost to be an air dominance stealth fighter. AFAIK it was never even intended to carry any type of LGB. So why it would need to designate targets for LGB's is really beyond me. YOu should not have even mentioned something like that.

2. DACT, Exercises and "Proving Oneself against F-Teens". That has never ever happened. That isn't even the purpose of those training events. I'm going to link you to an explanation of what DACT is so that you can avoid this in the future.

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1157

Now when the Typhoon did actually have to compete against F-15s to fulfill several different next generation multirole fighter contracts. It was not chosen EACH TIME. Why do you think that is?

3. Agility, Supercruise, IRST blah blah blah...The Typhoon offers no significant advantages whatsoever compared to F-Teens in terms of performance or sensors. PERIOD. At best it has some more modern man machine interface technology but that is like arguing the interior of a BMW vs Benz. It's preference and subjective. Also, the Typhoon does not supercruise. Again in case you don't hear me. Typhoon does not supercruise. One more time, Typhoon does not supercruise. I know its all over the internet that Typhoon can supercruise. This is an example of the phone game gone wild. One person said it, now its grown to where the Typhoon is just shy of the F-22s flight performance. Supercruise being defined as something that could actually be used to an advantage operationally. Lots of modern jets can exceed Mach 1 and stay there briefly with out burners.

4. Typhoons flight performance is not better than an F/A-18E/F. Both aircraft are built to fly certain flight profiles under specific conditions. They weren't built to compete in some fighter race where the intent was to see who's fighter is fastest, higher flying or more maneuverable. All of those specs are variables anyway. Also, Typhoons avionics are nowhere near as capable as the F/A-18E/F. Nor will they be anytime soon.

5. Typhoon beats MIgs/SUs. Yeah, ok. Sure. Unfortunately, neither the Typhoon or any Russian jets are going to fight one vs one in some contest. It will be a war where the best system will triumph. The latest Migs and Su-27s are more than capable of shooting down Typhoons. Typhoons don't really enjoy any distinct advantages. If its a NATO Typhoon going up against an Isolated overwhelmed Serbian Mig fleet then that has nothing to do the Typhoon being superior at the platform level. That is failure or inability of the Serb System. If said Typhoons tried to fight over Western Russia against the PVO then the results could be dramatically different. I'd say the latest operational Su-27s and Mig-29s while being a bit more crude in their design approach are about on par with Typhoon all things considered.

At the end of the day, the Typhoon is a mid sized moderately capable fighter that is about as capable as a mid life non-AESA equipped F-15C in terms of BVR capability at short range but with more a2g capability although not as capable as an F-16 or F/A-18C in terms of multirole performance and it is entirely inferior to any of the AESA F-15Cs, F-16 Blk 50/52, F-16 Blk 60, F-16I, F-15E/I/K/SG variants or F/A-18E/F.

-DA

I know what category error is and you just seem to be throwing that word out there to sound smart. Same with dissimilar air combat training, and I know that not all exercises the EF conducted were so. The more you assume people are less informed than you and sport that smarter-than-thou attitude, the less serious you will be taken. The fact is that while you accuse me of stating "irrelevancies," you seem to undermine any advantage the Typhoon has as "irrelevant" without much supporting evidence and then somehow jump to the conclusion that the things you do seem relevant (only avionics, apparently) make the EF inferior. Example: The FACT that the EF is superior in kinematics and maneuverability across most envelopes is "variable" and it "wasn't designed for that" (although everything about the aerodynamic design seems like it was, especially given Europe's concern with highly maneuverable and fast Su's)...so this you conveniently deem irrelevant, but somehow the avionics of the F/A-18E are better (this is true for the AESA, but I don't see much more than that. The EW suite of the EF is quite advanced).

About the F-22 comparison...the EF initially followed a very similar Air Defense mentality as the F-22. This is "irrelevant" for the F-22, but somehow it becomes a negative point against the EF, which has, today, a much better chance at becoming a true multi-role platform than the F-22. I don't see how this capability is worse than, say, the F-16 or F-18, which last time I checked could not carry 6 LGB's plus 4 AMRAAMS plus 2 ASRAAMS plus external fuel plus integrated EW and IRST (but you probably think that is irrelevant, too).

Also, I have ALREADY stated the F/A-18E has an edge over the EF in avionics as it is now but retains an advantage in aerodynamic performance. Then you ignore aerodynamic performance, and use stronger rhetoric and expect me to be surprised at essentially what I already said? Very subjective argumentation.

The fact that the EF performed poorly on the export market is due to its high price, governed by the european economy. I'd also agree that the EF does need some upgrades, particularly AESA, to be competitive. The EF has its flaws, for sure, but your assessment seems highly subjective as long as you chose to ignore and emphasize parameters differentially, no, - preferentially- to suit your argument.

AeroG33k wrote:

I know what category error is and you just seem to be throwing that word out there to sound smart. Same with dissimilar air combat training, and I know that not all exercises the EF conducted were so.

Try not to be so sensitive. This is only a forum after all. If I strongly, suggest something, it's because I really believe what I'm telling you. If all you are going to say in support of your claim is literally "The Eurofighter is good because it just is", which is really all you are saying. Then when the more informed among us challenge it be prepared to back it up. For example, you say "You know not all exercises were such", ok prove it.

Quote:

The more you assume people are less informed than you and sport that smarter-than-thou attitude, the less serious you will be taken.

I'm not assuming anything about you nor do I post here to be taken seriously by anybody. I post for my own benefit and I learn just as much as I share.

Quote:

The fact is that while you accuse me of stating "irrelevancies," you seem to undermine any advantage the Typhoon has as "irrelevant" without much supporting evidence and then somehow jump to the conclusion that the things you do seem relevant (only avionics, apparently) make the EF inferior. Example: The FACT that the EF is superior in kinematics and maneuverability across most envelopes is "variable" and it "wasn't designed for that" (although everything about the aerodynamic design seems like it was, especially given Europe's concern with highly maneuverable and fast Su's)...so this you conveniently deem irrelevant, but somehow the avionics of the F/A-18E are better (this is true for the AESA, but I don't see much more than that. The EW suite of the EF is quite advanced).

Show how the Eurofighters "kinematic advantages" gives it a quantifiable edge over the Mig-29 and how that makes it better suited to intercept and destroy a Mig-29 in the defensive and offensive counter air role compared to an F-35 and also any F-teen of your choice.

Quote:

About the F-22 comparison...the EF initially followed a very similar Air Defense mentality as the F-22. This is "irrelevant" for the F-22, but somehow it becomes a negative point against the EF, which has, today, a much better chance at becoming a true multi-role platform than the F-22. I don't see how this capability is worse than, say, the F-16 or F-18, which last time I checked could not carry 6 LGB's plus 4 AMRAAMS plus 2 ASRAAMS plus external fuel plus integrated EW and IRST (but you probably think that is irrelevant, too).

All the latest F-16/18s have EW and IRST systems, they actually carry more variety of bombs and missiles and have much more advanced ground attack systems. If you are measuring combat persistence then I think you might want to have another look at the F-teen weapon combination's. The Eurofighter and F-Teens are essentially identical except in terms of variety where as I mentioned before the Eurofighter lacks the a2g capability. So yes, as far as mentioning this as some Eurofighter unique feature, it is not. Besides, this is something the F-teens have been doing for 3 decades. In combat. While the Eurofighter is still just barely capable of delivering precision bombs.

Quote:

Also, I have ALREADY stated the F/A-18E has an edge over the EF as it is now but retains an advantage in aerodynamic performance. Then you ignore aerodynamic performance, and use stronger rhetoric and expect me to be surprised at essentially what I already said? Very subjective argumentation.

Aerodynamic advantage how? Because it is slightly faster? Because it looks cool? The F/A-18E is built like a multirole carrier based fighter and is clearly built for that purpose. What criteria are you basing this on? The aerodynamics of each plane are designed to meet different requirements. That's what I mean by category error. Aerodynamically neither has an advantage. Just differences unique to their roles. When you can show how, in combat the Eurofighter would enjoy an aerodynamic advantage then I'll listen. Other than that all you are doing is reading fact files, and claiming that because one jet is slightly faster and had canards, it has some aerodynamic advantage. Thats BS. Fighters are built to specifications not for direct comparisons. If you want to judge them measure them vs a requirement not each other. Requirement being multirole fighter.

-DA

F-16.net

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

F-35 vs. EF for the UK