Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

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)

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.

       Performances are all falses, This plane is 11.350t empty for the T1 alonne                air to air , with 89kN engines , just get a look to RR web site!

I have no hopes about the litle brit's spinners to remove all this early DERA

       Mess and actuals fantasy performances from this site, as the Corruption and Korean and sinfaporian dreams, where they was shot down by a real 21th plane , the Rafale!

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment 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)

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

1. "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.
2. "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.
3. "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.
4. 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)

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)

Disputed resemblance

I removed this from the article: "The EAP and the EFA nose and canard sections resemble the MiG Ye-8 [1] 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)

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 ;-) [2] 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)

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 [3] and [4] 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)

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)

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)

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)

MBDA Meteor

No mention of the AMRAAM-D which will enter service a full two years before the Meteor? How passive, "current AMRAAM", Hmm.... —Preceding unsigned comment 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

Al Yamamah Troubles

In November the news media were reporting troubles with the Saudis over some slush fund investigation. Some mooted the possibility of it impacting the Eurofighter deal. For example,

"Reports last weekend suggested officials within the Saudi Arabian defence ministry were threatening to withdraw from the Eurofighter deal unless the UK Government intervened to end the investigation".

See:

http://www.lep.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=73&ArticleID=1893789

Royzee 10:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

It's OK - the SFO have stopped the investigation. Where now "Ethical Foreign Policy"? Springnuts 21:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be a strong implication in some of the BBC reports that the Saudi Eurofighter purchase was a result of bribes offered to certain Saudi officials. Should that be noted? The publicity might end up dooming the deal. (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6193703.stm). Epstein's Mother 22:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The Al Yamamah article notes the allegations fully. Regarding "The publicity might end up dooming the deal" -- that's just your POV, and my POV that that won't be the case. I don't want to turn this into a forum, but the Al Yamamah deals have been subject of allegations of corruption since the ink was still wet on the first deal. That didn't stop the Saudis going ahead with a second batch of Tornados and numerous other smaller but still lucrative contracts. The deal was threatened, but the end of the SFO inquiry effectively ends that threat. Mark83 23:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I take your point about the POV, but I seriously doubt the end of the SFO inquiry ends the threat. All you need is a few names to be named, either as a result of press inquiries or other governments, and suddenly you have another Lockheed scandal. The OECD anti-bribery convention comes into play and BAE is also traded in the United States and therefore subject to SEC investigations for FCPA violations. Finally, this wouldn't be the first time that bribery allegations have sunk an aircraft deal where the Saudis are concerned (for example, the 1994 Airbus deal recently described in the Economist http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1842124) Epstein's Mother 10:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Your points are valid and interesting. However we are straying into forum territory here. Regarding the article, if you want to say the deal is still in doubt you would need a good reference. I think a contract is due to be signed in the summer, I guess it will be a mystery until then. Mark83 12:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Remodelling Typhoon Alliance

In November the news media were reporting Eurofighter consortium was not "fit for purpose" in providing crucial support for the aircraft and needs to be restructured, according to the government.

Seems while Typhoon is liked by pilots, the UK MoD wants to modify it for ground attacks [the inevitable fate of all 'air superiority jets such as F16, F15 etc] and the consortium was dragging its feet. The RAF has retired the Jaguar prematurely but has Tornado IDS however it perceives a shortfall in capability drawing some criticism.

See: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15870468/

Royzee 10:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

All I can say about that is that, as far as I know, Typhoon has always been destined to have a ground attack role. Initially this was to be introduced on tranche 3, but it seems like some A2G capability will be included in tranche 2 (who knows if the UK will even commit to tranche 3?). Also, the Jaguar has not been retired yet, 6 Sqn at RAF Coningsby will be around for the best part of a year to come.Mumby 11:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The UK has already agreed its "austere" air-to-ground capability based on the Litening targeting pod from Ultra Electronics/Rafael and the Paveway LGBs. What confuses me is that NETMA performed this role for the Tornado without apparent problem, so what's changed? I think the article is referring to Eurofighter GmbH, which is not actually responsible for the mangagement of upgrades etc. I have no info to support this it's just my thoughts - but it could be that the MOD is making as much noise as possible to get what they want, it's happened a lot lately. e.g. using the carriers to try and get shipbuilding consolidation or telling the US Congress they will pull out of the JSF without tech. transfer. Mark83 11:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

"Unexplained" deletions

I realized afterwards why this material was changed (to link to the new article). However, I believe Mark83's paragraph stated the issue very concisely, with citations, and therefore merit's being retained. In addition, the Serious Fraud Office investigation into the Al Yamamah corruption allegations article is fairly short, and as the issue is seemingly closed, should probably be put back in the Al Yamamah article. As it stands, the new article is a likely candidate for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. - BillCJ 15:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion transferred

The rest of this discussion quickly centred around the Al Yamamah article so I've transferred it to Talk:Al Yamamah. Mark83 21:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

"In service"

The beginning of the article states

the aircraft has formally entered service with the Italian Air Force and with the Spanish Air Force.

But hasn't he jet formally entered service with all partner nations? I thought that the in-service-date was defined as the day on which the first jet was delivered. Since all partner nations have had at least some jets delievered, is it not 'in service' with them all? Perhaps there is some confusion between in service and operational status?Mumby 15:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Saw this in a Spanish newspaper - New Eurofighter used to protect Seville airspace during NATO summit Thu, 08 Feb 2007 "The new C-16 Eurofighter (EF-200) is being used for the very first time to patrol the airspace above Seville where an informal NATO summit got underway on Thursday. The planes are part of wide security measures in the city for the summit." See: http://www.typicallyspanish.com/news/publish/article_8831.shtml

Royzee 16:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Citation Needed

Someone added a couple of "citation needed" to the "combat performance"-section, and was right to do so. But when i added another "citation needed" to the statement "...while the F-22 by comparison can supercruise rather faster with a full internal weapons load" it was immediatly removed - i don't see why. Do we have a source how fast the one can supercruise and how fast the other? Leclerq 13:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't remove the tag you added but I do know that the general rule is to not have too many of them in an article. The problem with the figures we are talking about is that most of them are classified, so any source that is cited is likely to be speculative. Perhaps we need a general tag in the article that says something like "Information relevant to this article is classified" or something like that, a bit like that tag that says "this article relates to a current event" etc. It could be argued that any attempt to compare the performances of these aircraft should be removed since it cannot be properly verified. Mumby 16:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

is expected to be declared ... 2006

is expected to be declared ... 2006 should be somehow changed as 2006 is over. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ThurnerRupert (talk • contribs) 18:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Disputed similar aircraft information

An anonymous user with IP 209.2.30.98 kept changing the similar aircrafts from F-22 Raptor, Sukhoi Su-35, Mikoyan Project 1.44 to F-15E, F-16, F-18E. This was reverted three times by user BillCJ. - From my point of view and based on all that I read, the similarity with the F-15, F-16 and F-18 is not accurate, but I'm not at all an expert. Can we have a discussion here to come to a consensus, before we are about to trigger an edit war? - Cheers, MikeZ 08:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a case of obvious vandalism : F-15E, F-16, F-18E are not fighters of a comparable generation.CyrilleDunant 12:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Support BillCJ reversions, F-16 is single-engined and from the 1970s, the F15E and F/A18E are from the 1990s but are based on earlier technology aircraft. MilborneOne 20:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The F-16 that is flying today bears very little resemblence to the F-16 that first took flight in 1973. The F-18E is basically a new design. The F-15E is an 80's upgrade. EF is in act an early 80's design. The point is moot. We are talking about similar capabilities, the vintage of the AC is irrelevant. The SR-71 design is 40 years old and many of it's performance records still stand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.149.57.85 (talk • contribs)

I am the user changing the AC types. None of the reasons above hold water. In fact the F-18E/F is of a newer design than the EF. The F-18E/F is pretty much a clean sheet design developed in the 90-95 timeframe. This is newer than the EF which is basically a 80s design that has finally overcome teething problems and is entering production. The F-18 designation was merely a way to get around congress' reluctance to fund three new fighters.

This brings me to the second point. The EF is not a game changer like the F-22. In fact most of the advanced features like LPI radar will not even be fielded until at least 2012. All of the AC I mentioned in various blocks have the same if not better electronics and fire control. EFs claim to LO and Super cruise are marginal at best. All AC mentioned have supersonic dash capability in military power as does the EF. The EF merely goes a bit faster. It is not however true super cruise where the speed difference, the length of time able to do it and the wide altitude band where it can do it makes it tactically significant like the Raptor's capability. This is pure marketing hype on the part of the EF consortium.

Lastly as for AC compared. There is no comparison between EF and Raptor. Do some research that does not involve BAE. Consider the true known capabilites and that becomes clear. DERA is misleading. It is old, funded by an interested party and does not take into account many of the advanced weapons and sensors flying on the other AC today.

Further, aside from the Raptor, the other AC removed where never put in production. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.164.160.141 (talk • contribs)

At a very basic level the Typhoon is more comparable to the F-22 than the F-15E or recent F-16s - many respected aviation magazines rate the Eurofighter as marginally less capable than the F-22 while at a fraction of the cost. Regarding the DERA study and your comment that it "does not take into account many of the advanced weapons and sensors flying on the other AC today." You seem to suggest that the Typhoon has stood still while all comparable aircraft have made a step change in capability. I would argue the reverse is the case! Regarding your other points, you make comparison between the F-22 and Typhoon to argue that they are not comparable. However you do not go further to compare the Typhoon and F-15/F-16 etc. and prove that they are comparable.Mark83 18:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Show me the respected aviation magazine that has a recent article citing reputable sources (sorry there aren't any because only one person has actually flown both) who are familiar with both AC. Fact is there aren't any. In fact when using what is actually known about both AC it becomes very clear that the Raptor is in a class by itself. It has better stealth than a F-117. It carries more fuel than the EF, on paper it outperforms the EF. Its radar totally outclasses the Captor radar. The published facts are that every time they have put the F-22 up against modern fighters in simulated combat the Raptor does not merely win, it dominates. The EF cannot do the same. Further much of Typhoon's advanced capabilities such as it's AESA radar will not be fielded until the tranch 3 fighters are built. Much of it's A2G capability will also be added later on. Meanwhile do you think the competitors will stand still?

As for F-15, 16, 18. As deployed they all out perform EF in some categories and are in turn bested by EF in others. The point however is that modern air combat has moved away from WVR combat. The advent of HOBS has made the visual fight too much of a crapshoot and advancing technology such as AESA radar, AWACS, and AMRAAM have made the BVR engagement the preferred method of fighting by any airforce sufficiently equipped to do so. Second, advanced versions of the teen series fighters are every bit as effective as the EF, in fact the addition of the AESA radar, and late models of AMRAAM make Golden Eagles, Blk 60 F-16s and BLK II Superhornets easily superior to the EF as it is equipped today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.149.57.85 (talk • contribs)

First, please get an user account and sign your posts - Thanks. - As for the discussion I think that we need to define what "related" or "similar" aircraft means. Is this related to similar design characteristics (as I did understand it), or are we trying to match combat performance (what seems to be the point of our anonymous contributor)? - Cheers, MikeZ 08:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I second the suggestion to register. I also suggest the the IP user read the WP:AIR/PC#Related content page content guidelines before attempting to enforce his interpretation. From that section: Comparable aircraft: are those of similar role, era, and capability to this one. This will always be somewhat subjective, of course, but try to keep this as tight as possible. Again, some aircraft will be one-of-a-kind and this line will be inappropriate. I honestly thing the Typhoon and Raptor are of similar role, era, and capability to each other. Are the totally identical in the capability catergory? Of course not, but what 2 aircraft ever are? - BillCJ 16:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

BillCJ has hit the nail on the head conclusively in my opinion. As for the wider point; Yes I could provide the references, but why should I when you can't be bothered? "The published facts are that every time they have put the F-22 up against modern fighters in simulated combat the Raptor does not merely win, it dominates. The EF cannot do the same. Further much of Typhoon's advanced capabilities such as it's AESA radar will not be fielded until the tranch 3 fighters are built. Much of it's A2G capability will also be added later on." Where are the published facts? Where are the statements that the Typhoon cannot do the same?? Where is the analysis that today's Typhoon is handicapped by its development cycle compared to the Raptor's??? Also Eurofighter GmbH has recently been a awarded a contract to accelerate the air-to-ground capabilites.

Finally, regarding BVR engagements and "advanced versions of the teen series fighters are every bit as effective as the EF, in fact the addition of the AESA radar, and late models of AMRAAM make Golden Eagles, Blk 60 F-16s and BLK II Superhornets easily superior to the EF as it is equipped today" - an extraordinary statement given the lack of references and the fact that the US aircraft mentioned do not have access to a missile in the Meteor class. Mark83 23:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

DID's words not mine in their analysis of the current fighter market. Notice, no mention of the F-22.

"Meanwhile, both the Russian SU-27/30 family (Russia, China, India, Malaysia, Vietnam, et. al.), and the EADS Eurofighter (Austria, Britain, Italy, Germany, Spain) offer stiff competition and loyal customer bases in the realm of 4th generation aircraft. The F-15 Strike Eagle is also emerging as a strong export competitor in this realm (USA, Israel, Korea, Singapore), which is particularly bad news for Dassault given its compatibility with widely-used American munitions, targeting pods, communications systems, etc."

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/09/singapores-rsaf-decides-to-fly-like-an-eagle/index.php

Code One Magazine. Notice names are named and numbers are given. Not rumor, not unnamed sources. "Achieving nine aerial victories on a single mission qualifies for bragging rights in any fighter pilot circle even if those victories occur in simulated Red/Blue engagements. An F-22 pilot from the 27th Fighter Squadron from Langley AFB, Virginia, accomplished that very feat in June at Northern Edge exercises in Alaska. Six AMRAAMs, two Sidewinders, and one burst of rounds from a Gatling gun account for the total."

"The nine-kill mission may get a lot of exposure," says Lt. Col. Wade Tolliver, commander of the 27th Fighter Squadron. "Was it cool? Yes. But working with F-15s and F-18s to produce a kill ratio of eighty-three to one that day was way cooler."

"Tolliver's opinions are backed by additional statistics. On one particular mission, though comprising just thirty-three percent of the total Blue air-to-air forces, F-22s managed to eliminate sixty-six percent of the threats. The aerial victory ratio for the Raptor in the first week of the exercise alone was 144-to-zero losses."

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/2006/articles/jul_06/alaska/index.html

Read all about how there is no other comparable aircraft to the Raptor

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/08/david-axes-f22-series-raptor-or-turkey/index.php

No comparison. There is nothing on the EF now or planned that makes it anything more than a modern 4th generation jet. I think far too much of this entry is based on marketing hype and not enough on facts. It is articles like this that give wiki a bad name amongst serious researchers.

If this is not enough let me know. There are plenty of fact out there. You do not always have to believe the marketing hype. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.149.57.85 (talk • contribs)

As for my identity, what does it matter. I am not claiming to be anyone in particular. I am not saying I am in any position to have any inside information, and I am only one person.

• Registering is not about your real-life identity, but about making it easier to know who is making what edits and posts. You have had at least two separate IP addresses during your time on this topic, and that makes it dificult for serious editors to contact you. Also, please sign your edits with the 4 ~ s so others do not have to do it for you. Again, it's what editors who want to be taken seriously do, as if makes life easier for other serious editors. Hard to take a user as a serious researcher when they don't take using Wikipedia seriously. - BillCJ 02:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

"You do not always have to believe the marketing hype."???? And yet you quote Code One Magazine, a quarterly publication of Lockheed Martin Aeronautics?? They are totally unbiased and objective about one of their most important defence projects?? Mark83 16:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

As if most of this entry was'nt taken straight from the official EF website? The difference is that I cited direct quotations from real people who can be verified to have actually flown the jet and know what they are talking about. But if that little subtelty escapes you, how about a few more tidbits from other sources.

Angus Huston, the former head of the Royal Australian Air Force, said in 2004 that the "F-22 will be the most outstanding fighter plane ever built."

"Strategic Insight 9 - Is the JSF good enough?." Houston, A. Australian Strategic Policy Institute. Canberra. 18 August 2004.

This one even comes from wiki with citations. Notice what he says at the end. They are designed for different levels of performance.

“In March 2005, United States Air Force Chief of Staff General John P. Jumper, then the only person to have flown both the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Raptor, gave a verbal comparison on the two aircraft. He said that "the Eurofighter is both agile and sophisticated, but is still difficult to compare to the F-22 Raptor." "They are different kinds of airplanes to start with," the general said. "It's like asking us to compare a NASCAR car with a Formula 1 car. They are both exciting in different ways, but they are designed for different levels of performance."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor Underlying citation - "CSAF: Raptor, Eurofighter complementary." Lopez, C. T. Air Force Print News. 22 March 2005.

More wicki. This one actually shows how not only is the F-22 dominant, it's combination of systems, speed and stealth make it a true force multiplier which enables other type AC to be more effective. Again from wiki with supporting citations.

“In June 2006 during Exercise Northern Edge (Alaska's largest joint military training exercise), the F-22A achieved a 144-to-zero kill-to-loss ratio against F-15s, F-16s and F/A-18s simulating MiG-29 'Fulcrums', Su-30 'Flankers', and other current front line Russian aircraft, which outnumbered the F-22A 4 to 1 at times.[5][24] The small F-22 force of 12 aircraft generated 49% of the total kills for the exercise, and operated with an unprecedented reliability rate of 97%.[11]”

As for Mark83's "an extraordinary statement given the lack of references and the fact that the US aircraft mentioned do not have access to a missile in the Meteor class."

The Meteor is just now undergoing flight testing ands is not due in production until the 2010 time frame. In contrast the AIM-120D version of the slammer is being deployed in the fleet this fall. It features twice the range of the C7 (comparable to Meteor), a two way datalink and better jam resistance. In other words F-18E/F outranges today's Eurofighter.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2007/04/amraam-deploying-developing-americas-mediumrange-airair-missile-updated/index.php#competitors

Lastly Bill, take me seriously or not. The facts speak for themselves. Perhaps you should be a bit less concerned about the debating procedures and a bit more concerned about accuracy.

• Oh wow! THe mystery poster strikes again! Funny how theses things keep adding themselves, Mark, did you forget to sign again? Or maybe it was me? Bill, it's odd that I would address myself tho, but if it wasn't me, how did he know I said that anyway? Wierd! - BillCJ 18:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You can email me at wikimail3181@yahoo.com. Who knows, I may even reply.

This has turned into a bigger discussion than the "comparable aircraft" section. As identified very early, this is a very subjective point. Given the controversy I wouldn't object to it being removed from the article. As for the Meteor point - I realised soon after I posted that you were talking about current aircraft vs. full capability. Yes, the Meteor won't be in service for several years. To use this as the basis of your argument is a logical fallacy in my opinion - today's Eurofighter is immature, no question. But is the performance in 3/4/5 years not what should be focused on given that is when any new customer could expect it? The F-22 is immature in the same way.

As for sources/accuracy. I note you did not address the fact that you are basing much of your argument on Lockheed Martin authored material while accusing editors of this article as swallowing Eurofighter promotional material. Your other major source is defense industry daily whose content was authored by a man who identifies himself as "a small town newspaper reporter". How would your "serious researchers" feel about that?

As for your sources, e.g. Angus Huston; you will not find a single person who disputes the F-22 will be a more capable aircraft. The question here is relative performance - you seem to think the F-22 is cutting edge while the Typhoon is carved from rock by cavemen! Mark83 20:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

 "As for sources/accuracy. I note you did not address the fact that you are basing much of your argument on Lockheed Martin authored      material" Mark83

I cited Code One once and it was a direct quote from a named person who is a position to know the facts. But if that bothers you soo much how about the following from Flightglobal.

"In Alaska, the F-22 achieved an unprecedented 144:0 kill ratio in the first week of Northern Edge. "In the first week of the fight, the preponderance of engagements were beyond visual range. In the second week they got into the merge and took a couple of shots," says Lawson, pointing out that the pilots averaged less than 100h on the aircraft. The final tally was 80:1."

"In general, compared to the last several Red Flag exercises that did not include F-22s in the blue air force mix, the overall blue air package was more than twice as effective," says the USAF."

"Notwithstanding these early demonstrations of its "see first, shoot first" lethality, Raptor tactics are still in their infancy. One discovery during Northern Edge, Lawson says, was the pilot's ability to use the F-22's "incredible situational awareness" to act as a forward air controller (FAC), co-ordinating other aircraft.

The four aircraft in an F-22 formation are connected by an intraflight datalink, allowing each pilot to see a picture of the battle generated by all four sets of radar and sensors.

After expending its weapons, Lawson says, the F-22 was able to stay in the fight and act in a co-ordinating role using this four-ship "God's eye view"."

All the above from http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/06/05/214343/export-ready-the-f-22.html

I am not saying EF is not good. It is and it will get better. It is not nor are there any other planes flying in the same class as the Raptor. EF is a 4th generation AC and is comparable to other top of the line AC of similar capability. The F-15, F-18E/F and F-16 blk 60 all have an AESA radar and fire the AIM120D. That is the big difference and that will change but so will the teen series fighter's capabilites as well. They all have or will have HOBS, they all have or will have a data link, they all have or will have an IR targeting system, etc. The Eagle is comparable in performance in most flight regimes and has a higher top speed and more combat persistance (more range). F-18EF has all the toys and can point better, etc.

I think the F-22 comparison, 1.44, and SU-35 should all be removed and the teen series stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.149.57.85 (talk • contribs)

I am removing the disputed accuracy label. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.149.57.85 (talk • contribs)

Well, I don't think that we really reached a consensus here, because I didn't see any agreement at all. So I'm feeling that you jumped ahead and therefore restored the label. Cheers, MikeZ 09:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The only time anyone chimes in is when the disputed tag is removed. It has been up for several days now and no one has come up with any argument, article or other evidence that the updated similar aircraft list is innacurate. I removing the dispute tag. Cheers!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.23.29 (talk • contribs)

The F-22 Raptor at least should be in the compareable aircraft list. It was developed roughly in the same timeframe as the Typhoon with the same goal. To counter the next generation soviet jet fighters.

F-22:
1981 November - Air Force identifies need for advanced tactical fighter to replace the F-15
1986 October - Lockheed is one of two contractors selected to compete in the demonstration/validation phase of the advanced tactical fighter program. Lockheed is to build two YF-22A prototypes
1986 October 13 - Teaming Agreement signed as Lockheed, Boeing and General Dynamics agree to compete as a team.
1990 August 28 - The YF-22A is unveiled in ceremonies at Lockheed Plant 10 in Palmdale.
1997 April 9 - Aircraft 4001 is publicly unveiled in rollout ceremonies at Marietta.
1997 September 7- Chief Test Pilot Paul Metz made the first flight of an EMD F-22 from Marietta, Ga.
2003 January Raptor 00-012, the first F/A-22 to be delivered directly to the command

EF:
1983 The UK, France, Germany, Italy and Spain launch Future European Fighter Aircraft (F/EFA) programme.
1986 June - Eurofighter GmbH established.
1988 November 23 - Contracts signed for production of demonstrator engines and airframes
1994 March 27 - Maiden flight of first development aircraft, DA1
2002 April 5 - Instrumented Production Aircraft (IPA2) makes maiden flight from Turin.
2003 February 13 - First Series Production Aircraft, GT001213.157.1.138 15:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

EF was built using an entirely different design philosophy. EF relies on high performance, a high degree of sensor fusion and the carriage (when Meteor is fielded 2010-2012) of an extremely long range missile. As designed it did not a have a true LPI AESA radar. It did not have any A2G capability and it was not LO.

Raptor meets or exceeds just about every capability of the EF. Further it has a significant A2G capability from the start. An AESA radar from the start. Depending on who you read it has a RCS anywhere between a marble and a crow.It has thrust vectoring. It can carry 8 AAMs internally. It can carry 2000 (8 GPU guided SDBs) pounds of A2G ordinance internally. Unlike EF it's supercruise capability is not marginal. It is in a different weight (greater range and combat persistance) class ...... etc.

EF is a fine 4th gen AC. If the AESA radar and meteor missile turn out okay It will be a potent A2A platform in a few years. There is more to comparable AC than timeframe. Comparing Raptor to EF is doing Wicki a disservice.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.23.29 (talk • contribs)

Relative performance of both planes is completly irrelevant in this context. Nobody doubts that the F-22 is considerable more cappable than the Typhoon, but so is the price. Fact is that both are contemporary aircraft, designed for the same mission, to counter the same threats. This section should list other planes in the same category to show users what is available in the world today, not compare the relative perfomance of them. Especially since there is a whole article dedicated to discuss the differences in the various designs and their performance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_21st_century_fighter_aircraft
All considerations what plane offers the best performance and "bang for the buck" should go there.130.83.243.155 08:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Fine, I will change the title since using your explanation "Similar Aircraft" is misleading.

While I don't have a lot of time to go into detail, I think the current list (as of my time hack) of comparable aircraft is reasonable, although I would exclude the F-22, add the MiG-29/35, and we could certainly quibble over the Gripen; to wit, that would leave the Rafale, F-16E/F, F/A-18E/F, MiG-35, Sukhoi Su-30, and JAS 39 Gripen. The F-22 has capabilities that probably will not – or cannot – be introduced into these aircraft; even some that can be, like AESA radars are retrofits not even on their original development plans. There's a reason the F-22 is being called the first '5th-Generation' aircraft and key to this is that it takes up a whole new design philosophy. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This is irrelevant, the idea of "comparable aircrafts" is not so much to have a sort of "list of equivalent aircraft" but to have a list of those aircrafts which are relevant for comparison, and that includes roughly equivalent development timeframe. To wit, there will be bf109 as an aircraft "comparable" to the spitfire. But there is simply no comparison in terms of performance between a bf109 J and a spitfire Mk I. However, they are still comparable, they were designed for similar roles around the same time.CyrilleDunant 18:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Concur, as this is inline with the WP:AIR/PC guidelines I quoted above. I think it's pretty clear that the anonymous user with multiple IPs is the only one disputing the inclusion of the F-22, and this disruption has gone long enough. Any further reversions will be handled administratively. - BillCJ 19:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, WP:AIR/PC states "Comparable aircraft: are those of similar role, era, and capability to this one." Given that the Typhoon is a 4th-gen (or, if you will, a 4.5-gen) fighter and the F-22 is a 5th-gen fighter with new capabilities and capable of performing new roles the Typhoon and other similar-"era" aircraft lack or are incapable of, I think one can make a strong case that the two are not "comparable" aircraft. The disparity is much greater than that between the Bf 109J and Spitfire Mk I. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I had been thinking the EF is close enough to be comparable to the F-22. But I've been thinking about the difference in stealth, but mainly about their different labels; multi-role fighter vs. air superiority fighter. Those labels mean their roles are somewhat different and capabilities will be different (a little up to a lot) as well. Multi-role can do air-air & air-ground while air superiority is more focused on air-air combat. So I lean to leaving the F-22 off the comparable list for the EF, but won't argue if it stays. -Fnlayson 04:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The F-22 has (limited) A2G capabilities as well, while at least the German airforce wants to use the Typhoon exclusively as air superiority fighter in some of its wings. Thus both will be indeed used in similar roles.130.83.243.151 11:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the whole similar aircraft entry is so open that it really is meaningless. Why not include a P-51. The roles where similar. Why not either tighten up the list ... ie 4th gen fighters or leave it out all together.

Disputed Sections in Combat Performance

First off the section title is innaccurate and misleading. The EF has never been in combat. The F-15 story has been proven false. F-15s do not operate in the area. None of the pilots (including the EF pilot)or anyone else who would know (like ATC) has come forward to corroborate the story. Even if the story is true, it proves nothing since the way the encouter was described would neve happen in actual combat. The "attack" as described had the F-15s rolling on the EFs six. Why wait for a radar lock when you can fire off a heater or cannon if close enough. But that also brings up another point if the EF is so good how come those F-15s where able to sneak up on it? Lastly, the encounter allegedly involved F-15Es. These are the attack versions of the AC. Their aircrew do not train as much in A2A as the dedicated F-15C pilots do.

As for "It is generally agreed that the Eurofighter Typhoon's performance is significantly better than that of the F-15C/D, the current air superiority fighter variant of the F-15.". The only place I have ever saw that statement is in Wiki. In fact a comparison of the stats of the two ACindicates that the EF has the advantage in some areas and the F-15 in others.

Many high performance jets are capable of "cruising" above the speed of sound without AB. The question is how fast, how far, what configuration and how high? It has never been an issue in the past since the capability was nver tactically significant. The reason why it is highlighted in the Raptor is because it can do it in a wide altitude band at a speed and for a distance that is useful. There are no credible sources that claim the numbers that would indicate that EF can do so also. The BAE, EADS, Alenia and Eurojet websites only make passing reference and nowhere do they claim M1.5. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.149.57.85 (talk • contribs)

Just a point of clarification about F-15Es from the unsigned comment above, the F-15E is based in Britain and regularly use the same bits of sky as the Typhoon. Another quote was But that also brings up another point if the EF is so good how come those F-15s where able to sneak up on it? - the Case White Typhoons were the first aircraft in-service and were being used for crew familarisation, no need for it hide or act defensively - it probably wanted some trade to play with!. Not sure if the story is true or not but just wanted to be clear on thse points. MilborneOne 12:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I am removing the disputed paragraphs in this section. I have not been able to any reliable source for any of it.In fact many of the claims are refuted or never mentioned in anything I have found.

The F-15 story is irrelevant for all the reasons as described above. Further it is heresay, it names no names and quotes no one. A claim like that needs a bit more proof in order for it to pass as fact.In short no one has been able to provide valid citations for any of these claims.

The EF is a top notch plane. Wiki should do it justice by providing facts rather than conjecture and rumor.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.149.57.85 (talk • contribs)

It is. I agree there's dubious statements in there. But give the tags a chance to do their thing. It'd help to describe changes/removals before doing them. FYI, I believe these are the main paragraphs that are in dispute.

In June 2005, Scotland on Sunday reported that, when 'attacked' by two USAF F-15E Strike Eagle strike fighter aircraft, a Eurofighter on a 'Case White' conversion training sortie was able to out-manoeuvre the attacking aircraft and "shoot them down" (i.e., achieve radar lock for a long enough period of time to accurately launch missiles, had this been real combat).

...

The Typhoon is capable of sustained supersonic cruise without using afterburners. According to EADS, the maximum speed possible without reheat is Mach 1.5 in what EF GmbH regard as a 'clean' configuration — e.g., without tanks, but with four BVRAAMs and two IR AAMs. (Supercruise performance drops to Mach 1.3 with a full air-to-air weapons load, including tanks). In contrast, the Rafale's supercruise capabilities have been described as marginal with the current engine (the aircraft failed to demonstrate the capability during the Singapore evaluation).The F-22A is the only other current fighter with supercruise capabilities.

These need another reference to confirm the first and reference(s) for the second. -Fnlayson 01:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually the DERA statment needs both a citation and some sort of explanation that it took place over 10 years ago and as with any model the outcome very much depends on the input. While not much has been released about the particulars of DERA we do know that things such as HOBS, AESA, and longer range AIM-120s where not taken into account. Further both the Superhornet and the Raptor where very much prototypes so not much was known about them at the time. In short, mention it, cite it, but it does need to be qualified.

The F-15 incident (if it actually happened) is irrelevant. In real life if two fighters bounce another one from behind they are not going to wait to get missile lock for a slammer. They are going to fire a heater right up his tailpipe long before the enemy knows they are back there. In other words, if too fighters get the drop on you from behind the battle is already lost. Further they said they where F-15Es. Their primary job is moving mud, not shooting down the enemy. Anyway, it needs a better citation than one that uses heresay.

Lastly the supercruise part is a bit of a reach. Most highperformance AC could/can "supercruise" for a short period of time. The only reason why it is mentioned with the Raptor is that it does it fast enough and for a long enough time with a full warload for it to be tactically significant. No other AC including EF can do that. Plus again, the statement is inaccurate in terms of numbers and it needs citations.

All three of these entries should either be struck or modified and citations provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.23.29 (talk • contribs)

The official Austrian Eurofighter homepage confirms Mach 1.5 as max supercruise speed.

http://www.eurofighter.at/austria/td_lu.asp 213.157.11.67 16:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• I can't find a english language page that matches that. This page is as close as it gets. http://www.eurofighter.com/et_ap_pd_gi.asp?srcx=dev1 -Fnlayson 16:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually it says that M1.5 is possible. That's different than doing it. It's "possible" I could become a multimillionaire. Possible but not there yet.

It does not say for how long and it does not specify configuration. I could not find the same in the second "official" Eurofighter link given by Fnlayson and that is the actual official website for Eurofighter, not the Austrian one. Further one has to wonder what other "facts" the aAustrian site is using considering the following laughable claim they make "Owing to its extreme agility in the supersonic range the Eurofighter is superior to all comparable types of aircraft with BVR employments."

So lets cut the bullshit and stick to facts.

That it is possible is exactly what the disputed section in Combat Performance says and nothing else. "According to EADS, the maximum speed possible without reheat is Mach 1.5"

The Austrian Eurofighter page is maintained exactly by the same Eurofighter GmbH as their english page:
http://www.eurofighter.at/terms.asp
You can't claim that one company webside is more or less official than another one without any evidence only because it does not agree with your personal views.130.83.243.156 07:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This dispute is not about "fact", but about the interpretation of facts. Many facts have been given about the similarity of the F-22 and the Tyfool (my nickname for it) in role, overall performance, and history, but you have chosen to ignore them. In addition, you have selectively chosen to ignore some sources in preference to others, regardless of their actual credibility. You have disputed a published story on an incident between the EF and F-15, claiming that it "has been proven false", but you have not provided ANY credible, verifiable sources to back up your claim beyond your opwn speculations and conjecture. The threshhold on Wikipedia is not "truth", but "verifiability". Anyone can claim anything is true, but to be included here, it must be verifiable. So, please, provide some credible sources which dispute the F-15 incident's veracity, and which dispute Eurofighter's claim of the Typhoon's supercruise cabability, or move on. - BillCJ 19:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Where are these facts you speak of? Not one is sourced. The F-15 incident is irrelevant, the source (unnamed) is suspect, and the story (first person account) has not been found anywhere else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.149.59.228 (talk • contribs)

I've always thought that supercruise was a pretty unique thing...this article states that many aircraft can do it...which ones make up this quantity of many?

Signatures

Can contributors please sign comments as it make is easier to see who is commenting to what, thank you. MilborneOne 21:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Maverick?

Should we add Maverick to the list of A2G Weapons? Bumper12 13:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Missing Capability

Eurofighter was specified with a Forward Looking Infra Red System. Where is this? It is not mentioned as part of the Tranche 2 upgrade (RAF Typhoon page). How can people claim the aircraft has sensor fusion when it only has one main sensor (radar)?

Where is the Helmet Mounted Display and Sight? Again this is not mentioned as part of Tranche 2 capability. So when is this capability going to be delivered?

When will the Air Forces get the capability they paid for? Why do the partner nations let NETMA and the Eurofighter Partner companies get away with not delivering contracted capability? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.48.150.163 (talk • contribs)

Greece & Italy

Greece?

In early August came reports that German Chancellor Angela Merkel was saying possible procurement by Greece of Eurofighter, a deal that is worth 5 billion euros. See: http://news.monstersandcritics.com/europe/news/article_1332627.php/Merkel_optimistic_about_Greek_procurement_of_Eurofighter__1st_Lead_ Caution though, in March 2000 Greece said it would order 60 Eurofighters for approximately 5 billion euros but within a year cancelled.

4th or 5th Generation Jet Fighter?

The "See also" section at the bottom of the article lists "4th generation jet fighter," but the link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4th_generation_jet_fighter, lists the Eurofighter Typhoon as a 5th generation jet fighter. My impression is that the Eurofighter Typhoon is a 4 or 4.5 generation jet fighter, not 5. This needs to be cleared up and the references standardized. - MSTCrow 21:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• That article has few if any references. If someone can find a reliable article or source that states what the Typhoon is, that'd be great. -Fnlayson 21:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Perhaps more to the point would be to challenge whoever marked the Typhoon as a 5th-generation fighter to find a reliable, non-marketing source that claims it to be so. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

---

In the hopes (however forlorn) of ending the frequent edit wars and debates on whether the Typhoon is or is not “5th-generation”, here are a variety of authoritative sources saying that it is “4th-generation” or “Generation 4.5”.

• From the horse’s mouth, EADS: “The Eurofighter, the world's most advanced fourth-generation combat aircraft, ….”
• Greg Goebel’s excellent Air Vectors site: “The end of the Cold War meant that the need for a fourth-generation fighter was not as great as it had been, but the EuroFighter program continued, if with delays and changes in direction, and Europe's premier fighter is now in service.”
• Milavia’s aircraft directory entry on the Eurofighter Typhoon (EF2000): “Suited with the latest technology and avionics and its multi-role capability make the Eurofighter a true fourth generation combat aircraft.”
• Bill Sweetman on Aviation Week’s “Ares” defense technology blog: “Now, in a Tuesday-morning breakfast meeting with reporters, USAF chief of staff Gen. Michael Moseley has coined "Generation 4.5" to describe the latest Sukhoi Su-30MKK variants, China's J-10 and the Eurofighter Typhoon.” (Although Bill Sweetman is wrong in ascribing authorship of “Generation 4.5” to Mike Moseley in April 2007. The term has been around for several years now.)
• The Free Republic’s [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1625537/posts English translation of a Q&A article from Norway’s Dagbladet] in which an American defense attaché explains what the difference is (at least from the US government’s perspective).
• Andreas Zeitler’s “Flying-Wings” report on the first receipt of Eurofighters by the Luftwaffe’s JG 74: “The Eurofighter, a modern 4th generation fighter aircraft, is a worthy successor of the [F-4F] Rhino and the pilots are eagerly waiting to fly it in a daily routine.”

Many more can be found, and I have little doubt that if someone were to broadly survey what has been written on the subject, “5th-generation” would rank extremely low. I don’t say this out of any desire to disparage the Typhoon – it’s a superb airplane – but general usage deems it to be the most advanced 4th-generation fighter (in that small category of elite, top-of-the-art 4th-generation designs referred to as “Generation 4.5”). It is widely reported to be the most advanced aircraft extant, second only to the F-22, and possibly outperforming the latter in some areas. We ought to be able to just write a fine article on the Typhoon's own merits. What "generation" an aircraft is will never win a dogfight. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Just an opinion but I would hazard most readers would not know (or probably care) what 4th or 5th generation actually means. MilborneOne 19:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

While all of Askari Mark's contribution is welcome, I think the last point is excellent, as is MilborneOne's above. This whole topic is semantics - as Askari Mark says, describe its capabilties, not which (subjective) category it sits in. Mark83 19:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• This all started with a question about the "4th generation jet fighter" article link in See also. That happens to be the only place the generation is "specified" in the article. So there's no need to make too much out of this. Thanks to Askari Mark for finding all those links! -Fnlayson 21:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the warm commendations - fortunately, online you can't see me blush! ;-) Fnlayson and MilborneOne are right, it's been a minor issue on this particular page, but I figured it wouldn't hurt to head off the debate here ... and many months from now, if anyone is trying to remember where they saw the info, this article would be a key spot to look (and to point to in debates elsewhere). Cheers, Askari Mark (Talk) 02:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Expand "Variants" section

I've put in a little detail about the different blocks. I think the article could do with some more information about the tranches and blocks, detailing how they were improved over each other. Pages like F-16 have useful sub-sections dealing with the features of the various blocks. Of course more detail can be put at Eurofighter Typhoon variants, but this article still needs more information - the section is too short at the moment. John Smith's 14:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Those are good points. To be honest, I never thought this page needed a variants sub-page, but that decision was made before I started editing the page. I think it was done to be like the Tornado page, which IMO ought to be separated into IDS and ADV pages, not a main and a variants page. Any thoughts on merging the Typhoon variants back here? - BillCJ 15:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the variants page need to be cleaned up - it looks a little messy. I don't mind it staying there with detailed information, but I think it was wrong of Mark to remove my comments unilaterally. There's so reason why we can't summarise the Tranche and Blocks here like is the case on F-16. I've asked Mark to move them back for now. John Smith's 17:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• The variants/block list in F-16 article is an extreme example. However, a list of the main variants in this article may be do-able. -Fnlayson 17:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You think it was wrong of me "to remove [your] comments unilaterally". I thought an editor of your experience would be more familiar with the nature of Wikipedia! It is my right to edit anything I wish, as it is your right to edit my contributions.

But to this issue in particular - I think I went about this in a perfectly acceptable way, I explained my edit well "transfer to variants page. In my opinion far too detailed for main article. Good idea though". There is debate above as to whether the variants article is jusitified - I happen to think it is for size issues and also readability issues. As per WP;Summary the subsection in this article shouldn't be too detailed - and the capabilities in the block updates is an incredibly detailed issue. As for requesting me to move it back, no. If you wish to replace it yourself or if a consensus in favour is reached here I won't revert it. However I will not make an edit which I feel to be wrong. As for "It would be a sign of good faith if you did it yourself" -- I don't like the suggestion that I'm editing in anything other than good faith. Mark83 17:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

How else do you want me to say "it would be nice if you edited it back". I don't like the suggestion I was not assuming you were editing in good faith. John Smith's 17:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Well in that case it was my right to restore the comments. WP:Summary does not mean one cannot have basic information on the blocks - more detailed material can go on the sub-page. Also whilst it is still being developed it being over here as well as on the sub-page could encourage more users to fill it out. John Smith's 17:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

As for your edit summary "please discuss it first" - do you have a debate on every page about every change you make? From your contributions to the Type 45 article I know you do not; I'm not saying any of your edits were bad, just that the idea that everyone should discuss relatively minor changes (as this one is) before doing them is impractical. Mark83 19:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Still, Mark, you were good enough to not remove the text again. Indeed you have improved on it - thank you very much. John Smith's 22:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Like I said above it's not something I object to enough to start reverting! And like I said back at the start (in my edit summary) it is a good idea to discuss the block updates (on this article or not) - esp. since its so poorly covered generally, e.g. even the official EF site doesn't go into much detail, just the odd press release. Mark83 22:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• True. I looked through all the pages in the External links plus the global security page to get a idea on the variants/models and couldn't find much. -Fnlayson 22:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Was Block 1 just the test-bed? If so we can mention as much and then leave it there for now. More upgrades will be announced in the future and more literature will become available. John Smith's 22:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• I can't find much for block 1 (so far, still looking). My guess was Block 1 was just enough to allow the aircraft to fly pretty agressively for training with not too much weapon integration etc - I stress, just a guess. The press releases are pretty good for block 5. It will be the last tranche 1 standard apparently. Capabilities are full air-to-air and initial air-to-ground/carefree handling/"sensor fusion"/full Direct Voice Input/enhanced GPS/Defensive Aids Sub-System countermeasures including automatic chaff and flare/radar air-to-surface modes including ground mapping/initial FLIR/but not laser designation.[5] Mark83 22:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Archived discussion

I've archived the previous discussions due to page size. Since it's the first archive I thought it would be helpful to explain. The archives are accessible via the box to the right. Mark83 13:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Why not keep the August talk here? Did you move the main talk page or something? -Fnlayson 13:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, moved to Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon/Archive 1. There's two ways of archiving. You can either just cut and paste or move the talk page to a new name. By moving the edit history is maintained and links to the discussions etc. on other talk pages are also maintained. I didn't keep the August talk because they all seemed to be resolved. I can copy them back if you prefer? Mark83 13:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I've always done it the cut & paste way. I guess it doesn't matter that much.. -Fnlayson 13:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

So now people can come in and add in what we had already discussed? There was absolutely no reason to archive it other than the fact that the discussion on comparable AC and the F-15 incident did not go your way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.140.48 (talk • contribs)

As much as I love your conspiracy theory there was one reason I archived - the page said "This page is 99 kilobytes long. It may be helpful to move older discussion into an archive subpage. See Help:Archiving a talk page for guidance." Given the amount of time I've spent explaining myself I'm beginning to regret bothering to be honest. Mark83 21:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

This makes sense - will you also be archiving the discussion about the archiving? Tee hee! 81.86.144.210 08:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC) Royzee

Did this ever happen?

http://img391.imageshack.us/img391/752/efraptorrw1.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.42.115.192 (talk) 10:04, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Does it matter It could be photo shopped or it could be at an airfield out west.

- Its not photoshopped and it is the airforce field refered to "NAS China Lake" in California. 100% sure and if you go to this page you will see the Typhoon take of from "NAS China Lake", so your claim thats its an airfield out west dont work either [6]--Financialmodel 12:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

China Lake is the NAVY Air Warfare Center. It is not an AIRFORCE "field". They do weapons integration testing on NAVAL aircraft. Whether it's photoshopped or not is irrelevant. By the way, what is your point? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.164.252.102 (talk) 19:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Supercruise speed

I would like to discuss about supercruise speed. As I read in Czech magazine Aviation and Astronautics (Letectvi a kosmonautika 8/2007), the Typhoon has about Mach 1.6 supercruise speed. It was measured on preproduction plane with four AIM-120 Amraams and two some kind of short range missiles. This configuration has been mentioned as clean or chase configuration. Liborc 19:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The actual operators, not the manufacturers or the industry commentators say M1.2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.18.6.56 (talk) 00:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Notice - keep your eyes peeled

There's been increased media reporting on the Saudi deal being finalised very soon - keep a look out for official confirmation in the coming weeks. But when adding the news in, please change ALL references to the Saudi deal and use full citations. John Smith's 21:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)